2007-08-13
41
1
10
REPS
0
0
2007-08-13
The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 12.30 pm and read prayers.
DELEGATION REPORTS
1
Delegation Reports
Parliamentary Delegation to Cambodia and Inter-Parliamentary Union--116th Assembly
1
1
12:31:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
1
0
Mrs MOYLAN
—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Cambodia from 21 to 26 April 2007, and to the 116th Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference, held in Bali from 27 April to 4 May 2007.
At the outset may I acknowledge the contribution made by delegation members to the work of this delegation. Harry Jenkins, the deputy leader, Kay Hull and Senator Gavin Marshall each made an invaluable and enthusiastic contribution to the bilateral visit to Cambodia and also to the work of the 116th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I also thank the delegation secretariat, Neil Bessell and Alison Purcell.
During our visit to Cambodia, it became very clear that a strong bond of cooperation and friendship exists between Australia and Cambodia on a government to government and people to people basis. On arrival at Siem Reap, the delegation was met and well taken care of by Senator Chhit Kim Yeat, and in Phnom Phenh by Senator Ung Huot, both of whom have lived and worked in Australia and remain dual citizens of Australia and Cambodia. The delegation records its heartfelt appreciation to both senators for making the visit memorable.
In the aftermath of the Pol Pot regime, Cambodia has been assisted by Australia in rebuilding a devastated country. Work with Cambodia’s government towards its development goals remains the cornerstone of our bilateral relationship. Australia is one of Cambodia’s major development partners, indeed the fourth largest donor, providing more than $150 million over the past five years. Two major new programs commencing this year will continue to support agricultural productivity and strengthen the criminal justice system.
The delegation observed the number of Australians working in both paid and voluntary capacities in various activities in Cambodia. There are increasing business opportunities in mining, banking, tourism and agriculture, as well as unfinished work to ensure a better quality of life for the Cambodian people. Australia has been active in supporting the World Food Program, the establishment of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, AusAid development projects, HIV-AIDS prevention programs and mine clearing. The delegation visited many of these projects, recognising that there is still much work to be done, while acknowledging the economic progress which has seen growth averaging six per cent over the last decade in Cambodia, reaching a high of 13½ per cent in 2005.
One of the highlights for the delegation was a visit to the seat of the ancient Khmer temples at Angkor Wat. Each year, 1.5 million tourists visit the temples, yet the province of Siem Reap remains one of the poorest in Cambodia. The delegation had the opportunity to discuss with the Governor of Siem Reap the potential for economic benefits to flow to the local population.
Although Cambodia has achieved a degree of stability and peace following many years of devastating conflicts, it remains one of the poorest countries in the world. The United Nations Human Development Index ranks Cambodia 130th among 162 countries in terms of quality of life, with a GDP of $US459 per capita per year. Notwithstanding the difficulties, the delegation found the Cambodian people to be industrious and cheerful. They certainly made our delegation feel very welcome. As I said, many Australians work in Cambodia, and there is a very high regard for them by the local people.
On behalf of the delegation I thank the Australian Ambassador to Cambodia, Margaret Adamson, and the highly knowledgeable and experienced team of senior officers at the embassy there, including Naomi Viccars, who did an outstanding job in organising the delegation’s program.
I also thank Ms Louise Hand, the Deputy Head of Mission in the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, Mr Bruce Cowled, Consul-General in Bali and, in particular, Ms Adelaide Worcester, Consul in Bali, for their assistance during the IPU 116th assembly. The delegation also very much appreciated the assistance of Mr Claude Mannucci and the other Australian Federal Police in Bali, for securing the delegation’s safety.
In relation to the IPU, the delegation’s report has been compiled. As usual, it is a comprehensive report, and I commend it to honourable members. I commend the delegation’s report to the House.
2
12:36:00
Jenkins, Harry, MP
HH4
Scullin
ALP
0
0
Mr JENKINS
—I have pleasure in joining the leader of the delegation, the member for Pearce, in making comments about this delegation. Cambodia is a fascinating country. We were able to enjoy learning about the ancient kingdoms through our visit to the temples at Siem Reap. We have gone from the point when they were discovered, overgrown by trees, to the point now when we are worried that perhaps the temples are being loved to death.
At both Siem Reap and Phnom Penh, we were able to see the great work that is being done by a number of Australians involved in aid work. It is very important that we emphasise that we have a great relationship with modern Cambodia—a modern Asian nation with a horrific recent past. The delegation went to places and witnessed some of the memories of that past. We look forward to there being some sort of closure through the extraordinary council process. We hope the process will deliver some justice to those who were victims of the Khmer Rouge.
We acknowledge that there are a number of Australians who work through the different non-government organisations and through Foreign Affairs, AusAID and the other professionals that we have up there. But the leader of the delegation has made mention of people such as the two senators that entertained us, Senator Chhit Kim Yeat and Senator Ung Huot. Both fled Cambodia during the time of Pol Pot, made their homes in the south-east suburbs of Melbourne and contributed greatly and committed to their new homeland, Australia. But when the opportunity arose to go back and do their bit to make sure Cambodia develops into a great nation, they were quite willing to do that. The strength of that connection was something that impressed me and made me realise that we do have a lot to do to assist Cambodia in the way forward. I am sure, as is the leader, that they will be able to do that because they are industrious people. There are a number of non-government organisations there and that indicates there is a developing civil society in Cambodia that will ensure that the checks and balances are there that will, hopefully, mean that we will not see the occurrences that we saw 20 to 30 years ago.
The other comment I would make about the IPU is that intuitively I have always felt that there was a great advantage in having continuing members of delegations to bodies such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The member for Pearce, Judy Moylan, the member for Riverina, Kay Hull, my Victorian comrade Senator Marshall and the secretary Neil Bessell have all been to previous IPUs. The strength of their understanding of the processes and the friendships they have made in previous times were great contributions to the way in which Australia could make a contribution to the overall work. I think that is important. I thank them for their friendship throughout the whole of the delegation. I also indicate that there is a place for people to be exposed to the machinations of a thing like the IPU.
Finally, although the thankyous are made in the report, I thank Claude Mannucci, who looked after our safety. I thank my shadow, Gatra, and Putu, Uddi and Ayu, his colleagues, for the close personal protection provided by the Indonesian police. We thank them for ensuring that we did return safely. We thank them also for their friendship along the way. These delegations are important; I urge members to have a look at the comprehensive report. I regret that we do not have more time to debate the issues that we raise.
COMMITTEES
3
Committees
Science and Innovation Committee
3
Report
3
3
12:40:00
Georgiou, Petro, MP
HM5
Kooyong
LP
1
0
Mr GEORGIOU
—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Science and Innovation, I present the committee’s report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Between a rock and a hard place: the science of geosequestration, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
HM5
Georgiou, Petro, MP
Mr GEORGIOU
—This report makes an important contribution to our knowledge of the science of geosequestration and its potential applications in Australia. Geosequestration, or carbon capture and storage, involves the capture of CO emissions at their industrial source and the transportation of compressed CO to an underground geological site where it is injected and stored for potentially thousands of years. The report recognises the potential of CCS technology to reduce the negative impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate. Given that fossil fuels will continue to play a substantial role in power generation in the 21st century, CCS may become an essential mitigating strategy.
The potential of CCS is particularly important for Australia. Australia relies heavily on coal for domestic electricity production and export revenue. In a carbon-constrained world, if Australia is able to demonstrate and commercialise CCS technology it could prove beneficial not only to the environment but to our significant coal industry.
The science of CCS is well understood. Australia has a solid skills base in the fields of geology and engineering, which are essential for CCS. It already has a reputation as a world leader in the development of CCS technology. The major challenge for the science and technology of CCS is its implementation at large—greater than 500 megawatt—coal-fired power stations. The very high volume of emissions from power stations presents the challenge of capturing, transporting and storing CO on a scale that would approximate its future application were CCS to become a genuine mitigation option. The expense of such an endeavour is difficult to establish. The estimates the committee received were wide ranging and the variables that affect the cost are many. While the committee found that Australian industry recognises the potential of CCS technology, without large-scale ventures the costs cannot be further pinpointed.
The report’s central recommendation is for the Australian government to fund one or more major projects to demonstrate CCS at a large coal-fired power plant. Such a project would meet the demands of demonstrating the science of CCS in a large-scale application, furthering our understanding of the cost of CCS and advancing Australia’s already world-leading skills in this area. The committee recommended that this funding take the form of a competitive tender process that would enable the demonstration of desired technologies while minimising government interference in commercial practice.
Australia is endowed with a large number of potentially suitable geological storage locations, many in suitable proximity to major emission sites. It is important that research continues to focus on geological storage. The committee recommends that the Australian government provide funding to CSIRO to progress research into the storage potential for permanent CO sequestration in sedimentary basins in New South Wales. The greatest environmental risk associated with CCS is the potential for CO leakage. This risk can be mitigated through careful site selection and rigorous post-injection monitoring.
It would be remiss of me not to note that there is a dissenting report. Four committee members conclude:
Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has always been with us and always will be. Whether human activity is disturbing to the climate in dangerous ways has yet to be proven.
Their view is that most of the public statements that promote the dangerous human warming scare are made from positions of ignorance. Let me make my position clear. I totally affirm my conclusion, and the committee’s conclusion, that the evidence is compelling and the link between greenhouse gas emissions, human activity and high temperatures is convincing. Equally, I do affirm the right of others to dissent. I have the responsibility of correcting a number of substantially incorrect statements made in the dissenting report and I will be doing this.
I thank the committee secretariat and the committee itself and I particularly thank the member for Franklin for his wisdom and guidance. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)
4
12:45:00
Quick, Harry, MP
AV5
Franklin
ALP
0
0
Mr QUICK
—I welcome the opportunity to speak to the report of the Standing Committee on Science and Innovation Between a rock and a hard place: the science of geosequestration. This report, with its dissenting component, will hopefully generate widespread interest in this topic, along with the ramifications of the five recommendations agreed to by the majority of the committee.
The committee was charged with inquiring into and reporting on the science and application of geosequestration technology in Australia, with particular reference to, firstly, the science underpinning geosequestration technology; secondly, the potential environmental and economic benefits and risks of such technology; thirdly, the skills base in Australia to advance the science of geosequestration technology; fourthly, regulatory and approval issues governing geosequestration technology trials; and, finally, how best to position Australian industry to capture market applications.
The five terms of reference highlight for me the need for all Australians to seek to understand the complexity and importance of the whole issue of geosequestration as it relates to the issue of global warming. No-one can be ignorant of the mounting evidence that shows that human activity is contributing to a dramatic change in global weather patterns. Report after report by the most eminent world scientists have, in my mind, shown this fact to be absolutely conclusive. If we fail to act on this issue, we will jeopardise not only current generations but also those born in the future. One has only to spend a week in China to see at first hand the impact that unbridled industrial development has on the weather patterns of a country and the living conditions of its citizens.
Australia, as the report notes, is between a rock and a hard place. As a nation we have been blessed with an abundance of black and brown coal reserves. We are the largest exporter of coal in the world, and our energy sector is 83 per cent reliant on coal as a cheap source of fuel. As Australians, we are therefore presented with the real challenge of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions whilst remaining so very dependent on coal. As our report states, CCS—or carbon capture and storage—provides a real solution to these competing demands. In a carbon-constrained world, if Australia is able to demonstrate and commercialise CCS technology then it will protect both our environment and our labour-intensive coal industry.
The committee received evidence of the nine CCS demonstration projects currently underway across Australia. These include the CO2CRC project in the Otway Basin to extract naturally occurring CO and methane from the Buttress natural gas well and inject and store 100,000 tonnes of COtwo kilometres below the earth’s surface. In addition, there is the Monash Energy project to build a world-scale coal-to-liquids plant, at a cost of $5 billion, to convert brown coal to ultra-clean, synthetic diesel. A third project is the Zerogen project, managed by Stanwell Corporation, which proposes to build a 100-megawatt plant with capture technology. This project will convert pulverised coal into a synthesis gas, removing COand other gases to produce a hydrogen-rich fuel used to generate electricity.
There is no doubt that Australia possesses the skilled workforce and the technology to be a world leader in the area of geosequestration. What is currently lacking is a national legislative and regulatory framework, and a leadership role by federal, state and territory governments, to ensure that industry is given the support and encouragement to maximise the potential of work currently being carried out here in Australia.
I thank the chair of the committee, my fellow committee members and our dedicated secretariat for their support during the hearing processes. I hope that this report receives the coverage and support it so richly deserves.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Kooyong wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
Mr GEORGIOU
(Kooyong)
12:50:00
—Yes. I move:
That the House take note of the report.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
MAIN COMMITTEE
5
Miscellaneous
Science and Innovation Committee
5
Reference
5
5
12:50:00
Georgiou, Petro, MP
HM5
Kooyong
LP
1
0
Mr GEORGIOU
—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
5
Committees
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Committee
5
Report
5
5
12:51:00
Wakelin, Barry, MP
HV5
Grey
LP
1
0
Mr WAKELIN
—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, I present the committee’s report, incorporating a minority report, entitled Indigenous Australians at work: successful initiatives in Indigenous employment, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
HV5
Wakelin, Barry, MP
Mr WAKELIN
—On 14 March 2005 the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Senator the Hon. Amanda Vanstone, asked the committee to inquire into and report on Indigenous employment. The committee was asked to focus on positive factors and examples amongst Indigenous communities and individuals which have improved employment outcomes in both the public and private sectors. By taking a positive approach to Indigenous matters, it was considered that employment was an area where progress could be demonstrated. At a time of strong economic performance at the national level, and with workforce shortages a growing reality, the opportunities for further development of Indigenous employment appear to be significant.
Over the past two years we were fortunate to share the views of and better understand the outcomes for many individuals, companies and the wider community in this vital human activity. The central role of work and the workplace in most Australians’ lives is something that we perhaps take for granted—but the lessons of the past two years remind all of us that the variation in workforce participation by Indigenous people is very much a result of a complex set of factors which results in some achieving significant success and others having a more limited result. The above is very much a two-way street, with some employers leading the way and with many employees open to opportunities and both able to achieve improved results. Indigenous participation in the mainstream Australian economy will be enhanced by more enlightened policies in welfare, education and employment. Our inquiry attempted to seek out the committed employers and employees and understand their views and what motivated them to achieve. Those experiences are documented from that perspective.
Labour force participation rates for Indigenous people remain below the levels for non-Indigenous Australians, although there have been some improvements in recent years. As Australia faces skills shortages in many industries, employers are now more aware of the Indigenous employment potential and more positions are being offered.
The recurring theme of many people who presented before the committee was the overwhelming impact of welfare policies as a deterrent to sustainable employment. The need for government policies to strike a better balance between the incentives for work and the incentives to be distracted by welfare is vital.
While the whole-of-government approach is relatively new and there has been a steep learning curve, with a great deal more to be learnt, the committee believes that there has been a genuine attempt by bureaucracies to improve service delivery. The committee fully appreciates the challenges in moving to the whole-of-government approach. It believes that real inroads can only be achieved through partnerships and it welcomes the enhanced involvement of the corporate sector and Indigenous communities.
The committee has also made a number of recommendations regarding affirmative action by government in construction and maintenance programs and tender requirements; support for small business; the provision of microfinance; funding for mentoring and education; and in encouraging the implementation of best practice models of Indigenous employment in both the public and private sectors.
I would like to thank all those who, in writing or in person, were able to provide to the committee their views on positive examples of Indigenous employment. The committee appreciated both the quality and quantity of evidence received from a range of groups and individuals in relation to this wide-ranging inquiry.
I acknowledge and thank my fellow committee members for their commitment to and participation in this inquiry. I would also like to thank the staff of the committee secretariat for their work on the inquiry. The committee is pleased to have had the opportunity to contribute to this nationally important issue. I commend the report to the House.
7
12:55:00
Snowdon, Warren, MP
IJ4
Lingiari
ALP
0
0
Mr SNOWDON
—I acknowledge the contribution from the chairman of the committee and the work of the committee and all its members. It is with regret, though, that I have to say that I am here to present, on behalf of the members for Fremantle, Canberra and Kingsford Smith, and for my own part, a dissenting report. In what may be a precedent in committee reporting, the Labor members of the ATSIA committee were not prepared to endorse the majority report of this inquiry into Indigenous employment. This was not because of any fundamental disagreement with the few recommendations it proposed—although we do not agree with all of them—but because of the report’s failure to come to grips with the gravity of the problem or to suggest policy settings and programs which have any real prospect of increasing employment.
We argued that the chairman’s draft report, as initially presented to us and still largely unmodified in the final draft, needed a major revision. In fact, much of the report is little more than a catalogue of case studies. Those could have formed the starting point for sound deductions about future directions for effective policy development. Instead, they are simply presented without coherent analysis.
The majority report appears to accept untested assertions about various programs and public relations assertions from the private sector as if they are as persuasive as carefully constructed evaluations. Government department and agency claims about the effectiveness of various policy settings are often accepted without question, rather than being subjected to reasonable critical scrutiny and analysis. The purpose of the report, after all, was to try and find out what really worked. Our constructive suggestions along these lines and our request for a major revision of the report so that we could achieve unanimity were initially accepted but later refused, on what we believed to be rather spurious grounds—in other words, in this case, spuriously imposed deadlines that prevented such revision.
After almost three years of hearings, including the evidence of many witnesses, 137 submissions, and travel to every corner of the continent, the conclusions are disappointingly shallow. We argue that the findings and recommendations presented to us in the draft report, and accepted by government members, fall so far short of what is needed as to constitute an insult to the many people who spoke to us.
Sadly, given the resources at our disposal and our truncated reporting time line, the Labor members are not in a position to write a comprehensive report which would fully address these problems. But we can point to areas where a future government should act. We touched on those areas. We talked about evaluation. We asked: what has been successful in generating new opportunities for Indigenous people? What maintains employment for those already in the workforce? What improves labour market readiness? And what helps people over the obvious obstacles that Indigenous people face?
We talked about the Indigenous employment strategy. We asked whether it really has delivered measurable benefits and outcomes to Indigenous people. We focused on the CDEP, and I would say that this report needs to be read against the backdrop of the federal government’s intervention in the Northern Territory and, indeed, its proposal—now writ into policy—to stop CDEP operating altogether in communities in the Northern Territory, despite the ample evidence that this committee received about its success as an employment vehicle for Aboriginal people. This has not been taken into account by the government and has not been reflected properly in the report. But we saw, time after time, the opportunities created by CDEP, where people were in meaningful employment. They were participating in commerce, in shops; they were working in schools and in brick factories; they were working in a range of programs, doing the whole gamut of community activities—you name it, they were involved in it. Yet, now, 8,000 such individuals in the Northern Territory have been sacked summarily by this government and have been moved onto Work for the Dole programs or training programs. They will not have meaningful employment. That, of course, is a shame.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Grey wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
Mr WAKELIN
(Grey)
13:00:00
—Yes. I move:
That the House take note of the report.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
MAIN COMMITTEE
8
Miscellaneous
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Committee
8
Reference
8
Mr WAKELIN
(Grey)
13:00:00
—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
8
Committees
Intelligence and Security Committee
8
Report
8
8
13:00:00
Jull, David, MP
MH4
Fadden
LP
1
0
Mr JULL
—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I have pleasure in presenting the committee’s report entitled Review of administration and expenditure No. 5: Australian intelligence organisations.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
MH4
Jull, David, MP
Mr JULL
—The fifth review of administration and expenditure is the first full review conducted under section 29 of the Intelligence Services Act 2005 of the administration and expenditure of the six intelligence agencies since the act was amended in December 2005 to include ONA, DIO and DIGO within the committee’s oversight. The committee has a statutory obligation to review the financial statements for all AIC agencies. This review broadly looked at all aspects of the administration and expenditure of the six intelligence and security agencies.
All the intelligence and security agencies have over the last several years undergone structural reorganisation to varying degrees to enable them to absorb recent growth in the most effective way. During the current review, the committee found that for some agencies this has entailed a significant reorganisation to build up various sections to better serve the whole organisation and to deal with emerging needs, while other agencies have absorbed increased staff numbers into the existing structure with little structural change. All the agencies satisfied the committee that they are mindful of the pitfalls of dealing with substantially increased budgets and each is taking measures to manage budget growth appropriately.
Agencies are working hard to meet recruitment targets in a highly competitive labour market, and agencies face the additional challenge of recruiting staff who are able to meet the most stringent Commonwealth security standards. Agency heads told the committee that it is foremost in their minds that rapid growth could negatively impact the agency’s work if not handled very carefully. All agencies demonstrated to the committee that they are expending a considerable amount of their resources to attract and then retain the right staff for their agency.
Agencies continue to make training and development of staff a high priority and, in most agencies, training budgets have steadily increased—in some cases very substantially. Agencies outlined to the committee a range of improvements that they have made to their training programs over the past 12 months. They noted that, with so many new staff, average experience levels will be lower in the short term. To counter the effects of this experience gap, agencies are putting extra emphasis on training programs for new starters in the early stages of their employment. Additionally, several agencies noted that they are directing extra effort into leadership training. The committee is satisfied that agencies are making a concerted effort to match their increasing staff numbers with appropriate training programs to ensure that the agency has a highly skilled workforce which is capable of meeting the high standards that each requires.
During the previous administration and expenditure reviews, agencies explained in detail their strategies for augmenting and retaining their linguistic capacities. Updates during the current hearings demonstrated to the committee that those agencies which rely on linguistic capacity continue to explore all avenues for attracting, recruiting, training and retaining highly skilled linguists.
The committee found that recent legislative changes to the Intelligence Services Act and other acts which have relevance to certain areas of agency operations have impacted on agencies to varying degrees, but no agency felt negatively impacted by recent legislative changes. On the contrary, agencies generally felt that legislative changes have improved their ability to operate. In general, agencies noted that they are developing, or have developed, processes to ensure compliance with relevant legislative changes, and the committee is satisfied that each is managing the impacts of recent legislative changes adequately and appropriately.
Due to the high standard of submissions and the evidence given at the hearings, the committee has increased its knowledge of the finance and expenditure activities of the intelligence and security agencies. The committee found nothing in the evidence provided to raise concerns about the existing financial management within any of the agencies. Agencies discussed the challenges they have faced and continue to face—handling considerably increased budgets in conjunction with, in most cases, rapidly increasing staff numbers. In conclusion, and on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the head of each agency and their staff for their ongoing cooperative approach to the work of the committee. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the report to the House.
9
13:05:00
Kerr, Duncan, MP
RH4
Denison
ALP
0
0
Mr KERR
—May I thank the chair of the committee and endorse his remarks. In the presentation of the next report I intend to make some personal remarks, given that it is probably the final report that the chair will present to the parliament on behalf of this committee. He has been an extraordinarily good servant of the parliament in relation to this important task.
May I endorse the substance of the report. There is no doubt that this report reflects the strain which our various intelligence agencies are inevitably under as they increase their staff size; as they seek to recruit as they need to adjust so that they have an adequate range of skills, including language skills; and as they cover what is a growing gap between the top ranks of officers of long experience and a large influx of newer, less experienced entrants at the bottom end. Those difficulties, however, appear to be being sensibly addressed by each of the agencies. Each has its own individual pressures and different challenges but, insofar as our committee was able to ascertain, the responses of the agencies to those pressures have been well judged.
In this context, of course, the committee cannot behave as many parliamentary committees do and dig down directly to first-hand experience that might potentially challenge the source of evidence that is provided directly by agency heads. We have addressed that issue in our report, at paragraphs 1.11 and 2.77. I do not wish to suggest in any way that we have a suspicion that, were we to do so, there would be a different outcome. It simply reflects the fact that in this area we are particularly limited in our capacity, although we do have the benefit of the insights from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the insights from the Audit Office, which has provided us with a substantially good basis on which to be confident of judgements that we have made when we add them together with the direct reports from the agencies themselves. So I think the parliament has good reason to be confident of the judgements that are being made by the committee in this regard, but they are subject to the caveats that the report itself states.
I particularly wish to commend ONA for the approach that it has taken, set out at paragraph 2.88, leading to its own internal review of key judgements. Plainly, there were circumstances prior to the invasion of Iraq in which the intelligence that was relied upon was conceded to be far from ideal. One of the issues that future parliaments will have to address is whether to equip this committee with the standing capacity to undertake similar reviews of the tasking and capacities of our intelligence agencies. At the moment we look either to specific areas of responsibility under the legislation, to particular proscriptions, or to the administration and budgetary arrangements of agencies but we do not have the capacity that was given to the former Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD when it undertook the decisions made in the intelligence assessments prior to Iraq. It may be that future parliaments consider that it is truly in the national interest to make certain that the oversight committee does have that capacity, because at the moment our committee could not undertake a similar task were it to take the view that it would be important in the public interest to do so. Those are issues that future parliaments will need to address.
I commend ONA for its own internal reassessment processes and endorse what the chair said about the recruitment, training and other issues. But can I give particular attention, before I finish speaking, to the problem of Indigenous recruitment. It is one area where the agencies have truly let matters slide. There are only a handful of Indigenous employees across the intelligence agencies and, as a percentage of those organisations, their number has decreased. That is truly a very sad statistic and one that could be improved.
Intelligence and Security Committee
10
Report
10
10
13:10:00
Jull, David, MP
MH4
Fadden
LP
1
0
Mr JULL
—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee’s report entitled Annual report of committee activities 2006-07.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
MH4
Jull, David, MP
Mr JULL
—The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security completed another full and productive year, scrutinising terrorism legislation and aspects of the administration and expenditure of the intelligence agencies. As the work and volume of the intelligence agencies increase, so too does the work of the committee.
The fourth review of administration and expenditure focused on recruitment and training. The intelligence agencies have been rapidly recruiting staff in order to provide more security and counterterrorism capability. The committee found that, in a competitive marketplace, increasing and retaining staff was challenging and that timely security clearances remained an inhibition to recruitment. A significant challenge for the agencies was the recruitment of sufficient numbers of people with necessary language skills. The committee concluded that language training remains one of the most difficult and expensive areas of training for the intelligence agencies. The agencies demonstrated that various initiatives are being devised to lessen and, it is hoped, eventually overcome these difficulties. Overall, the committee was satisfied that the agencies were managing their expansion.
The other major inquiry of 2006 was the statutory review of the security and counterterrorism legislation. The committee’s review followed and took into account the report of the Security Legislation Review Committee—the Sheller committee. The committee made 26 recommendations and, in particular, recommended the appointment of an independent reviewer of terrorism law in Australia. Under the recommendation, the committee would examine the reports of the independent reviewer. During the review period, the committee tabled four reports on the listing of terrorist organisations. The four reports dealt with the relisting of 14 organisations. Procedural issues relating to consultations with the states and territories and the nature of the information provided to the committee remain a concern in all these reviews.
In addition to these reports, the committee also commenced its inquiry into the operations, effectiveness and implications of the terrorist organisation listing provisions of the Criminal Code, and the fifth review of administration and expenditure. The reports of these inquiries will be tabled in the next reporting period.
On behalf of the committee, I take this opportunity to thank and commend Mrs Margaret Swieringa for her excellent support as secretary of the committee from 2002 to June 2007. Margaret provided professional advice and support of the highest standard, and the committee wishes her well in her future endeavours.
In addition, the committee notes the passing of Mr Allan Taylor AM, career diplomat and former Director-General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service from 1998 to 2003. He was, until recently, Chairman of the Board of the Australia-Indonesia Institute, where he continued his career-long contribution to Australia’s international relations. Mr Taylor was instrumental in advancing and implementing the Intelligence Services Act 2001. During this process, Mr Taylor appeared before the Joint Select Committee on the Intelligence Services, where he gained the respect and acknowledgement of all members of the committee.
In conclusion I would like to thank all those who have contributed to the work of the committee during the past year. I commend the report to the House.
12
13:14:00
Kerr, Duncan, MP
RH4
Denison
ALP
0
0
Mr KERR
—I thank the chair of the committee. He has set out, in broad terms, the work of the committee, and the report gives further details of it. There are two aspects that raise issues for the future attention of the parliament and the agencies that are worth mentioning: firstly, the restrictions on reporting to the parliament, which are set out at paragraphs 1.48 to 1.50. I would commend those paragraphs to honourable members for their consideration because the committee has drawn attention to those restrictions on previous occasions. The committee does not wish to be carping or to be seen to be negative in relation to its brief, but it has drawn attention to these matters and would hope that both the executive and the parliament give further attention to those matters. Secondly, paragraphs 1.51 to 1.54 indicate a difference of opinion on the responsibility of the Director-General of ONA to assist the committee in relation to its statutory functions. Those also are matters which ought to be given further attention by the executive and the parliament. Certainly, the legal basis for the claim not to provide assistance seems to be extraordinarily thin, but I will say no more than that is an ongoing matter that will have to be attended to.
May I use the remainder of my time to make some personal remarks in relation to two people whose service this parliament should make great observance of: firstly, Mrs Margaret Swieringa, who was mentioned by the chair. She has been an extraordinarily good team leader, working at the sharp edge of the obligations between this parliament and the agencies, which very jealously—and properly—guard the obligations of confidence and secrecy they are charged with. Of course, this committee, insofar as it is given responsibilities by this parliament, seeks to discharge those responsibilities in the fullness of trust that is given to it by both houses. Margaret Swieringa has been a tremendous servant of the committee, the House and the Senate. With the chair, I am sure those remarks would be endorsed by every member of the committee.
Now I come to the chair himself. There was a time when we feared that, at the close of this parliamentary session, David Jull might not still be in office as the member for Fadden. The member for Fadden, as most people would know, suffered a very severe illness during this parliamentary term. He underwent very grave surgery that involved, I believe, the removal of a lung. But he came back from that and, although sometimes breathless and obviously less well than at other times, he has been a remarkable committee chair. He is always balanced, always moderate, always thoughtful and always bipartisan in the generosity of his approach to his task. He is willing to speak bluntly to agencies when it is the parliament’s requirement to do so, and he is willing to express himself with courtesy at all times. David Jull has been an ornament to this parliament. He is a former minister. He well understands the importance of the security environment in which we operate and he treats that seriously. As chair of the intelligence and security committee he always makes certain that the parliamentary responsibilities given to him, on behalf of both houses, are carried out with a full acknowledgement of the burden that is on him and also of the importance to the parliament of the discharge of those responsibilities. I am certain that we all wish you very well, David—if I may breach standing orders and refer to you in that way. You have been an ornament to this parliament, and your service as chair of this committee deserves this parliament’s tribute and recognition.
Economics, Finance and Public Administration Committee
13
Report
13
13
13:19:00
Baird, Bruce, MP
MP6
Cook
LP
1
0
Mr BAIRD
—I agree with the member for Denison’s statement and acknowledge what an outstanding member of parliament Mr Jull is. On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, I present the committee’s report entitled Australian manufacturing: today and tomorrow—Inquiry into the state of Australia’s manufactured export and import competing base now and beyond the resources boom—together with the minutes of proceedings.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
MP6
Baird, Bruce, MP
Mr BAIRD
—I would like to commend the economics committee secretariat, particularly Stephen Boyd, Sharon Bryant, John Hawkins and Andrew McGowan, for their excellent work on the preparation of this report. The world in which Australia’s manufacturing sector currently operates is changing. Australian manufacturers need to become more innovative, flexible and efficient to survive and prosper in markets that are increasingly globalised and diverse. Manufacturing is a key component of the Australian economy, with manufactured exports presently accounting for around 20 per cent of exports in total—on par with services and agricultural export shares. In most industrialised economies, over the past 20 years the services sector has outpaced the manufacturing sector due to the evolution of industrialisation and higher living standards. But what often goes unnoticed is the continued growth in manufactured output and exports.
The massive scale of industrialisation in China and, to a lesser extent, India has manifested itself in a worldwide demand for resources that outstrips supply. As Australia is a mineral-rich nation, China’s voracious demand for resources has led to elevated terms of trade and a surge in the value of the Australian dollar since around 2003. While the resources boom has opened opportunities for some Australian manufacturing industries, the appreciating exchange rate accompanying the boom has reduced the competitiveness of manufactured exports. The resources boom has therefore reinforced the need for Australian manufacturers to adopt alternative competitive strategies to that of price, whilst recognising the importance of production efficiencies.
Against this backdrop, in May 2006 the Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello MP, referred to the committee an inquiry into the state of Australia’s manufactured export and import competing base now and beyond the resources boom. The committee was asked to focus on the challenges and opportunities for Australia’s manufacturing sector arising from both the resources boom and the expansion in global trade. In response to the sector’s current and expected transformations, the committee’s primary recommendation is that the Australian government develop a national manufacturing strategy and, in line with this, review manufacturing oriented federal government programs to improve their relevance and accessibility. Australian manufacturers need to work smarter to develop export survival strategies appropriate for their line of production. This could involve producing components offshore, entering global supply chains or manufacturing niche or high-value goods. To assist these approaches, the committee recommends that the certainty of funding from the Export Market Development Grants Scheme is improved and that the Australian industry productivity centres are manufacturing focused and adequately resourced to provide expert advice to manufacturers across Australia. Importantly, this latter initiative would incorporate a one-stop manufacturing advisory portal.
The committee heard that innovative Australian manufacturers are often confronted with start-up funding difficulties. In response, it recommends a number of venture capital reviews to improve data and knowledge of this market in Australia. It similarly recommends the design of the research and development tax concession scheme be thoroughly examined, given that inquiry evidence raised doubts about the effectiveness of concessions in prompting additional research and development activity.
The emerging frontiers of manufacturing are demanding more scientific, electronic, design and environmental expertise. It is therefore vital that Australian students—at school, university and vocational levels—are kept abreast of emerging technologies and that industry and government work together to communicate the opportunities that the sector offers. The committee further notes that Australian firms should be able to take advantage of CSIRO and university generated research and recommends that the CSIRO receive more funding to employ staff dedicated to manufacturing based liaison.
The committee has formed the view that Australian manufacturing has a strong future beyond the resources boom. For the last two decades, Australian manufacturing has slowly but surely transformed its perspective from the local to the global. With continued adaptability and a committed international outlook, there are significant opportunities for Australian manufacturing to seize in the globalised market. On behalf of the committee I thank all of the organisations and individuals who participated in this inquiry. I particularly thank the members of my committee, who contributed in a bipartisan and very effective way. (Time expired)
14
13:24:00
Bird, Sharon, MP
DZP
Cunningham
ALP
0
0
Ms BIRD
—I commend to the House today the report of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration entitled Australian manufacturing: today and tomorrow. I joined the committee only in March this year when this inquiry was well underway. Shortly thereafter I became the deputy chair of the committee, which was a fairly significant task to take on. I place on the record my great appreciation to the chair, the member for Cook, for the great assistance he gave to me in undertaking that role. In the tradition now established in this afternoon’s tabling of reports, I also wish to put on the record, as the member is retiring at the next election, my great appreciation for what I think has been an exemplary public service career in both state and federal parliaments. I think he is a damned nice fella and he will be greatly missed. Having shared a border with him across electorates, I will miss him personally—as will our local region. I think the House should record our great appreciation not only for his committee work but also for his work more broadly.
In acknowledging my late coming and the great speed required in catching up, I wish to thank the committee secretariat—particularly the secretary, Mr Stephen Boyd, and the inquiry secretary, Sharon Bryant. I have to say that we caused great mirth around the nation because two women members on the committee were me and the member for Newcastle, Sharon Grierson. There was a belief in New Zealand that all Australian women were named Sharon, but I think that just reflects the great quality that went with the names! I appreciate the work that Sharon contributed, along with the rest of the secretariat—Andrew McGowan, John Hawkins, Judith Ireland, Amelia Johnston and Natasha Petrovic.
This report is extraordinarily timely. We are all aware of the great pressures placed on Australia from the massive growth of the Chinese economy, and indeed the emerging Indian economy, and their demands for mineral resources. That is something that we benefit from greatly in Australia. As with all positive developments, there are challenges. One of the challenges is that, as the infrastructure and skills resources in our economy are drawn towards those industries, problems are created for other sectors. Indeed, we saw that in the resources sector report which the committee concluded recently and again it is in the manufacturing sector report.
What was particularly encouraging as we went around the country was the number of manufacturing industries that have flourished. They have taken up the challenge with great gusto and have forged a future for themselves in this nation. The characteristics of those highly successful manufacturing industries made a most important contribution to this inquiry. It showed us that there is a viable future for the manufacturing industry in Australia. As the chair said, it is not focused on competing on price; it is focused on being an outward-looking, globally competitive, export focused industry. We saw numerous examples of this and it was very encouraging. The report and its 21 recommendations make it clear that we do see a role for government in fostering and supporting that growth. We do not see that role as a protectionist one; we see it as a supportive one. There was some talk about the focus of our inquiry and the subsequent report being on supporting winners, rather than picking winners—on acknowledging that there are manufacturing industries which have developed problem-solving approaches and niche markets. They have acknowledged their strengths and have built on them and there is much that governments can do to support and encourage that into the future. The 21 recommendations go to many aspects of that, particularly the way in which we can support research and development and the skills development that is needed for those industries and the way in which government can better gather data and better share information through things like a single portal, putting all that together so that we provide all of the backup that needs to occur for those industries which are doing so well. The committee’s approach in this final report is a particularly constructive one for the future. (Time expired)
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Cook wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
Mr BAIRD
(Cook)
13:29:00
—I move:
That the House take note of the report.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
MAIN COMMITTEE
15
Miscellaneous
Economics, Finance and Public Administration Committee
15
Reference
15
15
13:30:00
Baird, Bruce, MP
MP6
Cook
LP
1
0
Mr BAIRD
—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
15
Committees
Transport and Regional Services
15
Report
15
15
13:30:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
1
0
Mr NEVILLE
—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services, I present the committee’s report entitled The great freight task: is Australia’s transport network up to the challenge?, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
KV5
Neville, Paul, MP
Mr NEVILLE
—For just over two years, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services conducted an inquiry into the integration of regional road and rail networks and their interface with ports. This inquiry is now finished and today I am tabling our final report: The great freight task: is Australia’s transport network up to the challenge?
During the inquiry, the committee received a tremendous quantity of information from governments, local authorities, businesses, industry associations and individuals. That information was supplemented by numerous reports on various aspects of the freight transport task. It seemed at one stage that a new report was being released every few weeks.
Our inquiry received 194 submissions, held 30 public hearings and carried out a large number of inspections. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who made submissions or gave evidence to the committee at the hearings, and those who gave their time and hospitality as we went on inspection tours.
This inquiry arose out of concerns about long queues of coal ships off our ports awaiting the availability of cargoes, a problem that is occurring even as I speak. It is a potent image of lost opportunity.
The committee found that infrastructure problems are widespread. It found a pattern of infrastructure difficulties in the access to and operation of our major ports. There were missing supply links, a lack of rail capacity, a need for bypass or ring roads, and bottlenecks that needed an overpass or a rail loop to overcome the traffic congestion.
Perhaps one example illustrates this. The Lascelles terminal in Melbourne moves over one million tonnes of dry bulk products a year. At present, it has no rail connections to service its wharf storage, handling and ship berthing facilities. A rail line would enable the terminal to rail its products directly to and from the main freight network.
In many of the ports, the functionality of the access channels is threatened by the trend towards using larger and larger freight carriers. The need for deeper channels is a growing problem, especially in Melbourne, Australia’s biggest container port. Other ports need wider channels or separate passing channels to overcome their difficulties.
In a recent paper, the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics estimated that total containerised trade would increase from 5.2 million containers in 2004-05 to approximately 14.9 million in 2024-25, an increase of 5.4 per cent a year, a staggering figure. This illustrates the need for our ports to be able to handle the bigger vessels that are now becoming the norm for containerised trade. Equally, land based infrastructure and access routes must keep pace in order to service these larger vessels. For a country so dependent on maritime activity, to neglect this will be at Australia’s economic peril.
The committee also noted a decline in the use of Australia’s coastal shipping fleet, a trend that is disturbing in view of the rapidly growing freight task and the congestion of our road and rail systems. The Chair of the International Commission on Shipping said:
For the largest island continent in the world to be determining a land transport strategy to the exclusion of its own interstate shipping services, is irresponsible.
The importance of intermodal terminals was highlighted by evidence considered at the inquiry. The committee was surprised to find, however, that rather than an emphasis on regional terminals—as the members expected—there was a need for city terminals in the major capital city basins. The North-South Rail Corridor Study, commissioned by DOTARS, made the comment:
If key intermodal facilities are not operating efficiently, this would actually negate gains made by improving infrastructure along the corridor.
Cross-border and near-border infrastructure commitments—or the lack of them—are of great concern to the committee. The Commonwealth has focused on new cross-border modalities for water, and transport infrastructure must be treated in a similar fashion.
Finally, I would like to thank the secretariat staff. Secretaries Ian Dundas and, more recently, Janet Holmes played leadership roles, while Tas Luttrell and his team carried out a remarkable two-year commitment. Researchers Courtney Krauss and Samantha Mannette deserve our praise. I have much pleasure in tabling this report.
17
13:35:00
Bird, Sharon, MP
DZP
Cunningham
ALP
0
0
Ms BIRD
—I commend to the House the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services entitled The great freight task: is Australia’s transport network up to the challenge? The report presented today is the result of 2½ years of work by the committee. I would like to put on the record my sincere appreciation of the chair and my fellow committee members for their professional and sincere approach to this inquiry and the writing of the report, an approach which has led to its bipartisan support.
The report is also significantly the result of the tremendous dedication and efforts of the committee secretariat, and I particularly acknowledge the work of the principal research officer, Tas Luttrell, and the senior research officer, Samantha Mannette. I would also like to thank and note the contribution of the previous committee secretary, Ian Dundas, the administration officer, Marlene Dundas, as well as Janet Holmes and Jazmine De Roza.
The report includes recommendations across a wide range of aspects aimed at meeting the challenge of the doubling of the freight task by 2020 and the need to expand the role of rail in that task. I am particularly pleased that the report recommends that a critical port infrastructure fund be established to urgently provide funding for the construction of vital projects of up to $150 million.
One such vital project that may take advantage of the recommended fund is the missing transport link in Wollongong, known as the Maldon-Dombarton rail link. The link has been on the infrastructure agenda for many years; in fact, it is nearly half-completed. For 20 years, the link has sat there mothballed. Since I was first elected in 2004, I have been determined to put the project back on the agenda. Some in Wollongong thought I was mad to propose it. But I am happy to report that the pessimistic view has altered significantly in the last 12 months. The committee’s visit to Wollongong, as part of this inquiry, was a contributing factor to that changed view.
The biggest development to encourage the completion of Wollongong’s missing freight link is, of course, the New South Wales government’s $140 million investment in the expansion of the port of Port Kembla. Wollongong needs to expand this regional asset and, while existing road and rail infrastructure is able to cope with the planned expanded use of the port, this will not be the case for future expansions. The additional benefit of completing the Maldon-Dombarton link is the connection to south-west Sydney, a growing manufacturing and export market. My colleague the honourable member for Werriwa has spoken about this and I am pleased that he acknowledges the strategic link and supports the completion of the project. The completion of the Maldon-Dombarton project would provide an essential link from south-west Sydney to the port of Port Kembla. No longer would freight need to face a curfew and the additional cost penalty involved in using the existing line.
I am very pleased that the views of major industry have changed in Wollongong with regard to the Maldon-Dombarton link. The coal industry and Port Kembla Coal Terminal made significant submissions to the inquiry. However, the case for completing the link no longer relies exclusively on coal. The expansion of the port of Port Kembla changes the business case. That has been my argument. The New South Wales government, to its credit, has invested substantially in the expansion of Wollongong’s port asset, but the Commonwealth has not to date. AusLink 1 left the Illawarra out in the cold. It is time the Commonwealth made a contribution to the economic diversity of Wollongong. I believe this report provides a sound business basis upon which to do that.
I recognise the long advocacy and support of the Maldon-Dombarton project by Associate Professor Philip Laird, of the University of Wollongong. Professor Laird is well known to the committee and a passionate advocate of the importance of rail in the freight task for a very long time. This 35 kilometres of half-completed track needs to be completed. It will fit well with the committee’s recommendations. I urge the Commonwealth to adopt the committee’s recommendations and, in particular, recommendations 5, 6 and 7. Finally, I thank all the participants across the country—including people from Wollongong—who provided written and verbal submissions with such great enthusiasm to the committee. I believe we have returned their confidence and trust with this comprehensive and significant report. I commend the report to the House.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Hinkler wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
Mr NEVILLE
(Hinkler)
13:40:00
—I move:
That the House take note of the report.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
MAIN COMMITTEE
18
Miscellaneous
Transport and Regional Services Committee
18
Reference
18
Mr NEVILLE
(Hinkler)
13:40:00
—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
18
Statements by Members
Reserve Forces Day
18
18
13:41:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
0
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—Yesterday I had the great pleasure of attending Reserve Forces Day, which was held in my electorate at the Keswick Barracks. Reserve Forces Day aims both to raise the profile of Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves and to recognise the enormous contribution of past and present reservists. The South Australian event was a great success and was greatly enjoyed by all present, and it included an address by His Excellency the Governor-General. I congratulate the organisers of this event, particularly the chairman of the South Australian Reserve Forces Day Council, Barrie Newman, and add my personal recognition of the enormous efforts made by our reservists.
As I have previously mentioned in this parliament, a proposal is before the federal government to close a number of South Australian bases, including Keswick Barracks and Hampstead Barracks in my electorate. There are great concerns about the impact that such a move may have on the recruitment and retention of reservists. I reiterate my call to the Minister for Defence to conduct a formal study examining the consequences of any such cost-cutting measure, particularly the impacts on reserve numbers prior to any decision being made. I once more commend all those at the Keswick Barracks for their dedication and hard work and for a fantastic day.
Shared Parenting Council of Australia
19
19
13:42:00
Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP
00ANF
Dobell
LP
1
0
Mr TICEHURST
—I congratulate the Shared Parenting Council of Australia on its work in handling family law issues. I became involved with this group and its moves to change family law in 2002. It has contributed quite a bit over the years and the government has been able to make a number of changes that have significantly improved the life of parents who have separated, but, more particularly, their children’s lives. Access to children is now far better than it was.
I particularly congratulate Michael Green, the chairman of the council; Ed Dabrowski, the national president; and Wayne Butler, the secretary. At a recent function, awards were presented to Barry Williams from the Lone Fathers Association of Australia and Tony Miller from Dads in Distress. The council has launched a web portal that contains a great deal of information about family law and related issues. I refer members to www.familylawwebguide.com.au. I recommend that anyone with an interest in this area visit the site. It makes a valuable contribution to the debate and provides a great deal of information for people facing this significant problem.
Humanitarian Aid
19
19
13:43:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I rise this afternoon to talk about the important issue of Australia’s overseas humanitarian aid and the need to improve water and sanitation infrastructure in developing countries. The United Nations has calculated that more than one billion people in the world lack clean water and more than 2½ billion do not have access to adequate sanitation. In our immediate backyard of South-East Asia and the Pacific, it is estimated that 100 million people are without drinking water and 185 million are without sanitation.
Adequate access to clean water means access to 20 litres per day per person, which is far less than the average Australian uses to flush the toilet each day. Achieving water access in our neighbouring countries would cost $2.1 billion per annum through joint aid contributions. The Howard government has presided over Australia’s lowest ever overseas aid contributions. Australia currently donates a shamefully low level of 0.3 per cent of gross national income in overseas aid. A Rudd Labor government will increase Australia’s overseas aid funding to 0.5 of GNI by 2015 and 0.7 per cent in the longer term. Labor is committed to working with developing countries to help meet the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. (Time expired)
Australia-Taiwan Friendship Group
19
19
13:45:00
May, Margaret, MP
83B
McPherson
LP
1
0
Mrs MAY
—As chair of the Australia-Taiwan Friendship Group, I have spoken many times in this parliament about the relationship between our two countries and the challenges that continually face Taiwan in its quest to build a strong democracy for its 23 million people. This week at the annual friendship dinner, members of the group will be officially farewelling Vanessa Shih, the deputy representative from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office here in Australia. It will be a very sad occasion for many of us as we say our goodbyes, but it will also be an occasion where we will celebrate the wonderful contribution Vanessa has made in building on the very strong relationship between our two countries.
Vanessa Shih is a woman of substance. Her government can be proud of her commitment to her country, her passion for her people, her depth of understanding of the challenges and difficulties that Taiwan continues to face and her wise counsel which, for so many of us as members of the friendship group, has been of enormous benefit in understanding the complexities and issues regarding her country. We will miss her. We will miss her warmth and friendship; we will miss her wise counsel. She is a determined and strong woman—a woman who is a wonderful ambassador for her country as an experienced and skilful representative. She is a woman of passion and persistence who we know will achieve even greater success in whatever new role her government has planned for her. All members of the friendship group wish Vanessa a safe journey home. She is a remarkable young woman who has done her country proud during her term here in Australia.
Interest Rates
20
20
13:46:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
0
0
Mr RIPOLL
—After nine interest rate hikes in a row and five since the last election, families in the electorate of Oxley are doing it very tough. Even though the Prime Minister says that working families have never been better off, I can assure you, from talking to them in my electorate, that is not the case. The Prime Minister still thinks that interest rates are low, but official data shows households are carrying three times the level of debt they did almost 20 years ago. With three times the debt, interest rate rises obviously have three times the impact. Just today we heard that the Reserve Bank of Australia is talking about another interest rate rise potentially before the end of this year, which really gives the lie to the statements that were made at the last election about keeping interest rates low.
The latest 2006 census data shows the number of households paying more than 30 per cent of their gross income in mortgage repayments has exploded in the Oxley electorate by 154 per cent. This is an alarming figure. Something can be done and we can start by acknowledging that there is a problem and that we want to fix that problem. That is what needs to happen. Labor has taken that approach. We have convened a national housing affordability summit because we think that something can be done. We have set aside $500 million for housing affordability in a fund to tackle the undersupply of new residential housing. We are also setting up a national housing supply research council to analyse the adequacy of land supply. There is also more that can be done through infrastructure in Australia and by appointing a cabinet level—(Time expired)
Tasmania: Produce of Heaven Campaign
20
20
13:48:00
Baker, Mark, MP
DYK
Braddon
LP
1
0
Mr BAKER
—As part of the second major initiative under the Produce of Heaven campaign, 17 north-west Tasmanian agribusiness companies will travel to Hong Kong from 14 to 21 August to promote Tasmania’s north-west produce. Included will be a private networking function between Tasmanian north-west delegates and leading businesses in Hong Kong, including supermarkets, business leaders in the hospitality and restaurant industry, importers, trade and consumer media. Companies include Hellyers Distillery, Petuna Seafoods, Spreyton Fresh, Richey Fishing, Blue Hills Honey, Stanley Fish, Webster’s Fresh, Squibbs Apples, TasFresh Water, Ghost Rock wines, Kay Beef Farms and Greenham meat processing.
The Hong Kong food show is one of the largest specialist food exhibitions in Asia. This year, some 55 countries and 100,000 visitors are registered to attend. Produce of Heaven is the only Australian delegation to exhibit, which will create a high level of excitement within the Hong Kong local industry and build on the success of the Taiwan exhibition in June.
I have examples of some of the statements made by some of the companies. Webster’s Fresh said:
We made initial contact with a number of prospective importers of walnuts and have been offered an opportunity to test market at Jason’s, a high class gourmet food chain in Taipei.
Tim Hess from Petuna Seafoods said that there was much interest in their ocean trout. The seafood division of the Craig Mostyn Group said:
The visit to the Taiwan and Taipei Stand provided excellent access to all major buyers in Taiwan—
(Time expired)
Environmentally Sustainable Development
21
21
13:50:00
Jenkins, Harry, MP
HH4
Scullin
ALP
0
0
Mr JENKINS
—Earlier this year I was involved in a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association study group on parliamentarians and the environment. We released a final communique entitled Effecting the implementation of environmentally sustainable development. Amongst other things, we said that parliaments should seek to formulate policies and programs that achieve balance between development and environmental concerns and that parliamentarians should be equipped with adequate information to stimulate informed debate on environment and development issues.
Importantly, we said that governments and parliamentarians should be looking at national procurement policies that advance environmentally sound procurement in the public sector. This could be achieved through an exchange of current best practices in member states and beyond. The thing that I wish to highlight today is that we concluded that parliaments and Commonwealth organisations should examine and address their carbon footprint and consider ways of offsetting emissions, including those related to air travel. I hope that, whatever complexion the government has after the next election, it might look at that last point and look at ways in which we can offset the carbon emissions of our travel. I think that would be an important example and give great leadership to the rest of Australia.
Radiowave Therapy
21
21
13:51:00
Anderson, John, MP
4K4
Gwydir
NATS
1
0
Mr ANDERSON
—I want to briefly refer to the technology known as radiowave therapy. This originated largely through the research of Dr John Holt. Under standing order 43, I would like to present to the House a petition from around 1,735 of my constituents and people from outside my electorate in relation to this therapy. They have signed a petition drawing attention to the need for research into radiowave therapy as a treatment for diseases, in particular cancer; asking for not less than $100,000 for research and requesting that the Medicare rebate be reinstated for radiowave treatment. This treatment is strongly believed by many to be highly effective in the treatment of cancer. Certainly anecdotally the evidence suggests that Dr John Holt has achieved some considerable success with it. It is important to note that serious clinical work is being undertaken by the Radiowave Therapy Research Institute, which is privately funded and based in Perth. I would like to table this petition, as I understand is permissible under the by-laws pertaining to this place, and to encourage people to take note of the potential of this new technology and the hope it may offer many. I hereby present the petition.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:
Citizens of Australia draw attention to the need for research into Radio wave therapy as a treatment for diseases, in particular cancer. We need not less than $100,000 for research, and request that the Medicare rebate be reinstated for radio wave treatment.
from 1,734 citizens.
Australian Youth Climate Coalition
22
22
13:53:00
McMullan, Bob, MP
5I4
Fraser
ALP
0
0
Mr McMULLAN
—Later today a petition will be presented to the House which was presented to me by the Australian Youth Climate Coalition at the launch of their Adopt a Politician campaign here in Parliament House. This event was organised by Emma Kefford, the AYCC ACT coordinator. The petition raises a lot of very important issues about climate change. Amongst other things, it says:
As young Australians we say that climate change is no longer an issue for tomorrow, it is an issue for today. It is time to transform understanding into action.
… … …
We recognise that the current extent of climate change is human induced. We no longer have the luxury of continued debate; the time for action is now. As young Australians we are ready to make this change. We call upon all Australians to join us.
It goes on:
Climate change poses a disproportionate impact on our Pacific neighbours—
this is a very important point that our young people make, and I am proud of the way they put this—
less developed nations, and marginalised peoples worldwide. Australia has an obligation to assist these vulnerable communities.
… … …
Economic sustainability and livelihoods depend on our natural environment. We believe the cost of goods and services should reflect their true environmental and social cost, and government subsidies should be directed towards renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. Australia’s economic interest lies upon realising the potential of sustainable innovation.
The petition goes on to urge the House to ratify the Kyoto protocol and take a leadership role in its upcoming second phase. (Time expired)
Launceston General Hospital
22
22
13:54:00
Ferguson, Michael, MP
DYH
Bass
LP
1
0
Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON
—I rise today to blow the lid on the Tasmanian government’s agenda to strip away services from Launceston General Hospital for the benefit of its future ‘Taj Mahal’ of the Royal Hobart Hospital. I am very concerned about a situation which has arisen in my community where the local community, without the help of any government, raised $100,000 to purchase a flow cytometer. This will directly benefit some 40 patients per year who suffer from blood cancers. Not one single extra dollar has been sought from the Tasmanian government. Not one single extra medical specialist is required to operate it. In putting in a purchase order it has been blocked by the Tasmanian government and it has been blocked indeed by the minister’s office. This is a complete disgrace. Having made a public statement yesterday to raise this issue, the Tasmanian government refused to address the claim that I made and instead pressured one of its medical specialists to speak out instead. He made the perverse statement that life-saving equipment at Launceston would put lives at risk, and this was the justification for centralising services in Hobart. It is unacceptable. I am extremely angry about this. My heart goes out to not only those people who rely right now on this life-saving technology but also the whole community, which rallied together in April this year to raise the necessary funds. (Time expired)
Canberra Southern Cross Club
23
23
13:56:00
Ellis, Annette, MP
5K6
Canberra
ALP
0
0
Ms ANNETTE ELLIS
—I had the pleasure yesterday of attending an annual luncheon at the Canberra Southern Cross Club at Woden. The Canberra Southern Cross Club is one of our larger clubs in the ACT. It holds an annual luncheon where it distributes funds. It distributes funds to scores of organisations around our community, from the Old Narrabundah Community Council through to palliative care and all sorts of organisations doing great work in our community here in Canberra who need money to continue their work. Some of those cheques are small and some are large. The overall theme of yesterday’s luncheon was to see, yet again, the Canberra Southern Cross Club put a lot of money back into very good community work. Over the years it has distributed quite a few dollars, numbering into the millions in an aggregate way according to yesterday’s figures. So it was indeed a pleasure for me to be there at the lunch to congratulate the Southern Cross Club for its community minded approach and to have an opportunity to see the many wonderful organisations doing good work in our community and supporting people around them with the help of, amongst others, people from the Canberra Southern Cross Club.
Tea Tree Gully Golf Club
23
23
13:57:00
Draper, Trish, MP
0L6
Makin
LP
1
0
Mrs DRAPER
—On Saturday, 4 August the Tea Tree Gully Golf Club in my electorate of Makin celebrated its 75th anniversary at a special anniversary dinner. I want to take this opportunity to express my sincere congratulations to all members of the club and especially acknowledge the President, Mr Brenton Burford; the Manager, Mr Dean Stanton; and the members of the board, who do such a tremendous job. The Tea Tree Gully Golf Club are the largest golf club in the Makin electorate. They provide outstanding facilities and an extremely well manicured course for the benefit and enjoyment of their members. Golf, as we all know, is an amazingly popular sport, especially for our older Australians, who take the opportunity post retirement to compete or play socially, gaining valuable exercise and community interaction.
I recently had the privilege of witnessing firsthand the excellent work of the club through the Australian government’s Community Water Grants. In round 2 of the Community Water Grants announced late last year, the Tea Tree Gully Golf Club were successful in obtaining assistance to the tune of $45,000 to pursue important work on their aquifer storage and recharge system and implement amazing water-saving measures. In round 3 I have been delighted to support their further application, which again seeks to save our most important natural resource—that is, our water. The commitment of the Tea Tree Gully Golf Club to the environment and to their members has been demonstrated by their ability to reach 75 years of age, and I sincerely hope they remain a viable sporting facility for a great number of years. (Time expired)
Asbestos
23
23
13:59:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
0
Mr MURPHY
—Last week in parliament I raised a matter that is of growing concern to many workers and homeowners in Australia: the growth in the number of Australians with asbestos related diseases. The prognosis for the most debilitating of these diseases, mesothelioma, is extremely poor. However, recent studies have shown that Alimta can inhibit tumour growth and increase life expectancy. Workers who believe that their employment in New South Wales exposed them to the inhalation of asbestos fibres can claim compensation, paid for by contributions made by all New South Wales employees raised by a small levy. Alimta is not currently subsidised on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for people with mesothelioma though it is subsidised for people with lung cancer, which is often caused by smoking. I again call on the government to make sure that Alimta is listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme so that it can provide much-needed relief to people who are terminally ill.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43 the time for members’ statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
24
Ministerial Arrangements
24
14:00:00
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. The Minister for Trade will answer questions on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
24
14:00:00
Questions Without Notice
Interest Rates
24
14:00:00
24
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his statement this morning that his promise to keep interest rates at record lows was not real because the commitment disappeared after the first week of the last election campaign. How can the Prime Minister claim that his interest rates promise had disappeared after one week when three years later it is still on the Liberal Party website right now?
24
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I refer the Leader of the Opposition to precisely what I said this morning and I take the opportunity of reminding him and reminding the House that, when the latest increase in interest rates is passed on, housing interest rates will be 8¼ per cent, which is a full 4½ per cent below the average under the former Labor government.
Economy
24
24
02:01:00
Henry, Stuart, MP
E0L
Hasluck
LP
1
Mr HENRY
—My question is addressed to the greatest Prime Minister in Australian history.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Hasluck will come to his question.
E0L
Henry, Stuart, MP
Mr HENRY
—Is the Prime Minister aware of any recent studies into the importance of a modern workplace relations system to the Australian economy.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! There is far too much noise. The member for Hasluck will ask his question again.
E0L
Henry, Stuart, MP
Mr HENRY
—My question is addressed to the greatest Prime Minister in Australian history.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Hasluck will come to his question.
E0L
Henry, Stuart, MP
Mr HENRY
—Is the Prime Minister aware of any recent studies into the importance—
RH4
Kerr, Duncan, MP
Mr Kerr
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The standing orders clearly prohibit ironical statements.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I think the member for Denison is well aware that I have asked the member for Hasluck to come straight to his question. I will give the member for Hasluck one more chance to ask his question.
E0L
Henry, Stuart, MP
Mr HENRY
—Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of any recent studies into the importance of a modern workplace relations system to the Australian economy? Do these studies draw conclusions on the effect of re-regulating the workplace?
25
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—In reply to the greatest member the electorate of Hasluck has ever had, can I say that my attention has been drawn to a report released by Econtech last Friday—an examination by Econtech commissioned by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. What that report found was that if the Australian workplace were re-regulated there would be over 300,000 jobs lost and interest rates would rise by 1.4 per cent. This was carried out by an organisation described on 23 May 2007 by the shadow Assistant Treasurer as being an organisation run by a ‘respected consultant’. In other words, it is somebody who is looking at these things from an objective point of view. What Econtech found was that Labor’s policy would put upward pressure on interest rates and it would cost jobs. This is the opinion of an independent economist as well as being, of course, the opinion of the government and the opinion of many industry organisations.
Right at the moment the Australian Industry Group is conducting its annual gathering here in Parliament House. That particular organisation is not contributing financially to the campaign of concern being waged by other business groups about the implications of rolling back workplace relations reform. But yesterday on Channel 10’s Sunday program Heather Ridout, the executive director of the Australian Industry Group, said that if you went back to the bad old days of a union-run IR system it would cost jobs and put upward pressure on interest rates. She described Labor’s policy as ‘risky economics that would put upward pressure on inflation and interest rates’.
We have the phenomenon where the Leader of the Opposition is pretending that his economic policy is the same as the government’s. He said on Thursday that there was not a sliver of difference between the government and the opposition on fiscal policy. The Leader of the Opposition wants to have it both ways. He wants now to pretend that he is no different from me on economic policy yet, when I was leading a government that was building the economic prosperity we now have, the Leader of the Opposition and his mates in the Labor Party were doing their level best to stop us implementing our policies. Now that we have paid off that $96 billion of debt, now that we have got a healthy budget surplus, now that we have got a strong fiscal position, the Leader of the Opposition wants to be identified with it, almost as if it were his own. Yet the truth is that he tried to stop us bringing it about. What is more, if he ever got the opportunity he would be neither experienced enough nor strong enough to make certain that the good economic conditions this government has created would be preserved. He would do the bidding of the trade union movement and he would do the bidding of the six Labor premiers.
The Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. He cannot pretend that he is the same as me on economic policy when in the past he has tried to stop every step that we have taken in order to bring about today’s strong economic conditions. A Labor government rolling back industrial relations would be a risk to the prosperity of the Australian economy, it would put upward pressure on inflation and, through that, interest rates and it would break the wonderful cycle of low unemployment that this country has now enjoyed for many years under this government.
Interest Rates
25
25
14:07:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is again to the Prime Minister. I again refer the Prime Minister to his statement that his promise to keep interest rates at record lows was not real because that commitment disappeared after the first week of the last election campaign. Prime Minister, does that mean the Australian people can rely on nothing that you or the Liberal Party will say during the first week of the next election campaign, or will we only know that after the next election campaign has been conducted?
26
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I think the Australian people can rely on the performance of this government in relation to interest rates, and we can rely on any comparison between the performance of this government on interest rates and the performance of the Labor government in the past. But, worse still, we can rely on the likelihood that if there were a Labor government elected at the end of this year the implementation of its roll-back of industrial relations would put upward pressure on inflation and thereby upward pressure on interest rates.
As I was scanning through my newspaper this morning I did come across some expressions of public opinion, and the one expression of public opinion that really hit me in the face was the expression of public opinion that said only seven per cent of the Australian people thought that interest rates would be lower under a Labor government than under a coalition government. I think that particular survey is right on the money.
Workplace Relations
26
26
14:08:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
1
Mr KEENAN
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen recent modelling on the benefits of industrial relations reform? What does this modelling indicate about the impact of rolling back these reforms?
26
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question. I have actually seen proposals to roll back industrial relations reform in this country. They of course are the proposals of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and their political creation, the Labor Party, which is led by the Leader of the Opposition. Australia has come a long way since the days of highly unionised, highly centralised industrial relations. But all of that is at risk at this next election, because it is the plan of the Leader of the Opposition to roll back all of the reforms that have been made and to take Australia backwards by decades. He was belled on this by none other than one of his own heroes, former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, who, on 7 June, on Lateline, described Labor’s industrial relations roll-back as:
... something that will take them further back than legislation I put in place in ’93.
So this throwback, this roll-back, of the Labor Party is not just to pre Work Choices. It is not just to pre the 1996 election. It is going back to before 1993 in its attempt to appease the trade union movement. I said in the parliament last week that the Leader of the Opposition’s dearest wish is to be a Liberal. But he can never be that, because he is a pawn in the hands of the ACTU. He might be able to talk the talk, but he will never walk the walk, because he is beholden to the political apparatus of the trade union movement.
Econtech, the modelling agency, has now done a model on what Labor policy means. This is not mine; this is not the Treasury’s; this is from Econtech, a consultancy which the Labor Party itself likes to quote. Listen to what Econtech says Labor policy will do. In three years it will reduce GDP by 4.8 per cent. This will be the equivalent of losing $2,700 per person in Australia. In three years employment will drop 2.9 per cent and we will lose 316,000 jobs in this country. In three years the CPI will rise to five per cent. Of course, as a consequence of that interest rates will rise. They will rise to double figures. There will be pre-1993 IR and pre-1993 interest rates. We will be back into double figures for home mortgage variable interest rates. In real terms average wages will be lower by $787 a year after three years. And, of course, real wages would begin to decline as inflation broke out.
This was the story of the last time Labor were in government. Those of us who were here remember there was no prouder boast from Mr Keating as he walked to this dispatch box than to say he had managed to depress real wages in this country. It was a boast that the Labor Party had. That is what they are looking like doing again: depressing real wages, increasing the CPI, increasing interest rates, declining the GDP and lowering real wages. Why would you do that? Why would any political party want to do that? I will tell you why: because at their heart the Labor Party are owned, operated and controlled by the trade union movement. They are here to do the bidding of the trade union movement. Every single Labor member is a member of a trade union. Every single one of the members of parliament sitting opposite is a trade union member put here, paid and supported by the trade unions to do their bidding. Australians do not want lower real wages, lower GDP, higher inflation and higher interest rates, and they do not want Labor’s industrial relations policy.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
27
Distinguished Visitors
27
14:14:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Indonesia. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
27
Questions Without Notice
Economy
27
27
14:14:00
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
83M
Sydney
ALP
0
Ms PLIBERSEK
—My question is to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that the 2006 ABS census figures show that over half a million households, or one in three Australian households that rent, are now paying more than 30 per cent of their gross household income in rent payments? Does the Treasurer agree, despite these record high rentals, with the statement: ‘Working families in Australia have never been better off’?
27
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—Let me say that this government has put in place measures which have improved benefits for families. Just to give you some idea of the improvements that have been put in place, I think the family tax benefit today is about double what it was in 1996. The family tax benefit has delivered real improvements to families in our society. And, of course, not only has the family tax benefit increased but we have a $600 annual payment of family tax benefit—
Government members—Real money!
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—which is real money and goes into people’s bank accounts and helps them with their bills. The honourable member for Sydney, if she had had her way, would have abolished that payment. That was Labor’s policy at the last election. There is no point shaking your head, Member for Sydney; it was your policy at the last election and if you had been elected Labor would have taken that payment away. In fact, if Labor had had their way, after the last election they would have actually increased tax for single-income families and made them worse off.
So one thing I can say is this: not only has the family tax benefit been of great assistance to families and helped them with their bills but, if it had been left to Labor, families would be worse off today. The other thing I can say is this: nothing helps families like getting a member of a family in a job. If a family does not have a job then a family does not have a stake in the real economy. I think, when you look back and you see that over 200,000 new jobs have been created in the last year, when you look at the fact that real wages have increased by about 20 per cent, you would say to yourself, ‘This has given hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in families in Australia the opportunity to improve their position.’ That is what the coalition has been about: improving benefits to families and giving families a stake in this great country.
Economy
28
28
14:17:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
Mr FAWCETT
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister provide some further information to the House as to how Australian working families benefit from disciplined economic management? Is the Prime Minister aware of any differing approaches to managing the economy?
28
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I say to the member for Wakefield, who represents very effectively in this House thousands of working families in the electorate of Wakefield, that his concern for working families has been very strong and evident in the more than 2½ years that he has been a member of this parliament. I notice in every speech that is made by the Leader of the Opposition and every speech that is made by a prominent member of the Labor Party that there is a professed concern for working families. I therefore want to take the concern of the Leader of the Opposition at face value and remind him that his concern for working families has been well listened to by this government and that over the last 11½ years the number of families in work has dramatically increased. We now have the lowest unemployment rate in Australia for 33 years.
In the 12 months to June this year, the long-term unemployment rate in Australia—that is the number of people out of work for more than one year—fell by no less than 29 per cent. Not only is the level of long-term unemployment at its lowest since the statistic began to be kept but there cannot be any period of a year since that statistic was separately kept when the long-term unemployment rate would have fallen by such a sharp figure.
There can be only one explanation for that. The explanation is that the government’s new workplace relations system, which the Labor Party, directed to do so by the union movement, will dismantle if it wins the next election, has made it easier for small business to take on more staff. There can be no other explanation because, while over the last number of years there has been a steady decline in the number of long-term unemployed, for it to fall by no less than 29 per cent in the space of a year must at the very least owe an enormous amount to our industrial relations policy and owe an enormous amount to the removal of the unfair dismissal laws which Labor is pledged to bring back.
In answering questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition earlier, I made the observation that, even after the most recent interest rate rise, interest rates on housing loans in Australia, at 8.3 per cent, will be a full 4½ per cent lower than the average during the 13 years of the previous government. On an average mortgage of $235,000, a home owner would have paid on average $1,416 a month in mortgage payments under the current government, compared to $2,497 a month if the average rate under the former government still applied. That is a difference of $1,081. Real wages of Australian workers have risen by 20.8 per cent over the last 11 years and only the top 40 per cent of Australian households pay net income tax when you take into account the impact of family tax benefits. Finally, research by the OECD shows Australia has one of the fairest and most redistributive tax and income support systems in the OECD.
All of those things give the lie to the warnings that were given more than a decade ago that a coalition government led by me would dismantle the social security safety net. The member for Wakefield asked me what the alternatives are. The real alternative to this general level of prosperity for working families—although, I acknowledge, not all of them are sharing to the full the bounty of current prosperity—the biggest single threat is rolling back our industrial relations reforms. Rolling back those reforms will, in the opinion of Econtech, cost us 300,000 jobs, increase interest rates by 1.4 per cent and reintroduce the unwanted thuggery of union bosses into many workplaces. But, worse than all of that, they will send a signal to the Australian community and the rest of the world that this country has lost the stomach for long-term reform. Today’s prosperity is a product of yesterday’s reforms and, if we abandon today’s reforms, the prosperity of tomorrow will be put at risk.
Economy
29
29
14:23:00
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
0
Mr SWAN
—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Why did the Treasurer, in his last answer, refuse to support and repeat the Prime Minister’s statement that ‘working families in Australia have never been better off’?
29
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—As I said in answer to the last question, families’ positions have improved significantly through the improvement of the family tax benefit system, job opportunities and real wages. I do not think that can be disputed. I do not think it can be disputed that families today, through the introduction of family tax benefit parts A and B, are better off than they were in 1996. I do not think this can be disputed either—that if Labor had won the last election they would be worse off today than they are now. I do love getting questions from the member for Lilley because it was the member for Lilley who thought up the idea of docking every family $600 a year in family tax benefit. When the member for Werriwa went to him and asked, ‘How do we explain docking families $600 of their family tax benefit?’ the member for Lilley advised him, ‘Tell ’em it’s not real; tell ’em it ain’t so, Joe. That $600 that goes into their bank accounts just does not exist.’ Coming, as he does, from the background of state secretary of the ALP in Queensland where he specialised in dirty tricks as part of his campaign armoury—
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan
—Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: it is nine words, Treasurer. Do you support or will you oppose—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Lilley will resume his seat. The member for Lilley asked the Treasurer a question relating to a previous answer. The Treasurer is in order.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—The nine words I like are, ‘Wayne Swan had money in brown paper bags.’ Were they the nine words? I do not have any trouble saying them, Mr Speaker. In fact, I think there ought to be an investigation.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner
—That is eight words.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—Eight words—‘Mr Wayne Swan had money in brown paper bags.’
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Treasurer will refer to members by their electorates.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—He said it was only eight, Mr Speaker. Here is an interesting question. If you are the brother of the Leader of the Opposition you get expelled from the Labor Party for giving money to the Liberal Party. What if you happen to be a state secretary who gave money to the Australian Democrats?
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this is about the nine words that will not pass the Treasurer’s lips.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. As I reminded the member for Lilley, the question relates to an answer previously given by the Treasurer.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—The attempt at the last election by the member for Lilley to pretend that $600 that is paid to every family per annum per child—and now of course it has been indexed, so if you add three children it will be $1,800 plus indexation—did not exist was up there with one of the great howlers of Australian politics. It comes from a long line of machine politics in which he was schooled in the state of Queensland, and Australian families would be far worse off if the Australian Labor Party ever found its way into office.
Families
30
30
14:27:00
Ferguson, Michael, MP
DYH
Bass
LP
1
Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON
—My question is also addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the assistance which the government delivers to low-income families? I am particularly interested in those in my electorate who are renting. Is he aware of any alternative approaches?
30
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Bass for his question. I can inform him that a single-income family with children is eligible for the maximum rate of family tax benefit where they have an income less than $41,318. That means that a family with two children and an annual income under $41,000 is eligible for a family tax benefit part A payment of $290 per fortnight. That is $145 a child. They are entitled to a family tax benefit part B payment of $212 a fortnight. That makes their family assistance under those two benefits around $500 a fortnight. In addition, that family is entitled to rent assistance of up to $122 a fortnight. Because the government was re-elected, they are still eligible for the family tax benefit, a supplement, the $600 payment, which entitles families to $667 per child: an FTB A payment of $290 per fortnight, an FTB B payment of $212 a fortnight, rental assistance of $122 a fortnight—a family supplement of $667.95 per child.
Since 1996-97, the real disposable income of a single-income family on average weekly ordinary time earnings has risen 34 per cent. Let me say that again: the real disposable income—that is, after CPI, after tax—of a single income family on average weekly ordinary time earnings, with two children, has risen by 34.6 per cent. That is real money into their bank accounts from which they can pay their bills. In fact, a single income family with two children has to earn more than $50,000 a year to pay net tax—that is, the amount that they are repaid in family tax benefits outweighs their tax liability so that a family on $50,000 with two children does not pay tax in net terms.
For a single income family with two children, the rent assistance—which was $86 back in 1996—is now $122 per fortnight, which is about a 50 per cent increase. This government believe in improving benefits for families, effectively cutting them out of the tax system, increasing rent allowances and delivering better family tax benefits. The maximum family tax benefit today is $4,460 per annum—an increase from $2,420 back in 1996. The government have been about directly assisting families through the family tax benefit system. We have done that by recognising the additional costs that come from rearing children. It has improved the position of families as a result, and, of course, economic reforms have given those families the best opportunity in 33 years for a member of the family to get into the workforce and to benefit from that. These are improvements for families—all would be put at risk by a Labor government.
Economy
31
31
14:32:00
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
0
Mr SWAN
—My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, why is it so hard for you to repeat the Prime Minister’s statement to this parliament that working families in Australia have never been better off?
31
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—This gives me the opportunity to talk further about the benefits which this government has delivered to families. Of course, before this government was elected there was no family tax benefit part B; that was introduced by this government.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very simple question about the nine words that will not pass the Treasurer’s lips.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Let me make two points in response to this point of order. The first thing is that the Treasurer has hardly begun to answer the question and the second is that he is clearly speaking on families, and he is in order. I call the Treasurer.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—I am talking about the way in which this government has improved the position of families.
Opposition members interjecting—
83Q
Schultz, Alby, MP
Mr Schultz
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To my knowledge, I have never stood up to make a point of order, but I have to say to you that it is very difficult to hear what the Treasurer is saying because of the noise coming from the other side of the chamber.
ECV
Hayes, Chris, MP
Mr Hayes interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Werriwa is warned! The member for Hume raises a valid point of order. The Treasurer will be heard. I call the Treasurer.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—It gives me an opportunity to talk about the way in which families have been assisted by the government’s family tax benefits improvements over the last 10 years. The family tax benefit part B was introduced by this government. There was no family tax benefit part B before this government introduced it. That benefit goes to families who have only one income earner. In addition to that, the government increased from $2,420 to $4,460 the maximum family tax benefit part A per child.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler is warned!
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—The member for Grayndler may not know this: that is an increase per child. In addition to that, of course, the government introduced the annual supplement, which the Labor Party attempted to abolish. In addition to that, the government increased rent assistance and—
DZU
Ellis, Kate, MP
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Adelaide is warned!
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—in addition to that, there is a better opportunity today than in the last 33 years for families—
83Z
Irwin, Julia, MP
Mrs Irwin interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Fowler is warned!
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—to get into the workforce and to take the opportunity to actually get a job. All of that means that the position of families today is significantly better than it was 10 years ago. It means that the Liberal Party has put families first—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat.
84G
Wilkie, Kim, MP
Mr Wilkie interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Swan will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Swan then left the chamber.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would back up the point of order taken earlier by the member for Hume. The noise level is just intolerable. It is impossible to hear because of the kind of barracking that we are hearing now.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I think the Leader of the House is well aware that the chair is taking steps to deal with it. I call the Treasurer.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—All of that means that the position of families has improved very considerably over the last 10 years. It means that families are in a stronger position than they were in 1996. And it means that all of that is at risk if the Labor Party is elected, because the Labor Party stands for lower wages, taking back family tax benefit and less economic opportunity for Australian families.
Regional Infrastructure
32
32
14:37:00
Vasta, Ross, MP
E0D
Bonner
LP
1
Mr VASTA
—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House on how the coalition government works in partnership with local councils to deliver services and infrastructure in regional Australia? Are there any threats to those services?
32
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr VAILE
—I thank the member for Bonner for his question. Of course, the member for Bonner would recognise that, during the life of the coalition government, we have increased the number of programs that actually deliver very meaningfully to local communities through local government. We recognise that local government in Australia is the closest level of democratically elected government to the people and deals with people’s issues from day to day, with programs like Roads to Recovery and Regional Partnerships. I am sure that the member for Bonner, in representing his constituency, has ensured that there have been applications for those programs by the local authorities in his area.
Another we have introduced that the Labor Party never thought of when they were in government is the Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund. I mention this because we recently announced a grant of $360,000 for the Aramac Shire to develop a new medical precinct delivering vital health services in that small town in western Queensland. I am sure the member for Maranoa is well aware of this project in the Aramac Shire. I give that example because, if the Queensland Beattie Labor government gets its way, this will not happen anymore, because the shire of Aramac will not exist anymore. It is on the Beattie Labor government’s hit list to eliminate as a local authority representing the interests of the people in that part of Australia.
I was in Queensland on Friday last week and woke up to the news that the Beattie Labor government had added a further draconian measure to their legislation to wipe out local government in Queensland, and that was basically to stop any of the elected representatives from talking about it. I am sure that the member for Bonner, when he woke up on Friday morning at home in Brisbane, was aghast, the same as most Queenslanders. But we know one Queenslander who has had nothing to say about this and who was not shocked about the measures that are being taken by the Beattie Labor government, and that is the member for Griffith—another Queenslander who seems to have gone silent and very, very weak on this issue in Queensland, where democracy at a local government level is being totally trashed. All he has been able to say so far is: ‘We’ll look at it very carefully.’ They will start nicknaming him ‘the mirror’ shortly because he will keep looking into it.
It was interesting to read an article in the Australian today written by Glenn Milne—an interesting report on some of the views inside the Labor Party. There are Queensland members of the Labor Party who would like to see the member for Griffith act on this, who believe he actually has some power to do so and that he should start tidying up the damage that Beattie is causing in Queensland under the rules of the Labor Party. It is interesting that this article refers to the federal platform of the Labor Party recognising the ‘autonomous role’ of local government that is being trashed by Premier Beattie. They also recognise the ‘value of democratic and accountable’ local government in Queensland. The Leader of the Opposition has the ability to do something about this. He was able to get rid of his brother out of the Labor Party and he was able to get rid of Dean Mighell; he has not been able to get rid of Joe McDonald. Does he have the backbone to deal with Premier Beattie on this issue? Premier Beattie is just trampling the rights of individual ratepayers across Queensland by denying them the right to have a say in what happens in their local communities and, with his latest escapade, he is denying the right of their elected representatives to have a say in what is going on in Queensland. We know that a future Labor government here would be not just a puppet of the union movement but also a puppet of the state premiers.
Economy
33
33
14:42:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Salvation Army’s submission to the Senate inquiry into the cost of living pressures on senior Australians stated:
The increased cost of food, fuel and utilities has caused significant strain on the budgets of older Australians living on low incomes, causing many to seek Emergency Relief assistance for the first time.
How can the Prime Minister say, given that the Treasurer now refuses to say, that working families have never been better off, when senior Australians are now turning to the Salvos for help with food, bills and petrol?
33
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I have not read that particular submission, but I am certainly aware of the views of the Salvation Army, an organisation for which I have an almost unlimited regard because of the work that it has done. One of the great things about the Salvation Army is that it is a very practical organisation. It does not hold out false hope to people, the way some other people I know do, including the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is now embarking on this tactic: every time there is a price rise—be it petrol, a grocery item, rent or a mortgage payment—he says, ‘Isn’t this absolutely outrageous,’ and when he is asked, ‘What’s your solution?’ he says, ‘I don’t have one.’ There is more to public life than that kind of cheap opportunism. Of course, I regret the fact that there are many people in the Australian community—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Jagajaga is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—who are not doing as well as others. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition one of the reasons why we have been able to do a lot of things in the last budget that we might not otherwise have been able to do if we had not built up a budget surplus: we have run a strong economic policy. We have a budget surplus and a strong budget position, no thanks to the Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition’s party left us with a huge debt. They then set about stopping us from trying to pay that off. They have opposed every single reform that this government has introduced and now they have the nerve to run around and hold out the false hope that a Labor government would be able to stop every price rise in the Australian community. That, effectively, is what the Leader of the Opposition is doing.
I remind the Leader of the Opposition that in the last budget we were able to provide a $500 payment to every retired person in the Australian community. We would not have been able to do that if we had not been in such a strong financial position. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that we are the first government in Australian history to have tied pensions not only to the half-yearly indexation through the CPI but also to being not less than 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings.
Of course I am conscious that some older sections of the Australian community are doing it tough. And, where we have had the budget capacity to do so, we have tried to assist those people. But I say to the Leader of the Opposition that the greatest gift you can give any working family is a job, and this government has a proud record of providing that gift to the Australian community. We have a 33-year low in unemployment in this country, and the only side of politics which is a threat to that is the side of politics led by the opportunistic man who just asked me that question.
Iraq
34
34
14:46:00
Wood, Jason, MP
E0F
La Trobe
LP
1
Mr WOOD
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister advise the House on the government’s policy towards political reconciliation in Iraq? Are there any other approaches?
34
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr DOWNER
—First of all, I thank the member for La Trobe for his question and also for his interest. As was made very clear by the international community around the time of the so-called surge—the enhanced forces being sent by the United States to Iraq—this had to be supported. It was important that it was supported by greater efforts towards reconciliation by the Iraqi government. The Prime Minister’s letter, which was published in the newspapers over the weekend, is a follow-up to conversations he, the Prime Minister, had with Prime Minister Maliki back in March and that I had with Prime Minister Maliki back in June. When I saw Prime Minister Maliki in June, I made it very clear to him that we thought the process of reconciliation was moving too slowly. I would have thought that for observers of Iraq it was clear that that was the case, and I think it entirely appropriate that the Australian government should do what it can to try to accelerate that process. I did make the point to Prime Minister Maliki in June that I thought it would be valuable to have a high profile reconciliation conference of the key sectarian leaders in Iraq. I am, by the way, pleased to hear that a conference of the sectarian leaders is to proceed in Iraq. I think that is a good development and it is very much hoped that it brings successful results.
I would hope that all members of this parliament would support that particular proposition. After all, we were reminded only yesterday in the newspapers that back in 2003 the Leader of the Opposition went to Iraq, came back and wrote to our Prime Minister. He said that Australia should put its shoulder to the wheel, that we should do what we can to help the people of Iraq. That was in the old days of Kevin03. We went to Kevin04, and then it was ‘troops out by Christmas’. Then there were a few variations through Kevin05 and Kevin06. Kevin07 is a very interesting issue. In Kevin07, the Labor Party apparently now has the view that some troops should remain in Iraq—that under Labor around 1,000 of the defence personnel involved in Iraq would remain if Labor was elected. But, over a period of time, perhaps the best part of a year, the Overwatch Battle Group—the 500 or so in Southern Iraq, in Tallil—would be withdrawn.
The Overwatch Battle Group is doing a fantastic job. They have been training Iraqi soldiers. And Australians, by the way, have either directly or indirectly trained about 15,000 soldiers in the Iraqi army, so it is a very impressive record. The Overwatch Battle Group also provides backup support should Iraqi forces get into difficulties in that part of Southern Iraq. I visited them myself fairly recently. Yet, this morning, I heard on the radio the Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro, ex-Colonel Kelly, say that their presence was only symbolic. Here are 500 Australian soldiers risking their lives in a dangerous environment, and the Leader of the Opposition’s candidate for Eden-Monaro—and I have heard this coming from the member for Hunter and the member for Barton as well, and the Leader of the Opposition has endorsed this position—is saying that those soldiers’ role there is only symbolic; it is a flag-waving exercise. I do not know how that has gone down this morning with the Australian soldiers in Tallil, but I would like the House to know that there are a lot of us who think that is a deeply offensive thing to have said about the Australian soldiers. They do a dangerous job and they do a critical job.
In conclusion, let me say this about the Labor Party: if the Labor Party thinks it is wrong to have any troops in Iraq, that we should be out of Iraq and it is all a terrible thing, the Leader of the Opposition should have the courage to say so. He should have the courage to say, ‘If you vote Labor, all of the troops will be out of Iraq because Iraq’—as he says—‘is a debacle, a bad thing and a catastrophe.’ That is what he should do. He should say, ‘We would pull all of them out.’ The interesting thing about the Leader of the Opposition, and this is a real character issue, is that he cannot quite bring himself to say that because it might be controversial. The trouble is that, at the end of the day, political leaders are expected to believe in things—or at least something. And the Leader of the Opposition, I am afraid, is very short on beliefs and very long on stunts.
Workplace Relations
35
35
14:52:00
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
Ms BURKE
—My question is to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues. I refer the minister to the Women and WorkChoices: impacts on the low pay sector report released today. In particular, I refer the minister to the case study of Leanne, a fast-food worker with five dependent children. The report states:
Leanne formerly managed a fast food outlet. She was dismissed from her employer, a company managing employment for over 50 employees across several franchises, without reason ... the dismissal came as a complete shock to Leanne ... Leanne was forced to take virtually the first job she could—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to the House of Representatives Practice, and your further rulings in accordance with that, that long preambles, such as we are hearing, are out of order. I would ask you to direct the member in that way.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Chisholm will come to her question.
83S
Burke, Anna, MP
Ms BURKE
—Leanne was forced to take virtually the first job she could get which was only casual work with her hours varying between 18 and 30 per week. How can the government say that working families in Australia have never been better off when this could happen today to a hardworking mother and be legal under Work Choices?
35
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues
1
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—I thank the member for her question. I am aware of this report. It was a very small sample—121 women were interviewed for this report. Some of the stories were clearly distressing to read and I would suggest that these people should take their stories to the Workplace Ombudsman if in fact they are the case. I also notice that this survey was done before the Australian government introduced the fairness test. There is a very important political point to make here: the fact is that, since the Howard government came to office, more than a million women have obtained work in Australia. Over a million women now have a job—
E09
Owens, Julie, MP
Ms Owens interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Parramatta is warned.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—about 515,000 of those are full-time jobs and about 578,000 are part-time jobs. Women have more choice, more opportunities and more flexibility in the workplace than ever before.
83Z
Irwin, Julia, MP
Mrs Irwin
—I’ll show you cases in my electorate—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Fowler has been warned. She continues to interject. The member for Fowler will remove herself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Fowler then left the chamber.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—There is also another point I want to make here—that is, that a million Australian women now have a job under the Howard government. Remember that back in 1992 under Labor there were a million people unemployed; since we have been in government a million women have been able to get a job. There is also another point I want to make and that is that the Labor Party seems to be engaged in its own series of extreme makeovers. You have the Leader of the Opposition who is now trying to appear as a fiscal conservative.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order to do with relevance. This is about unfair dismissal laws which have not changed—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will resume his seat. The member will be aware that there was a rather lengthy question there. The minister is in order. I call the minister.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—You have the Labor Party undertaking these extreme makeovers. You have the Leader of the Opposition doing glossy ads declaring he is a fiscal conservative to distract attention from the fact that over the last nine years he has voted against every single fiscally conservative reform in this House. You have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition doing her glossy photo shoots to distract attention from the fact that under her industrial relations policies, the Australian economy would go backwards—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—Women are getting dismissed.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will resume her seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is also warned. The minister has the call. The minister will be heard.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was so concerned about working women, what about Cassie? Have you called her back recently? While we have the Labor Party desperately trying to distract people’s attention from their policies, we have independent economists telling us that under Labor the economy will go backwards and 300,000 jobs will be at risk because of the harsh reality of their industrial relations laws. Interest rates will go up 1.4 per cent and the economy will suffer if Labor were ever to get into government. The industrial relations laws that this government has introduced have ensured that nearly 300,000 jobs have been made available for working families in Australia since Work Choices was introduced.
Workplace Relations
37
37
14:58:00
Barresi, Phillip, MP
ZJ6
Deakin
LP
1
Mr BARRESI
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House how a modern workplace relations system is helping to foster employment and sustainable wage growth? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?
37
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
Mr HOCKEY
—I thank the member for Deakin for his question. I note that there is no doubt that turning back the clock on the government’s workplace relations reforms would have a negative impact on Australian families. It would have a dire impact on inflation, interest rates and unquestionably housing affordability. The independent construction watchdog found through an independent report released last month that housing would be three per cent more expensive if the Labor Party were elected into government and inflation would be one per cent higher.
Only last week, an independent report commissioned by small business found interest rates would be 1.4 per cent higher if the government’s workplace relations reforms were rolled back by the Labor Party. Yesterday, the head of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, said that interest rates would be higher if a centralised and fixed workplace relations system was introduced. So it is not hard to understand that under the Labor Party it is likely that interest rates will go up higher than anything under this government and, significantly, more than 300,000 jobs would be lost and it would be much harder for working Australians.
There was speculation today in a national newspaper that the Labor Party would change their policy. Heather Ridout said yesterday on Meet the Press that she was looking forward to the Labor Party’s industrial relations policy mark 2. I thought to myself: will the Labor Party change their policy? I think it is highly unlikely they will. The Labor Party are totally captured by the union bosses.
I was surfing YouTube today—for a brief moment during my morning tea break—and I came across an interesting photo from the ETU. It has Mike Symon, the Labor Party candidate for Deakin; Kevin Harkins, the now disgraced candidate for Franklin; Dean Mighell, the disgraced leader of the ETU; and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. There is Dean Mighell with the three stooges. What we can glean from this information on YouTube—and I am happy to table that photograph—is that the Labor Party remains built, owned and operated by the union bosses, the Dean Mighells, the Kevin Harkins. We hear today that Joe McDonald is going to be defiant in remaining in the Labor Party. Do you remember the Leader of the Opposition saying it was a zero tolerance policy? Joe McDonald has new allegations against him and the response of the Labor Party is: ‘We’ll have to put back his suspension from the Labor Party to February next year.’ Joe McDonald is still in the Labor Party wearing his ‘no ticket no start’ braces.
As for the new ETU candidate for Deakin, they are all fingers on the same hand—the hand that wants to reach into the pocket of working Australian families; the hand that is going to deliver control of the Labor Party to the union bosses. The Labor Party is built, owned and operated by the union bosses. The more evidence we see and hear proves it yet again: they will be controlled by the people who want to control every workplace, and that is very bad for Australian working families.
Water
37
37
15:02:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
Mr WINDSOR
—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, and relates to a proposed 500 million tonne coalmine on the Liverpool Plains west of Werris Creek. Given that the minister, and the Prime Minister for that matter, has previously expressed concerns regarding the interconnectivity of groundwater and surface water systems, and given the inadequate provisions of the New South Wales planning processes regarding off-site impacts of mining on high water-bearing groundwater aquifers, would the minister reconsider an application proposed by catchment groups for an independent study into mining and its impacts on the Murray-Darling Basin water sources?
38
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Minister for the Environment and Water Resources
1
Mr TURNBULL
—I am always happy to consider any applications which the honourable member is able to forward me.
Older Australians
38
38
15:03:00
Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP
00ANF
Dobell
LP
1
Mr TICEHURST
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister advise the House on what steps the government is taking to increase the real incomes of older Australians? What is the government doing to ensure that these gains are sustained?
38
Brough, Mal, MP
2K6
Longman
LP
Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs
1
Mr BROUGH
—I thank the member for Dobell for his question. He is the member for an area which has obviously seen a huge growth in the older population as people move there for the lifestyle. Affordability is a very important issue to him and his constituents. If the coalition government had not been elected, if the coalition government had not changed the indexing of pensions to twice a year and linked pensions not only to the CPI but also to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings, a single pensioner currently residing in the electorate of Dobell would have $66.20 less per fortnight in their pay packet. That is what they would have to survive on without that policy change initiated by the Howard government. For a couple that is $111.40. This is the real measure of good strong economic management and real policies that go to addressing the needs of all Australians, not just those in the workforce—$111.40 is what it means today.
Of course, when we are able to, the Howard government ensures that all Australians benefit from a strong economy. In June of this year pensioners received, per individual, $500 in a one-off bonus—the equivalent of $10 a week on top of the CPI increase in their pensions. To a couple that meant $1,000.
I recently heard reports of pensioners saying they have to make a choice between putting food on the table and paying for electricity, so I asked some pensioners in my electorate how much they pay for their electricity each quarter. They said that it was around $160 a quarter. Basically, for a single pensioner that means this bonus on its own will virtually pay the year’s electricity bill, or it will go a long way towards paying for the registration of the motor vehicle—those big lumpy payments. These are things that are capable and possible when you actually listen to and react on behalf of the seniors who have built this economy over their working lives, and who today do not necessarily benefit directly from tax cuts but do need that benefit that comes from such things as the bonus.
That was in June. In September, with the changes that the Treasurer has made to the superannuation scheme, some 300,000 people will have their pension increased as a result of the changes to the asset test. That is the taper rate. That is more money on top of the $500 and the 25 per cent of MATWE that directly benefit them. In addition, for the first time no tax will be paid on those superannuation payments. That is a wonderful thing and it will enable people to improve their lifestyle.
I was also asked what the government would do to sustain these measures into the future. It goes without saying that if we do not have high employment, strong productivity and real wages growth we cannot do that, and that is what the Howard government is delivering. It is doing that in the face of what Labor is delivering today to pensioners. Labor state and territory governments have increased water and electricity charges—hitting the hip pockets of our pensioners. The Tasmanian government will impose a new ambulance fee on all Tasmanians, including pensioners, regardless of whether they use the service. That government has taken its lead from the Queensland government, which did that a few years ago. That is what Labor is doing in Tasmania.
What is Labor doing in government in New South Wales? It is imposing a 15 per cent booking fee on CountryLink train fares and it is suggested that it intends to reduce the travel concession for pensioners. That is what Labor does in power. It is doing that in an economy in which the coalition is saving money and providing concessions. The only reason that the coalition government is providing utility allowances directly to pensioners is that state Labor when offered a partnership to provide this assistance to pensioners refused to help. It did not refuse to help the Howard government; it refused to help pensioners. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer live a lie by making fraudulent statements about grocery and fuel prices. I assure the pensioners of Australia of one thing: you cannot talk those prices down, but bad policies can drive them up, and that will affect the prices that pensioners pay. They can rely on the coalition government to ensure that they benefit from a strong economy, that downward pressure is placed on the price of things they need and that it will deliver for them. They should look at what Labor has delivered at the state level to see what it will deliver in government if it ever gets to the Treasury bench here in Canberra.
Climate Change
39
39
15:09:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
0
Mr GARRETT
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to a dissenting climate change report tabled in parliament today by four government members that states:
Here, we have a captain of industry (Rupert Murdoch), who, by his own admission is not a scientist, quoted regarding his view on anthropogenic global warming and the need to take action …
And:
This exemplifies the more general problem that most of the public statements that promote the dangerous human warming scare are made from a position of ignorance ...
Does the Prime Minister agree with his four government members—the members for Tangney, Lindsay, Hughes and Solomon—that Rupert Murdoch’s statements are made from a position of ignorance?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister is not required to comment on other members of the parliamentary party. But if he chooses to answer the question, I call the Prime Minister.
39
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—No, I do not agree with their views.
Water
39
39
15:10:00
Hull, Kay, MP
83O
Riverina
NATS
1
Mrs HULL
—My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on the progress of the national water plan, and will the states benefit by supporting this plan?
39
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Minister for the Environment and Water Resources
1
Mr TURNBULL
—I thank the honourable member for her question and for the very considerable assistance that she and many of her constituents have given us in the preparation of the Water Bill 2007, which I trust will pass through this parliament this week. This will in large measure implement the National Plan for Water Security in respect of the Murray-Darling Basin. It will enable us for the first time to effect this historic change to the way water is managed in our most important river system.
The government looks ahead; it has a vision for the future—not simply beyond an election or five years, but decades into the future—to ensure that the Murray River and its tributaries in the Murray-Darling Basin are managed sustainably. Honourable members opposite scoff. It is that sort of contempt for the environmental needs of our biggest river system and for the sustainability of irrigated agriculture that has characterised Labor Party policy on water for decades. That is why long-term reform is overdue and it took the courage of this government to undertake it.
For the first time we will have a basin run as one, with a Murray-Darling Basin Authority that sets an enforceable basin-wide cap on sustainable diversions. We will have a working water market and consistent water pricing; we will have a basin environmental watering plan and an environmental water holder that will purchase and deliver environmental water. This is the most fundamental reform of water management in our history and it took the vision of this government, looking decades into the future, to offer that to the parliament.
The state governments have an enormous amount to gain by supporting this water reform plan and signing the intergovernmental agreement that this government will offer them. It is a great pity that alone of the basin states Victoria chose not to support the comprehensive water plan. That is why we are legislating now relying only on our constitutional powers. The consequence of Victoria’s not supporting the IGA will be that the federal government will not invest in the off-farm water infrastructure belonging to state government authorities in Victoria. The Victorian government estimated last week that the cost of upgrading its ageing and very leaky water infrastructure was $2 billion, but it has committed only half that amount. By its own admission it is at least $1 billion short. If it refuses to sign the IGA on the misguided, politically driven agenda it is pursuing it will deprive itself and the communities that depend on that infrastructure of this substantial injection of Commonwealth funds.
Climate Change
40
40
15:14:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
0
Mr GARRETT
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s glowing reference for the member for Tangney, which was quoted in the West Australian on 6 September 2006. Does the Prime Minister recall praising the member for Tangney’s ‘expertise as a research scientist’? Is the Prime Minister aware that the climate change report from four government members of parliament, including the member for Tangney—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Kingsford Smith will be heard.
84C
Thompson, Cameron, MP
Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Blair is warned.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—Is the Prime Minister aware that the climate change report from four government MPs, including the member for Tangney, released today states:
The evidence that human beings are changing the global climate is certainly not compelling.
It also states:
Another problem with the view that [humans] have caused warming is that warming has also been observed on Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Pluto, Neptune and others.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member will come to his question.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—Prime Minister, what planet are these government MPs on?
41
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—Hardly on the planet inhabited by people who hate the Australian coal industry.
Aged Care
41
41
15:15:00
Richardson, Kym, MP
E0B
Kingston
LP
1
Mr RICHARDSON
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing. Would the minister advise the House on what steps the government has taken to ensure residents of aged-care facilities are not exploited by outside groups? Has the minister seen reports of aged-care residents being bussed to what they believed to be a cabaret show only to find out it was a Labor and union rally? What is the government’s response?
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will wait until the House comes to order.
41
Pyne, Chris, MP
9V5
Sturt
LP
Minister for Ageing
1
Mr PYNE
—I thank the member for Kingston for his question. I know that he is as concerned as I am for the welfare of the frail and vulnerable aged in our community. The reaction of the Labor Party to this question suggests to me that they are not taking this issue nearly as seriously as they should. It came to my attention last week that activities that are stipulated in the standards required by the government as appropriate for people in high-care residential care—namely, the things that most people would regard as normal and appropriate for these frail and vulnerable aged Australians—were being obviously flouted by the union and ALP representatives in the electorate of Kingston. It was revealed last week the activities to which these aged-care residents were being subjected. Residents from two aged-care facilities, the Vails and Aldis homes, were bussed to a vaudeville and propaganda afternoon which was touted as ‘Irish Albert, with guest artistes’. I am not sure that the residents of the Vails or Aldis nursing homes were told that the guest artistes were Janet Giles of SA Unions, Amanda Rishworth, the ALP candidate for Kingston, and Gay Thompson, the local state ALP member.
This would be funny if it was not quite so serious, because the people we are talking about were taken from high-care residential aged-care residences. These are the most frail and the most vulnerable people in aged care in Australia and yet they were removed from their homes to a union-ALP rally and subjected to vaudeville and propaganda. After Irish Albert, enter Janet Giles, Amanda Rishworth and Gay Thompson stage left, shouting slogans at frail aged people.
This is straight out of the ACTU-ALP manual that was revealed by the minister earlier this year which says that every step should be taken in local areas, and any depth plumbed, by Labor to get these messages across.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Melbourne is warned.
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Gorton is warned too.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—Sadly, the people from the Aldis and Vails nursing homes could not be protected from the appalling behaviour of SA Unions and the ALP. This is a template for all around Australia and residents of aged-care homes should be warned. The Leader of the Opposition should have the guts to do something about it.
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will resume his seat. The member for Oxley will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Oxley then left the chamber.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—If the Leader of the Opposition had any guts, he would do something about this appalling display. He would discipline Amanda Rishworth, the Labor candidate for Kingston, and he would assure the Australian public that frail, vulnerable, aged people will not be removed from their homes and taken to union and ALP rallies in the future.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
42
Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers
42
Economy
42
15:20:00
Mr HOWARD,MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—You may proceed.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I take this opportunity, as well as complimenting him on his answer, to wish the Minister for Ageing a happy 40th birthday. I wish to correct an answer I gave to the Leader of the Opposition. I asserted that we provided a $500 payment to every retired person in the Australian community. That was not correct. The bonus was delivered to each person who qualified for utilities allowance or seniors concession allowance. That is not every retired person; although, it is a very high percentage—indeed, over 2 million.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
42
Questions to the Speaker
Electoral Enrolments
42
42
15:20:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
0
Mr DANBY
—Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. Last Wednesday, 1 August, I received in my office in Melbourne from the Clerk a copy of my question of 8 May and an answer by the Special Minister of State, who revealed that 410,000 18- to 25-year-olds were not enrolled as of 31 March. This answer would normally have appeared in the first Hansard when the House resumed after the winter break on Tuesday, 7 August. Surprisingly, the answer that 136,000 young people would have been denied the vote if the 2004 election was repeated was not in Hansard. Was any pressure from the Special Minister of State exerted to see that it was not in Hansard until the end of the week?
42
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Melbourne Ports. I understand that the Clerk is already having discussions on this very issue to see how this process might be speeded up, but I will make further inquiries on his behalf and report back as appropriate.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
42
Personal Explanations
42
15:21:00
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
0
0
Mr SWAN
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Yes.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Today in question time the Treasurer claimed that I said that the $600 family tax benefit supplement has no monetary value. This is incorrect. It is a lie that has been repeated by the Treasurer in this parliament; and I have had cause to get up and correct it before. I seek leave to table the family assistance legislation amendment bill which was introduced after the 2004 election. The purpose of this legislation was to restore indexation provisions.
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr Ruddock
—I rise on a point of order. I think the honourable member is debating the issue. He has already made the point that he has been misrepresented. He has stated it. He does not have to elaborate.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Attorney-General raises a valid point of order. The member for Lilley must show where he has been personally misrepresented. The member will not debate legislation. I will listen carefully to the member for Lilley; but he will get straight to his point.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—This legislation was put to the parliament after the election. Its purpose was to restore indexation provisions stripped away when the $600 supplement was introduced.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Lilley will resume his seat. Is leave granted to table the document?
Leave not granted.
PETITIONS
43
Petitions
10000
The Clerk
The Clerk
—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:
Immigration
HK5
SD4
83N
00AMM
83Y
83O
00AMN
4T4
A8W
ZT4
TK6
009LP
Mr Andrews
Mr Cadman
Ms Hall
Mr Hartsuyker
Ms Hoare
Mrs Hull
Ms Ley
Mr Melham
Mr Pearce
Mr Somlyay
Dr Southcott
Mr Windsor
346
43
The humble Petition of the Citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth:
That we re affirm our support for the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia which states “Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth” (Constitution Act 9th July 1900) and the affirmation of 69% of our Australian population that they are Christians, and the statement of one of our founders that “this Commonwealth of Australia from its first stage will be a Christian Commonwealth” (Sir John Downer 1898), and the Opening Prayer of the Parliaments “Almighty God we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory” and recognises the importance of these beliefs in ensuring the ongoing stability and unity of our Christian nation.
Your petitioners therefore pray the Parliament of Australia will:
-
Review our Commonwealth Immigration Policy to ensure the priority for Christians from all races and colours, especially from persecuted nations, as both immigrants and refugees.
-
Adopt a ten year moratorium on Muslim immigration, so an assessment can be made on the social and political disharmony currently occurring in the Netherlands, France and the UK, so as to ensure We avoid making the same mistakes; and allow a decade for the Muslim leadership and community in Australia to reassess their situation so as to reject any attempt to establish an Islamic nation within our Australian nation.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
21
HK5
Mr Andrews
Mr Andrews (from 21 citizens)
15
SD4
Mr Cadman
Mr Cadman (from 15 citizens)
59
83N
Ms Hall
Ms Hall (from 59 citizens)
23
00AMM
Mr Hartsuyker
Mr Hartsuyker (from 23 citizens)
64
83Y
Ms Hoare
Ms Hoare (from 64 citizens)
28
83O
Mrs Hull
Mrs Hull (from 28 citizens)
58
00AMN
Ms Ley
Ms Ley (from 58 citizens)
12
4T4
Mr Melham
Mr Melham (from 12 citizens)
17
A8W
Mr Pearce
Mr Pearce (from 17 citizens)
5
ZT4
Mr Somlyay
Mr Somlyay (from 5 citizens)
11
TK6
Dr Southcott
Dr Southcott (from 11 citizens)
33
009LP
Mr Windsor
Mr Windsor (from 33 citizens)
Immigration: Asylum Seekers
LS4
Mr Martin Ferguson
14
43
To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following motion:
‘That this Synod regrets the Government’s adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;
and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.’
We, therefore, the individual, undersigned attendees at St James’ Anglican Church, Thornbury, Vic. 3071, petition the House of Representatives in support of the above mentioned Motion.
AND we, as in duty bound will ever pray.
14
LS4
Mr Martin Ferguson
Mr Martin Ferguson (from 14 citizens)
Immigration: Asylum Seekers
UK6
Mr Kelvin Thomson
27
44
To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following motion:
‘That this Synod regrets the Government’s adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;
and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.’
We, therefore, the individual, undersigned attendees at St Linus’ Anglican Church, Merlynston, Vic. 3058, petition the House of Representatives in support of the above mentioned Motion.
AND we, as in duty bound will ever pray.
27
UK6
Mr Kelvin Thomson
Mr Kelvin Thomson (from 27 citizens)
Immigration: Asylum Seekers
E0F
Mr Wood
27
44
To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:
Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following motion:
‘That this Synod regrets the Government’s adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;
and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.’
We, therefore, the individual, undersigned attendees at St James’ Anglican Church, Thornbury, Vic. 3071, petition the House of Representatives in support of the above mentioned Motion.
AND we, as in duty bound will ever pray.
27
E0F
Mr Wood
Mr Wood (from 27 citizens)
Medical Services
DZY
83K
Mr Georganas
Ms Roxon
363
44
Petition to the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, the crisis in medical workforce due to the neglect of the Howard Government.
Your petitioners therefore ask the House to:
-
Increase the number of undergraduate university places for medical students,
-
Increase the number of medical training places, and
-
Ensure Australia trains enough Australian doctors, nurses and other medical professionals to maintain the quality care provided by our hospitals and other health services in the future.
344
DZY
Mr Georganas
Mr Georganas (from 344 citizens)
19
83K
Ms Roxon
Ms Roxon (from 19 citizens)
Workplace Relations
4T4
Mr Melham
60
44
To the Honourable Speaker of the House and Members of the House assembled in the Parliament:
The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that Australian employees will be worse off as a result of the Government’s proposed changes to the industrial relations system.
The petitioners call upon the Government to adopt a plan to an industrial relations system based on fairness and equity.
The petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Government:
-
Guarantees that no individual Australian employee will be worse off under proposed changes to the industrial relation system.
-
Allows the National Minimum Wage to continue to be set annually by the independent umpire, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
-
Guarantees that unfair dismissal law changes will not enable employers to unfairly sack employees.
-
Ensures that workers have the right to reject individual contracts and bargain for decent wages and conditions collectively.
60
4T4
Mr Melham
Mr Melham (from 60 citizens)
Workplace Relations
LS4
Mr Martin Ferguson
110
45
To the Honourable Speaker of the House and Members of the House assembled in Parliament:
The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that Australian employees will be worse off as a result of the Howard Government’s proposed changes to the industrial relations system.
The petitioners call upon the Howard Government to adopt a plan to produce a fair industrial relations system based on fairness and the fundamental principles of minimum standards, wages and conditions; safety nets; an independent umpire; the right to associate; and the right to collectively bargain.
The petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Howard Government:
-
Guarantees that no individual Australian employee will be worse off under proposed changes to the industrial relation system.
-
Allows the National Minimum Wage to continue to be set annually by the independent umpire, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
-
Guarantees that unfair dismissal law changes will not enable employers to unfairly sack employees.
-
Ensures that workers have the right to reject individual contracts and bargain for decent wages and conditions collectively.
-
Keeps in place safety nets for minimum wages and conditions.
-
Adopt Federal Labor’s principles to produce a fair system based on the fundamental principles of minimum standards, wages and conditions; safety nets; an independent umpire; the right to associate; and the right to collectively bargain.
110
LS4
Mr Martin Ferguson
Mr Martin Ferguson (from 110 citizens)
Environment: Climate Change
KL6
Mr Andren
20
45
To the Honourable Speaker of the House and Members of the House assembled in Parliament:
We, the undersigned, recognise that human-induced global warming is a serious problem confronting Australia’s future and that the current policies and actions of the Australian Government are inadequate to address this global challenge.
The current Mandatory Renewable Energy Target of 950OGWh per year (2%) is likely to be met by December 2006. Once this target is met, investment in the Australian renewable energy industry will cease, as new generators will not be guaranteed access to Australia’s expanding energy market.
At the same time, the Government is investing large sums into unproven ‘clean coal’ technologies.
Your petitioners request the House to call on the Government to:
-
provide a large increase in support for renewable energy research and development; and
-
increase the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target for electricity retailers to 50,000GWh/yr (10%) by 2010 and 100,000GWh/yr (20%) by 2020.
20
KL6
Mr Andren
Mr Andren (from 20 citizens)
Australia Post: Services
MT4
Mr Broadbent
372
45
To the Honourable Speaker of the House and Members of the House assembled in Parliament:
The petition of certain electors of the Division of McMillan draws to the attention of the House that due to the large number of elderly people and young families in the area, there is a definite need for a post office sub-branch with bill paying services to be installed at the local supermarket in Elizabeth Street, Moe Heights. For many residents accessing the nearest postal box in the Moe Heights area means crossing a busy main road. Those people with no means of private transport must rely on public transport into the Central Business District and then often wait in a long queue to be served. Australia Post has refused the residents request for the postal box to be moved back to Elizabeth Street and showed no interest in installing a post office in the Moe Heights Area.
Your petitioners therefore ask the House to request that Australia Post do not retain our comments on file for consideration when they next review the postal facilities in the Moe area, but rather that they review the situation immediately and provide a much needed service in the area for their customers.
372
MT4
Mr Broadbent
Mr Broadbent (from 372 citizens)
Dental Health
DZY
Mr Georganas
30
46
Petition to the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, the long dental waiting lists and under funding of our public dental system.
Your Petitioners therefore ask the House to:
-
Re-introduce the Commonwealth Dental Scheme and restore funding to public dental health,
-
Reduce waiting times for public dental health services, and
-
Train more public dentists.
30
DZY
Mr Georganas
Mr Georganas (from 30 citizens)
Blood Donation
DZY
Mr Georganas
4
46
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, the current review, required under the Australian-United States Free Trade Agreement, of the offshore processing of blood plasma products from blood donated by Australians.
There are wide spread concerns about the impact on volunteer donors if Australian blood is processed overseas. Australians who donate their blood have the right to ask if competition for the sake of the Australia/US FTA is more important to the Howard Government than the guarantee of one of the safest blood supply systems in the world.
Your petitioners ask the House to ensure that:
-
Australian plasma is not shipped offshore for processing;
-
Blood products will not become unaffordable or unavailable to those people in Australia with rare blood disorders;
-
Australia maintains self sufficiency in blood and blood products; and
-
Australia’s voluntary blood donation system is not undermined.
4
DZY
Mr Georganas
Mr Georganas (from 4 citizens)
Television Sports Broadcasting
DZY
Mr Georganas
9
46
Petition to the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:
The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:
-
The Socceroos’ international games attract the attention and support of the Australian population;
-
Socceroo matches deserve at least equal status to Australia’s international cricket and rugby matches;
-
The Socceroo’s international performance is of national importance and is of cultural significance; and
-
Socceroo matches warrant being televised on free-to-air television.
Your petitioners therefore ask the House to:
-
Recognise soccer as a national game and provide support for its ongoing development in the Australian community;
-
Recognise the Socceroo’s international games as events of national importance and cultural significance; and
-
Return competitions involving the Socceroos to free-to-air television.
9
DZY
Mr Georganas
Mr Georganas (from 9 citizens)
Depleted Uranium
83N
Ms Hall
55
47
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
We, citizens of the Shortland Electorate, call on the Federal Government:
-
To put an end to the purchase and use of all uranium-containing weapons
-
To allow scientists to freely investigate the human and environmental costs of the use of such weapons
-
Immediately commence an independent study of all civilians in conflict zones and Australian combatants, to investigate the nature and extent of radiation and heavy metal sickness
-
Grant immediate compensation for all combatants affected by radiation and heavy metal
-
Commence an immediate clean up at the US, UK, and Australian Governments expense, of all areas contaminated with DU residue
-
Provide information for the public on the sites where DU was used in Australia prior to 1990, and evidence of subsequent clean up efforts (if any)
-
Immediately end negotiations over the use of Australian land for weapons testing:
Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to ensure that the issue of Depleted Uranium is addressed as a matter of urgency
55
83N
Ms Hall
Ms Hall (from 55 citizens)
Clarence River
00AMM
Mr Hartsuyker
2516
47
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
This petition of concerned citizens draws the attention of the House to our opposition to any proposal to transfer water from the Clarence River system to south east Queensland.
We support the position of Luke Hartsuyker, Steve Cansdell and Chris Gulaptis who oppose any proposal to divert water from the Clarence River System for the purpose of supporting unsustainable development in another State.
We therefore pray that the House reject any such proposal.
2516
00AMM
Mr Hartsuyker
Mr Hartsuyker (from 2,516 citizens)
Immigration
83O
Mrs Hull
225
47
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House the circumstances here are that Yanktaiva and his wife Sundramna are descendants of Indian migrants of the Island of Fiji.
They were disposed. in the civil troubles of Fiji and their land was taken from them.
They sought refuse in Australia with their only daughter Ashwini, who has since married an Australian and has two Australian Citizen children.
Since the 1st December 1996, Yanktaiya and Sundramma have made many deep friendships in the Griffith community. Yanktaiya has one brother and one sister and their families living in Australia.
It would be harsh and cruel for them to live in Fiji in poverty whilst awaiting to join their daughter in Australia.
Your petitioners therefore request the House that this petition. be directed to the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, that he exercise the powers vested in him by the 1mrnigration Act 1958 to allow the said Yanktaiya and Sundramma to apply for residence.
225
83O
Mrs Hull
Mrs Hull (from 225 citizens)
Indigenous Australians
XS4
Dr Lawrence
293
47
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
The petition of:
The National Sorry Day Committee, The Stolen Generations and Indigenous and Non Indigenous Australians
Draws to the attention of the house that:
-
26 May 2007 marks the 10 year anniversary of the tabling of the Bringing Them Home Report in the Federal Parliament.
-
Recommendation 5A of the Bringing Them Home Report.
That all Australian Parliaments
1. Officially acknowledge the responsibility of their predecessors for the laws, policies and practices of forcible removal.
2. Negotiate with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission a form of words for official apologies to Indigenous individuals, families and communities.
3. Make appropriate reparation as detailed in following recommendations.
The National Sorry Day Committee, The Stolen Generations and Indigenous and Non Indigenous Australians call the Prime Minister Mr John Howard, in this Election Year, to Say Sorry to the Indigenous People who have been affected by the Forced Removal Policies.
That the Undersigned Petitioners ask the House to table the National Sorry Day Committee “SAY SORRY PRIME MINISTER” Petition requesting the Prime Minister The Honourable Mr John Howard to apologise to the Indigenous People of Australia. Specifically the Stolen Generations, their families, communities and descendants who have been affected by the Forced Removal Policies.
The Undersigned
293
XS4
Dr Lawrence
Dr Lawrence (from 293 citizens)
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: Infliximab
VH4
Mr McArthur
16
48
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the need to have the medication Infliximab (Remicade) listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for the treatment of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, collectively known as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
Study results show Infliximab significantly decreases debilitating pain and inflammation and considerably improves quality of life for people with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. The benefits are also maintained over time, leading to reduced symptoms and hospitalisation.
People suffering IBD receive Infliximab as a last resort, when conventional treatments have failed and surgery is usually the only other option. But currently, there is great inequity of access to this life changing drug in Australia.
Patients requiring regular treatment are required to pay around $30,000 annually to personally fund their Infliximab infusions. As most are unable to maintain a job due to their symptoms, the proposition of this extra financial burden causes IBD sufferers extreme distress and anxiety.
Your petitioners therefore request the House takes appropriate action to ensure Infliximab be made available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) as a matter of priority.
16
VH4
Mr McArthur
Mr McArthur (from 16 citizens)
Gorton Electorate: Medicare Office
00AN3
Mr Brendan O’Connor
215
48
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the failure of the federal Government to establish a Medicare office in the federal electorate of Gorton.
Recognising the rapid expansion in population in the western Melbourne corridor and the associated need for federal government services, your petitioners call on the House to support the establishment of a Medicare office in the federal electorate of Gorton.
215
00AN3
Mr Brendan O’Connor
Mr Brendan O’Connor (from 215 citizens)
Meals Plus
E09
Ms Owens
29
48
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that:
-
Parramatta has the largest population of homeless outside Sydney’s CBD
-
There are an estimated 500 homeless people in Parramatta each night and the number of people relying on homelessness services is steadily increasing.
-
Demand for services in the area is clearly outstripping available funds. Many local services are now at risk and a successful 2 year pilot project, Meals Plus is at threat of closing in spite of a recent NSW Government commitment to provide 50% of the required funds.
-
The Federal Government has actually decreased base funding for the homeless under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) Agreement (2005-2010), despite an independent evaluation which found that a 15 per cent increase was required just to maintain the viability of existing services.
-
The Federal Government has required states and territories to match its funding, but as needs increased, has steadfastly refused to match additional funding provided by the NSW Government.
-
The Federal Government’s refusal has threatened the viability of essential services for the homeless in the Parramatta area.
-
An urgent increase in Federal Government funding is required to maintain existing services for the homeless in and around Parramatta.
Your petitioners therefore request the House to call on the Howard Government to:
Increase Federal Government SAAP funding so that services are able to meet unmet demand and be better resourced to help homeless persons and persons at risk of homelessness in and around Parramatta.
29
E09
Ms Owens
Ms Owens (from 29 citizens)
Medibank Private: Sale
E09
Ms Owens
7
49
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament to oppose the sale of Medibank Private:
This petition of certain citizens of Australia registers its protest to the sale of Medibank Private and calls on the House to oppose the sale of Medibank Private.
7
E09
Ms Owens
Ms Owens (from 7 citizens)
Workplace Relations
E09
Ms Owens
82
49
To the Honourable Speaker of the House and Members of the House assembled in Parliament:
The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that Australian employees are worse off as a result of the Howard Government’s changes to the industrial relations system.
The petitioners call upon the Howard Government to adopt a plan to produce a fair industrial relations system based on fairness and the fundamental principles of minimum standards, wages and conditions; safety nets; an independent umpire; the right to associate; and the right to collectively bargain.
The petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Howard Government delivers:
-
Proper rights for Australian workers who are unfairly dismissed.
-
A strong safety net of minimum awards and conditions.
-
An independent umpire to ensure fair wages and conditions, and to settle disputes.
-
The right for employees to bargain collectively for decent wages and condition:
-
The right for workers to reject individual contracts which cut pay and conditions, and undermine collective bargaining and union representation.
-
The right to join a union and be represented by a union.
82
E09
Ms Owens
Ms Owens (from 82 citizens)
Internet
E09
Ms Owens
556
49
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that:
-
Many aged pensioners have a computer and would like to be connected to the internet but cannot afford the initial connection costs and on-going monthly fees and charges.
-
We request that the Government consider subsidising connection costs and on-going fees and charges for age pensioners not connected to this service.
556
E09
Ms Owens
Ms Owens (from 556 citizens)
Nuclear Waste
83K
Ms Roxon
1324
50
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House its objection to a nuclear reactor or high level nuclear waste dump being built in our area. Your petitioners therefore request the House to reject any nuclear reactors or high level nuclear waste dumps being built in our community.
1324
83K
Ms Roxon
Ms Roxon (from 1,324 citizens)
Organ Harvesting
GT4
Mr Truss
238
50
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament:
The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that:
A Canadian report released on 6 July 2006 came to the conclusion that China has been committing crimes against humanity, that the authorities have been harvesting vital organs from thousands of unwilling Falun Gong practitioners and killing them in the process. Mr David Kilgour, a former Canadian MP and Secretary of State for Asia Pacific, and international human rights lawyer Mr David Matas initiated an independent investigation into the allegations of organ harvesting from live victims.
“We have concluded that the government of China and its agencies in numerous parts of the country, in particular hospitals but also detention centres and ‘people’s courts’, since 1999 have put to death a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience. Their vital organs, including hearts, kidneys, livers and corneas, were virtually simultaneously seized involuntarily for sale at high prices, sometimes to foreigners, who normally face long waits for voluntary donations of such organs in their home countries.”—Pg. 44 of the report.
YOUR PETITIONERS THEREFORE REQUEST THE HOUSE TO INITIATE A RESOLUTION TO:
-
Urge the CCP to unconditionally release all Falun Gong practitioners and give full access to jails, labour camps, detention centres and related hospitals for the Coalition to Investigate Persecution of Falun Gong in China (CIPFG) and/or the UN to conduct independent investigations;
-
Establish a Senate Committee Inquiry into the allegation of Organ Harvesting;
-
Discourage Australian citizens from travelling to China for organ transplants; and prevent companies, institutions and individuals providing goods and services and training to China’s organ transplant programs until such time as it is beyond reasonable doubt that no organs used have been harvested against the will of the donor.
238
GT4
Mr Truss
Mr Truss (from 238 citizens)
Dental Health
009LP
Mr Windsor
323
50
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
Draws attention of the House of the inadequacy of Dental Health Care which can lead to life threatening diseases.
Your petitioners therefore request the House that we, the undersigned, implore you to introduce a National Dental Health Scheme, as a matter of urgency, to be funded by a 1% levy of taxable income, this amount to be added on to the Medicare levy.
323
009LP
Mr Windsor
Mr Windsor (from 323 citizens)
Petitions received.
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
50
Private Members' Business
United Kingdom: Pensions
50
50
15:27:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
0
Mr FAWCETT
—I move:
That the House:
-
notes that:
-
over 242,000 British pensioners living in Australia have their pensions frozen in value and thus not increased when the pensions in the United Kingdom (UK) receive annual increases;
-
this practice of freezing these pensions is wholly unfair and discriminatory: many UK pensioners living overseas do have their pensions increased annually, as expected, given their lifelong mandatory payments into the national UK scheme and in contrast, Australia fully indexes the pensions of its expatriate pensioners living in the UK; and
-
calls on the Australian Government to take this issue to the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Kampala in October 2007 and to urge the UK Government to end the unfairness in the current indexation of overseas UK pensions.
If you go to the website of the UK Department for Work and Pensions—the department which since June has been overseen by the Rt Hon. Peter Hain—it states that the pension service supports pensioners by helping them to receive all that they are entitled to. It talks about how it helps people with planning for their future and planning the appropriate pension. The reality is that here in Australia there are some 242,000 residents who are eligible for a UK pension, but these pensions are frozen. So, unlike the remainder of pensioners in the UK and those in many other parts of the world whose pensions are indexed on a yearly basis, these people have their pensions frozen. Sometimes they are frozen at quite low levels. There was one lady living in Sydney who at 99 years old was starting to worry about whether she could afford her funeral costs. Her pension from the UK was just £4.50 a week since she arrived here in 1969. The Australian government had done the right thing and topped up her pension. The value of the top-up to her since her arrival was in the order of some £60,000. But it should not be that way.
Unlike the system here where employers make contributions to superannuation schemes and people who have no other means may receive a pension, people in the UK are required to pay into a pension scheme. For women once they have paid in for 10 years, and for men once they have paid in for 11 years, to the national insurance fund they are entitled to a pension. That fund has grown to be quite large. It pays pensions to anyone who is entitled to them—all around the world with the exception of a few countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. UK pensioners living in other countries such as Turkey, the Philippines, the USA, Israel, the European Union, Barbados, Jamaica, Cyprus, Malta, Mauritius and others—like pensioners in the UK—have their pensions indexed. But people here do not.
The UK government have consistently said that they will maintain this discrimination because they say that they cannot afford to update the pensions and pay these people what they are owed. Again, bear in mind that, unlike our system, these people have paid into this scheme with the full expectation that they will receive the pension and that that pension will be indexed. After all, the UK Department for Work and Pensions advertises on its website that people can plan for their future knowing their pension amount and that the department is there to make sure that people get what they earn. Their argument is that they cannot afford to do it. But in January this year Christopher Daykin, who is the government actuary in the UK, tabled a report which says in paragraph 1.5 of the summary:
On the basis of the estimates in this report, no Treasury grant is required for this insurance fund—
in other words, the pension fund—
in 2007-08, as the balance in the fund at 31st March 2008 is estimated to be £43,292 million ... and so significantly exceeds one-sixth of estimated benefit payments in 2007-08—
Those payments are the benefit payments that the fund is required to hold in there. It is estimated that the growth will continue. The report says:
Estimates for the period up to 2011-12 suggest that the National Insurance Fund will continue to grow, reaching over 90% of estimated benefit payments by 31 March 2012.
The UK government is clearly in a position where it can afford to pay this benefit. It is also discriminatory in that other countries do have it paid. The UK pensions minister recently agreed that there was no need to have bilateral arrangements—that they could change their arrangements in the UK to index this if they wanted to. People are now taking this to the European Court of Human Rights to highlight the fact that this discrimination occurs. The people in Australia will benefit from this payment because Centrelink have confirmed that they will keep 60c in every extra dollar coming from the UK.
I ask the Prime Minister to take this information to CHOGM and to the new British Prime Minister and make sure that he ends discrimination against British pensioners. This is a burden on the Australian people that we have been bearing with good grace, but we would not have to bear it if the British government did what they are morally obliged to do.
52
15:32:00
Byrne, Anthony, MP
008K0
Holt
ALP
0
0
Mr BYRNE
—I am pleased to speak today on this issue of great importance to retirees from the United Kingdom who are living in this country. I have been advised that there are over 242,000 people living in Australia receiving payments from the United Kingdom who have had their pensions frozen. Contrast this with British expatriates living in the United States, the European Union and a number of other countries outside the Commonwealth. They receive a fully indexed pension.
It seems extraordinary that residents from the same country are arbitrarily discriminated against purely on the basis of where they chose to reside. An example is contained in a video that was uploaded to YouTube in an attempt highlight the nature of this issue. This video explains it quite succinctly. It refers to a fellow called Ron who is a British expat living in the US. He retired in 1999 and moved to the United States for his lifestyle. As another example, Bob is a British expat living in Australia who retired in 1999 and moved to Australia to be with his grandchildren. In 1999 Ron received a pension of £66.75 a week. While living in the US he now receives £84.25 a week from the British government. In 1999 Bob received a pension of £66.75 a week and eight years later, in 2007, Bob still receives £66.75 a week. This is only one example and there are clearly many more, including some British expat pensioners in their 90s who receive only £10 a week. We heard from the member for Wakefield that we have got one who is receiving £4 a week, the same amount they received when they moved to Australia in the 1970s.
In 2001 the Howard government terminated Australia’s social security agreement with the United Kingdom. The termination of the agreement was announced in an attempt to force the UK government to address conditions such as the non-indexation of pensions. This attempt, I think, has clearly failed. The consequence is that, in addition to pensions now not being indexed, new arrivals from the UK of pension age now need to accrue 10 years residence in Australia to qualify for the Australian age pension. Six years later I believe the Howard government has saved a lot of money by not paying pensions. But what about those people who have come in good faith to this country; what about the government negotiating a new agreement with the British government pertaining to their pensions?
In my electorate of Holt there are over 7,400 residents who were born in the United Kingdom. A significant proportion of these people came prior to 1991 and a significant proportion will have moved to Australia after spending their working lives in the United Kingdom. They have settled in large numbers in Cranbourne, Hampton Park and Doveton. They did this to spend time with children and grandchildren and because they enjoy the Australian lifestyle and climate. A retired British expat settling in Hampton Park in 1991 would have received a pension of £52 a week. If this situation had continued, that same British expat would have received a frozen pension of about £52 a week. If this British expat had settled in the US or the Philippines, the pension would be over £80.
The UK government’s main reason for not indexing pensions is the cost. It would cost roughly £420 million a year, we believe, to unfreeze these pensions. It is argued that the policy change would be unfair to taxpayers in the UK and that the British government would need to negotiate bilateral agreements with each country individually to change the indexing. These arguments are difficult to swallow for the many British retirees living abroad, particularly when the UK National Insurance Fund Account balance—on the figures that I have—is £38 billion and increasing each year. This is £27 billion more than the UK government actuary’s required minimum working balance. Indexing the pension would only make a small difference to the growing balance of the National Insurance Fund Account, which it is estimated will reach almost £70 billion by 2012.
According to British Pensioners in Australia Inc, the pensions of 490,000 British expats are indexed by the UK government—these recipients are residing in the United States, the European Economic Area and countries such as the Philippines and Turkey. Reports indicate that a simple change to British law would enable the indexation of pensions in countries such as Australia. Bilateral agreements would not be necessary for this change to occur.
The important point for this chamber and for the Australian government to realise is that this is not just Australia’s battle. Whilst the largest proportion of British expats are in Australia, there are many others who are affected worldwide. Other Commonwealth countries, in particular, also have organisations lobbying for change. This is an issue that is not difficult to fix up. I have a lot of constituents in my electorate who have been affected by this. They deserve to have an outcome. They deserve to be paid their pension entitlement—the one they have paid into for much of their working lives. (Time expired)
53
15:37:00
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)
—I believe that, in the changeover between the Speaker and me, we failed to get a seconder. Would the member for Kingston second the motion before he begins his speech.
53
15:37:00
Richardson, Kym, MP
E0B
Kingston
LP
1
0
Mr RICHARDSON
—I second the motion. I rise today to support the motion before the House. Australia now has 242,200 residents whose UK non means tested state pensions are frozen. These represent about 46 per cent of the 520,000 UK pensioners worldwide who do not receive regular inflation upgrading to their UK pensions. A further 150,000 living in Canada, 35,000 living in South Africa and 34,000 living in New Zealand are similarly affected. This practice of freezing pensions is wholly unfair and discriminatory—across the nation, let alone in my electorate of Kingston. Many UK pensioners living overseas do have their pensions increased annually, as expected given their lifelong mandatory payments into the national UK scheme, and Australia fully indexes the pensions of its expatriate pensioners living in the UK.
The UK pension arises because everybody who has worked in the UK—that is, for about 10 years for women and 11 years for men—pays into the National Insurance, NI, fund each week, and it is from this fund that today’s contributors fund state pensions for today’s pensioners. About 450,000 UK expat pensioners do receive regular inflation adjustments courtesy of bilateral agreements. These fortunate pensioners live in such countries as Turkey, the Philippines, the USA, Israel and the EU countries. Because of this illogical state of affairs, it is claimed that the UK pensioners in Australia, Canada et cetera are being discriminated against on the basis of their country of domicile. The UK government complains that it does not wish to impose on current contributors the cost of £420 million per year to up-rate all pensioners worldwide and that contributions are for the pensioners at home. Currently this claim is a fabrication, because the NI account has a forecast balance at 4 August of £43.3 billion. The actuary writes that it ‘is significantly above the required prudential balance’.
This prudential balance should be about £11.7 billion. The forecast excess funds therefore approximate to £31.6 billion. Four hundred and twenty million pounds per year represents about 0.53 per cent—a mere fraction—of the total £75 billion annual 2007-08 income from NI contributions. Pension fraud alone cost the UK government many times this amount. Moreover, interest income for the NI fund approximates to £1.6 billion per year in a low-interest, low-dividend environment. By expats living away from the UK, almost £1 billion per annum in National Health costs are saved, significantly more than the cost of the indexed pensions that pensioners are trying to recover. This alleged discrimination is the subject of an ongoing legal case, which has been heard and lost in the House of Lords. Lord Carswell, however, dissented. He was of the opinion: ‘There is no justification for paying some pensioners less than others.’
In support of this approach, the Commonwealth’s Singapore 1971 and Harare 1991 declarations unanimously commit the Commonwealth Heads of Government to foster human equality among all in the Commonwealth. One must ask why some Commonwealth residents, with indexed pensions, are treated more equally than others, who do not have their UK pensions indexed.
Britain boasts of and promotes its adherence to the rule of law, which, when defined, includes the fact that British law is supposed to be even-handed, promoting equality and fairness as its main aims. Again, how does this rank when one considers the treatment meted out to those UK expat pensioners who have chosen to retire mainly to Commonwealth countries? I reiterate: Australia fully indexes the pensions of its expatriate pensioners living in the UK. I call on the Australian government to take this issue to the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Kampala in October 2007 and I urge the UK government to end the unfairness in the current indexation of overseas UK pensions.
54
15:42:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—I rise to speak on this motion because hundreds of thousands of Australians are suffering as a result of the Howard government’s termination of Australia’s social security agreement with United Kingdom on 1 March 2001. There is no question that these people are under pressure from the rising cost of living, whether it be in grocery prices, in gas and electricity bills, in petrol prices—the list goes on.
It is true that the Howard government attempted to force the UK government to address some of the conditions of the agreement, specifically the nonindexation of UK pensions paid in Australia. However, it was a crude tactic and a failure that has left many senior Australians and residents entitled to a British pension worse off. As a result of this government’s decision to terminate the agreement, we now have new arrivals of pension age from the UK not able to access an Australian age pension for up to 10 years, and former Australian residents will no longer be able to claim a non means tested UK retirement pension using their Australian residence. I say to the Prime Minister: how do you expect these older Australians to maintain even a modest standard of living in retirement?
Over six years after it foolishly ripped up the old arrangements, the Howard government has failed to secure a new agreement. From Labor’s point of view, this is simply not good enough. A new social security agreement with the United Kingdom will be a priority for the next Labor government. Securing such a change of course will be difficult; however, the Labor Party believe a solution can be found, and we will put our shoulder to the wheel to get an agreement. These issues matter. They matter because there are so many senior Australians from the United Kingdom who deserve our support.
Recently Labor initiated a Senate inquiry into the cost-of-living pressures facing senior Australians. That is particularly important in this debate regarding the senior Australians from the UK who are suffering because the Howard government is unable to get an agreement with the UK government. What we wanted was to listen to the concerns of our senior Australians, to understand the pressures on them from the cost-of-living rises.
According to the submissions to the inquiry from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and National Seniors, the living costs of aged pensioner households have seen the highest increase compared to those of other household groups. Even the submission to the inquiry of the government’s own Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs admits that over 25 per cent of senior Australians—that is, over one in four senior Australians—describe themselves as ‘just getting along’.
There was a submission to the Senate inquiry from a National Seniors group in Queensland which looked into the cost of the weekly grocery shop. Buying the items on the list cost $55 two years ago but may cost $75 today at the local supermarket. They go through a number of items: bread two years ago cost 89c but now costs $1.29, margarine was $3 but now is $4.20, a kilogram of mince two years ago was $3 but now is $8, and a cooked chicken was $5.99 two years ago and is now $10.50.
The Salvation Army highlighted the problems starkly in their submission when they said:
A significant percentage of older Australians presenting for assistance at Salvation Army services are assisted with food and/or food vouchers.
Fuel and utility costs have also hit many senior Australians very hard. From the inquiry we heard that many senior Australians are going to bed early or sitting in cold living rooms to save power. This is the reality for senior Australians under this current government. Unfortunately, they include many senior Australians from the UK, who the government has not turned its mind to help. The government seems to be saying to these senior Australians that they have to turn to the Salvation Army or other charities for help. Maybe this is what the Prime Minister means when he says that Australian families have never been better off. (Time expired)
56
15:47:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
1
0
Mrs GASH
—I rise to support this motion on the indexation of United Kingdom pensions. It is only fair that I do so, because of the number of immigrants from the United Kingdom who have retired or settled in Gilmore. The decision of the United Kingdom to freeze the indexation of British pensions in Australia is an unfortunate one. The Australian government readily accepted reciprocal arrangements and still do, but this decision is one that is beyond any influence of ours. Without being seen as being too parochial, in terms of fairness and equity I believe these British pensioners have been ‘dudded’.
The Australian government has, for a number of years, called on the United Kingdom to increase, in line with inflation, the retirement pensions of British pensioners who live overseas, including in Australia. The Australian government, at the highest levels, takes every opportunity to raise this matter with the United Kingdom government. In early 2006 the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon. Mal Brough MP, wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Rt Hon. John Hutton MP, asking him to look afresh at the merits of the United Kingdom government’s position. The response was that the United Kingdom government has no intention of changing their existing policy, because of the cost.
As the majority of member countries of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, CHOGM, are not adversely affected by this policy, I am advised we do not believe they would support raising this issue or supporting the Australian position if it were raised at CHOGM. Despite this, I believe that October’s CHOGM this year provides the ideal opportunity to put the issue on the table to end the unfairness inherent in the approach by the government of the United Kingdom.
I understand also that a consortium of pensioners is taking action against the United Kingdom government on this matter in the European Court of Human Rights. The case is expected to be heard later this year. Like all of the United Kingdom pensioners in Australia, I am hopeful that the court in Strasbourg will find in favour of the pensioners.
In 2005 a British expatriate living in South Africa, Mrs Annette Carson, mounted a legal challenge in the High Court in England. The case was dismissed. The British tabloid the Daily Telegraph says that, despite making full national insurance contributions throughout her working life, Mrs Carson’s pension will never rise above £103.62 because she lives in South Africa. If she returned to Britain, it would be instantly raised. Mrs Carson said:
I can only say that from my point of view it is heartbreaking news for all the very elderly pensioners who are in countries like South Africa and especially Zimbabwe who can not make ends meet. They have difficulty feeding themselves and providing medicine when they are sick. They have been hoping that their position might be alleviated by the House of Lords and they have all been let down.
The Daily Telegraph also reported that the relevant Australian minister at that time, Senator Kay Patterson, exploded when asked to comment on the dismissal of the Carson appeal. ‘I am appalled,’ she protested. ‘I am outraged. How can this happen in a democracy? How can you justify penalising contributors to a mandatory pension scheme? It is morally indefensible.’
Another Australian based expatriate who has been leading the campaign for pension parity, Jim Tilley of Sydney, is also concerned at the ‘apparent bias’ of the judiciary during the Carson case and subsequent appeal. ‘What the judges seem to be saying,’ he complained, ‘is that although the frozen pension policy is discriminatory, it cannot be changed because of what they claim to be the daunting cost to the government.’ Mr Tilley reports that more than 160,000 British expatriates now depend on their Australian entitlement because they can no longer survive on their United Kingdom pensions. ‘The immoral cost to Australia now exceeds $A100 million or £40 million a year,’ he says.
In my mind, I am content that Australia is actively pursuing with the UK government the issue of pension indexation for UK citizens living in Australia and that it will continue to work with the UK government to attempt to resolve this issue. In pursuit of this objective, we welcome efforts by UK pensioners to raise awareness among British parliamentarians of the anomalies in the payment of UK pensions abroad.
There is an inequity and injustice existing that needs to be righted here and we are doing our level best to do that. As long as the British government persists in denying justice to its expatriates, it brings into question the sense of natural justice inherent in British law which has sustained its democracy for a millennium.
If CHOGM does not afford us the window of opportunity we are seeking, we should give consideration to supporting the two Australian frozen pension organisations—the Sydney based British Pensions in Australia group and the Adelaide based British Australian Pensioners Association, who have indicated that they plan to pursue the case. There is no doubt that the British government needs to be lobbied and the best people to do that are the relatives of the British expatriates in Australia and other countries. Despite our very best intentions, we cannot do this alone and need the support of their relatives living in the United Kingdom. We must persist until justice is done. I wish to assure my constituents that I will continue to fight against this injustice. I wish to thank them for the excellent citizens they have become in Australia and how positively they have contributed to the welfare of our nation.
57
15:52:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
0
0
Dr EMERSON
—More often than not motions moved in that part of parliament dealing with private members’ issues are supported by both sides of the parliament, and that is the case here today, but towards the end of my remarks I want to comment on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the motion that is before us on United Kingdom pensions. The core problem is that residents of the UK spend their working lives paying into a social security fund in order to gain eligibility for an age pension. The practice of the UK government for many years has been to freeze the value of their UK pension at the level it is when they leave the United Kingdom. It seems rather unfair for that practice to be adopted because during their working lives these pensioners have made these contributions. It is almost a penalty that when they leave the UK their pensions are frozen. Interestingly, the same treatment is not given to UK residents who go to live in European countries. So, again, applying the practice to Australia but not to other European countries seems to be quite discriminatory.
Australia indexes the pensions of its residents moving to the United Kingdom. So there is fairness being extended by Australia but not being received from the UK government. It was foolish of the Howard government to terminate the social security agreement in 2000. The reason may have been well motivated in seeking to press the UK government to change its position on the freezing of the indexation, but it appears to have blown up in the government’s face because the consequences have been that no progress has been made since that time. New arrivals coming to Australia from the UK cannot access the age pension for up to 10 years. They face a very high cost of living. The Leader of the Opposition, who has joined us in the chamber, has demonstrated most clearly that food prices in particular have risen at much faster rates than the general cost of living, and that is a very big problem for pensioners in general, and particularly for the UK pensioners who do not have their benefits indexed. I have also had a look at electricity prices. Electricity is very important in the spending patterns of pensioners. Electricity prices, too, have risen quite rapidly in Australia over the last few years. Food prices in Australia compared with those in other developed countries have risen at probably twice the rate. So there is something very bad going on there and it is the pensioners who feel the burden.
In my electorate of Rankin, which is wholly within Logan City, there are thousands of UK pensioners, and they are feeling the pressure of these cost-of-living rises. The fact that their UK pension is not indexed is a great penalty to them. I lament the Prime Minister’s statement that Australian families have never been better off. He should get around the electorates more than he does and talk to UK and other pensioners about the high cost of living before he repeats the statement that Australian families have never been better off. It is an insult to Australian families—working age families and pensioners—that the Prime Minister firmly believes that they have never been better off when they face these sorts of pressures.
The problem with this motion relates to the active part of it, which says:
-
calls on the Australian Government to take this issue to the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Kampala in October 2007 and to urge the UK Government to end the unfairness in the current indexation of overseas UK pensions.
The government has had 11 years to deal with this problem and now we have members of parliament on the government side calling on the government to do something. It confirms how out of touch the government is when its own members have to call on the government to go to this heads of government meeting. Other Commonwealth nations will not be interested in this issue. The time for action is now.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Disabled Veterans and Pensions
58
58
15:57:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr RUDD
—I move:
That the House:
-
affirms its recognition of the sacrifices made by Australia’s veterans;
-
accepts its obligation to ensure that veterans’ sacrifices are acknowledged and that benefits earned by veterans are paid to them on a just and fair basis;
-
acknowledges in particular the plight of our most severely disabled veterans;
-
acknowledges that the value of the Special Rate Disability Pension (TPI and TTI), Intermediate Rate and Extreme Disablement Adjustment Pensions have eroded under the Howard government; and
-
supports Labor’s policy to index the remaining portions of the above general rate disability pensions to movements in male total average weekly earnings, in recognition of the more severe work and lifestyle effects suffered by the recipients of these entitlements.
There is perhaps no greater duty that we as a nation and as a parliament have than to honour, remember and express our gratitude to those Australians who have served in the defence of our nation in times of war, because our security and liberty have not come without a price. It is why all of us are immensely proud of all our men and women in uniform—those who have served and returned and the 100,000 Australians who have died in the service of their country. For those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of our nation and in pursuit of peace, their courage and service should never be forgotten. For those veterans who have returned, and especially those with disabilities, we owe an equally great duty. It is why this motion that I have put before this House is so important. All of us share an obligation to ensure that the support we give to our veterans and their families, through pensions, benefits and other services, are given on an ongoing, just and fair basis. In so doing, we need to recognise the circumstances of our most severely disabled veterans and to do all we can to support them and their families to live happy, fulfilling and rewarding lives with as little discomfort and anxiety as possible.
It is particularly disheartening and, I believe, dishonourable that, over the past decade or so, the value of the special rate disability pension—the TPI and TTI—the intermediate rate and extreme disablement adjustment pensions has been eroded. It is why recently I announced that a Labor government would increase benefits for our nation’s most severely disabled war veterans. Labor would index all above general rate pensions to movements in the cost and standard of living. This will mean that TPI, TTI, intermediate and EDA pensioners will be substantially better off if these measures are introduced under a future Labor government. At present, it is only the above general rate component of these pensions that is indexed to movements in the consumer price index and male total average weekly earnings. The general rate component is indexed to CPI. Under Labor’s plans, both components will be indexed to whichever measure delivers more to veterans—CPI or male total average weekly earnings. According to current projections, after the first four years of these increased benefits being paid to our veterans, recipients will be $30 better off each fortnight, giving them an extra $1,700 in their pockets over that time.
In addition, Labor have supported the catch-up payments announced in the recent federal budget for special and intermediate rate pensioners. Our commitment is on top of these payments. This means that, under Labor’s plan, all special rate TPI veterans will get the $50 catch-up payment plus the future security of knowing that payments will be fairly indexed so that they can continue to get the support they need.
Labor’s commitment to veterans pensions will benefit more than 43,000 Australians with disabilities who have fought abroad for our nation in the Second World War, Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, the Gulf War, East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq. Regrettably, the government have indicated that they will not make any changes to the current indexation arrangements for veterans pensions. Labor is committed to increasing the benefits for the most severely disabled veterans in recognition of the more difficult work and lifestyle limitations that they share. I am pleased that the leading veterans groups, including the TPI Federation, the Vietnam Veterans Association, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and the RSL have welcomed Labor’s approach in this area.
The truth is that neither side of politics has got the treatment of our veterans and their families completely right. It is why Labor—and me personally—are deeply committed to ensuring that we recognise, respect and support those who have given our nation the peace, security and prosperity that we all enjoy.
I conclude where I began. There is no more fundamental obligation that we have as a community than to ensure that those who have fought for our country and those who have suffered injury as a consequence of engaging the enemy for our country should be looked after properly by our country. This is a basic axiom of national decency, and that forms the basis for the principles which we have enunciated today. We would encourage the government to reflect again on the position we have put forward in the hope and expectation that they might also support it to ensure that our veterans can have that secure commitment into the future.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—Is the motion seconded?
83R
Edwards, Graham, MP
Mr Edwards
—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
60
16:03:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
0
Mr FAWCETT
—I rise to address this motion on veterans pensions. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we have an obligation to honour and remember those people who served our country and put their lives on the line. As somebody who spent over 22 years in the Defence Force as an army officer, I recognise the huge sacrifice that not only servicemen and servicewomen make but also families make who pay quite a price to release them to that service and often to look after them when they have returned. However, I do have a problem with the words of the opposition leader. He talks about the fact that there is no greater duty than to honour and remember. He says that he is personally deeply committed to supporting our veterans, yet his track record does not show that. I believe this is one of the first speeches he has made about veterans issues since 1998. He has talked about the Kokoda Track and some of the publicity things—although he has not mentioned the false dawn at Long Tan. One has to ask why only now, of all times, he has decided to start talking about this when he says that it is an issue of such deep personal conviction.
I think it is appropriate that they have on their front bench the member for Kingsford Smith, who wrote a song about a short memory. I think they are hoping that the veterans community will have a short memory when they look at the track record of what the ALP have actually done. If you look back to 1996, you will find they made a commitment of only $6.2 billion. Compare that to the government’s commitment now of over $11 billion. At the last election, in terms of new money, the ALP only promised some $17.8 million over four years versus the government’s commitment of over $82.4 million in the area of supporting veterans.
It is instructive to look more broadly into the ALP to see what their thinking is about issues, even specific issues like the TPI pension. In September 2004, at a TPI conference, Senator Mark Bishop said that he thought the special rate should cease at 65 so that veterans were brought into line with community norms. In June this year, he made comments in the Senate that indicated this was still his line of thought. At the Labor national conference this year there was no policy forthcoming. So when the Leader of the Opposition talks about the 11 years that this government has been in charge of that portfolio, it should be noted that, in that time, the Labor Party have not managed to actually develop any policy. The speech at the Labor national conference was just a poor, watered-down version of the ‘I’m listening’ speech.
It is constructive also to look at who did or, more pointedly, who did not, amongst the ALP members currently in the House, actually make a submission to the Clarke review. When it comes to this issue of TPI and indexation—and the Prime Minister talked earlier this month about ‘echonomics’—we are seeing ‘echo policy’ and we are also seeing the shallowness of what the ALP are actually planning. Earlier this year, three days before the budget, they announced their plan for indexing this pension. But what they did not say was that, because the rate of indexation actually cut in later, people on a TPI would only be some $1,700 better off by 2012. But the government’s plan—which is a real increase and one which came into effect in July this year—means that TPI pensioners will be better off by some $7,500 by 2012. Members opposite have complaints in what they are saying today, but you need to look at their track record. If they have been so deeply concerned, why did they not seek to address their concerns and address the catch-up rather than waiting until the government took the initiative to provide that support?
Certainly as you go through the government’s track record you can see that, whilst words come cheap from the other side, the government has actually put in place many meaningful policies—things like upgrading the value of the gold card to make sure that that health service, which is not just for specific war related injuries but for any injuries or illnesses suffered by veterans, is a world-class service. The government has actually brought that back into line, along with many local initiatives. In my own electorate of Wakefield, many of the local Vietnam veterans sub-branches and RSLs have received capital works funding, as well as other funding, to in practice support our veterans and their families. The government places a high value on that. I welcome the commitment of the government to our veterans. (Time expired)
61
16:08:00
Edwards, Graham, MP
83R
Cowan
ALP
0
0
Mr EDWARDS
—I certainly support this motion. I must say that I appreciate Kevin Rudd coming into this House and moving this motion. It is the first time in nine years that I have seen a leader come into this House and move such a motion, let alone speak on it in the way that he has. I have had the opportunity to speak to Kevin on a number of occasions about veterans issues. He has a deep commitment to veterans and a genuine interest, and I suspect that is in part because his brother is a Vietnam veteran.
I also just want to quickly recognise Alan Griffin and say how much I appreciate the job that he has done since he has come in as ALP spokesperson on veterans issues. He is without doubt the best spokesperson on veterans issues on either side of the House that I have seen in my time here—no disrespect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. Alan Griffin has come in with a great degree of interest and sympathy. He is very energetic; he has been out there talking to veterans groups; he has travelled right around Australia; he has listened to them and he has consulted with them—and that is one of the reasons why, since Kevin Rudd has been leader of the ALP and Alan Griffin has been shadow spokesperson, Labor has announced a number of initiatives. We have others which we will announce leading up to the next election.
The previous speaker started by saying that he agrees with what the leader of the ALP had to say and then totally contradicted himself as he spent his whole time rubbishing what the leader of the ALP had to say. The previous speaker also said that veterans affairs policy is a world-class service. So, might I say, is the service that veterans have given over generations to freedom and this country. That too is a world-class service, and it is damn time that governments stopped looking for simple photo opportunities with veterans and started to do something deeper and meaningful to address the issues that they confront.
The former speaker who got up and spoke on this motion said he was an officer in the Australian Defence Force. He turned his back on some of the diggers who have served under him—diggers who are battling out there and are in need of support. What the previous speaker did not say is that this government, since it has been in power, has added very little in real terms to the veterans affairs budget. Let me say that the figures might sound impressive, but do not listen to what members of the government say; look at the figures. Firstly, more than 80 per cent, or $3.7 billion worth of the increase over the past 10 years, has overwhelmingly related to natural cost increases and not to changes in services or benefits for the veterans community. It is an increase that would have occurred had there been no Minister for Veterans’ Affairs over the past 10 years.
The area of income support and compensation is the topic of the opposition leader’s motion today. Apart from this year’s catch-up payment for TPI intermediate rate pensions that addresses erosion caused by inappropriate indexation, the totality of government initiatives over the past 10 years has led to practically no increase in the amount of income paid by the department. I would challenge government members to outline exactly how many of their policies have been about new measures rather than focusing on catch-up payments or the restoration of services that the veterans community are entitled to. Unfortunately, just as we have a clever Prime Minister, a tricky Prime Minister, so too we have a clever and tricky Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. The way he presents figures does not stand up to scrutiny. He might be able to trick his backbench but, let me tell you, he cannot trick members of the veterans community and their families who are out there battling to make ends meet.
We have had strong support from the TPI Association. I note that the National President, ‘Blue’ Ryan, is in the gallery today. We have had strong support from the Vietnam Veterans Federation and the RSL over the initiatives that we have taken. Those initiatives are a direct result and reflection of the commitment that the ALP has to veterans issues under Kevin Rudd. (Time expired)
62
16:13:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
1
0
Mr JOHNSON
—I welcome the opportunity, as the federal member for Ryan, to speak in the House of Representatives on veterans related issues and, indeed, to highlight the Howard government’s achievements, especially in the area of comprehensive health care and support services that are made available to the veteran community. I want to pay tribute to all Australians who have worn the uniform and served their country, as my father and grandfather did. I pay tribute to the member for Cowan for his service and for wearing the uniform for our country. I pay tribute to my colleague and friend the member for Wakefield, who was a helicopter pilot and spent 22 years of service in uniform, representing our country. I express disappointment that anybody in the national parliament would seek to personally question the motivation or goodwill of any colleague in the parliament simply because they put forward a different policy perspective or have a different appreciation of this area of very important policy. Let us move on.
I am very pleased that, as the local member for Ryan, I have a very good working relationship with all the sub-branches of the RSL. Indeed, I was very honoured earlier this year to receive a plaque from two of the RSL sub-branches, the Kenmore-Moggill RSL sub-branch and the Centenary Suburbs RSL sub-branch—of which my father is a member—for the efforts that I make in my local constituency. I am always honoured to attend Anzac Day and Remembrance Day services as a guest of the RSL as the federal member and to pay tribute to all those Australians who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the interests of freedom and democracy and all the values for which this country stands.
During the recess, I had the pleasure of meeting with members of The Gap RSL at a recent meeting, and of speaking about the $4,000 that they had received from the Howard government as a contribution towards their wonderful initiative of building a special new memorial stone in The Gap.
Also, recently the Howard government made a grant of some $21,000 to the Veterans Support and Advocacy Service of Australia, which is based in the suburb of Toowong in the electorate of Ryan. This is a very important funding measure from the Howard government and is just part of a reflection of the contribution and the commitment of the Howard government to veterans affairs and to all important issues that concern the veterans of our country.
I want to make some comments on the areas of health care and support services that the Howard government has invested in for the veterans of Australia. But before I do that, I want to read into the parliamentary record a letter which I received from Mr Doug Formby. Mr Formby is a constituent of mine and a very distinguished Australian. He is now retired but he held, during his time of service, the rank of brigadier in the Australian Army. I think it is very important for all Australians and, in particular, Ryan residents to be aware of the position of the RSL because veterans affairs touch so many people in my electorate. This is what Mr Formby said in his letter to me of 17 April this year:
Dear Mr Johnson.
This letter is in response to your request for a position from the RSL, in regard to the recent events concerning the proposed television coverage of [an] ANZAC Day Dawn Service in South Vietnam.
… … …
I take this opportunity to make plain that the RSL seeks to retain the integrity and focus of ANZAC Day upon its unquestioned and historic place in Australia’s Calendar. ANZAC Day provides an opportunity to all of the people of Australia to pause, reflect and give thanks for the service and sacrifice of the servicemen and women of this country.
ANZAC Day is above politics, religion and any divisions that may [exist] within the community based upon race or ethnic background. The day should never be allowed to be used by any individual or group for any intention other than what it has been traditionally set aside for.
It will be a sad day if the significance of ANZAC Day is in any way diminished by taking away the long accepted ... focus of the day.
Yours Sincerely
Mr Doug Formby
STATE PRESIDENT
I read that into the parliamentary record because I think it is very important to highlight the position of the federal opposition leader in his relationship with veterans and, in particular, his trying to exploit the opportunity of Anzac Day. We all know, of course, the reference there to ‘the proposed television coverage of an Anzac Day dawn service in South Vietnam’ is a reference to attempts to move the time of the dawn service in Vietnam to coincide with Channel 7’s coverage of the service to beam it back into Australia as part of the Sunrise program. Of course, the opposition leader denied all knowledge of that but that proved to be false. (Time expired)
63
16:18:00
Elliot, Justine, MP
DZW
Richmond
ALP
0
0
Mrs ELLIOT
—I fully support the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and feel very privileged today to speak on the importance of honouring and recognising the sacrifice of our veterans. I believe that as individuals, as communities and as governments—and, indeed, as a nation—we are indebted to those courageous Australians who have put their lives on the line in the service of our country. We are also indebted to their families, many of whom have suffered so much.
We are all aware that veterans and their families face a unique set of challenges—challenges with which they should be assisted by the full commitment of the federal government. When it comes to veterans, the federal government has a responsibility—and, indeed, a moral obligation—to ensure that veterans sacrifices are acknowledged and that benefits are paid to them on a fair and just basis. This is a responsibility that federal Labor understands, and we understand the complexity of veterans affairs issues.
The current plight of veterans is particularly felt by our most severely disabled veterans, whose pensions have been steadily eroded under the Howard government. These are the people who have paid a staggering price in the service of our country, and yet they are the ones who have been shamefully neglected by the Howard government.
In contrast, we in the federal Labor Party have outlined our policy to increase benefits for our nation’s most severely disabled war veterans. Essentially, Labor’s proposal will increase the value of the special rate disability pension, TPI and TTI intermediate rate and the extreme disablement adjustment pensions. These pensions, on which thousands of veterans and their families rely as their only source of income, as I said, have steadily eroded under the Howard government. A Rudd Labor government will address this injustice.
The problem is one of indexation. Until 2004, these pensions were indexed only to the CPI. In 2004, after prolonged protest within the veterans community, the government finally agreed to index a component, but not the whole, of the pensions to movements in male total average weekly earnings or the CPI. This inadequate indexation regime has been a longstanding concern within the veterans community. It is estimated that, because of this unfair and unjust indexation regime, the value of the pension has decreased. In the case of the special rate disability pension, the loss in value has been over $70 per fortnight.
In 1997, the Howard government indexed a range of pensions, but the above rate general pension was not one of them. The undeniable result of this decision by the government is that veterans are now struggling to meet the increases in the cost of living. Federal Labor will index the whole of these pensions to the male total average weekly earnings or the CPI, whichever is the greater. This will have a very significant positive impact on thousands of families. I strongly urge the Howard government and members opposite to see the injustice of the system currently in place and to do the right thing and support this motion, because this issue has been one of the greatest concerns in the veterans policy area over the last 10 years.
What we see from the Howard government is a cynical and tired government. They have consistently ignored the difficulties faced by veterans. That is something of which they should be ashamed. Instead of presenting a positive solution to the erosion of these pensions, the current government and minister have resorted to repeatedly telling the veterans community that this is not an important issue and they have never been better off. Quite frankly, I find such comments highly disrespectful. I find many comments made by members opposite today also highly disrespectful to members of the veterans community. They certainly deserve much better than what they have heard today from members opposite.
In contrast, federal Labor has put forward a plan to rectify the area of indexation of the pensions provided to our most severely disabled war veterans. Veterans affairs is an area I have long been concerned about, and the Labor Party is committed to being a strong advocate for veterans and their families. I feel very privileged to be able to represent the hundreds of veterans living in the Richmond electorate. My electorate of Richmond has one of the highest numbers of veterans in the country. I am often very moved by their stories and saddened to hear of the difficulties they and their families face.
Within my electorate alone, Labor’s indexation commitment will affect nearly 700 veterans and their families. Just recently I was very pleased to hold a morning tea with Labor’s shadow minister for veterans affairs in Tweed Heads. I would like to thank the over 100 veterans who attended and raised their concerns about veterans affairs policy. I feel that one local veteran really summed up the sentiment when it comes to veterans affairs when he said: ‘I did what my country asked me to do and they said I’d be looked after. Now they’ve left me behind. We’re not after special treatment just a fair go.’ It is for this reason that I support this motion to make sure our veterans get a fair go.
65
16:23:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
1
0
Mr NEVILLE
—The Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the Repatriation Commission were born out of the Great War 90 years ago. Since then we have seen the department and commission adapt to the changing needs of the veteran community. The demands of the Second World War were enormous and the department grew to be one of the largest departments of the Commonwealth. In the 1990s, Labor sold out the repatriation general hospitals in the stated belief that community hospitals could provide appropriate support for veterans. Some still hotly contest that. Although this reduced the department from 13,000 to 3,000 people, no-one could argue that there was a subsequent reduction in services to veterans.
This government recognises that the DVA and the Repatriation Commission must remain flexible, dynamic and responsive to the needs of veterans. As those heroes of the Second World War and their spouses age, service delivery will obviously have to be adjusted. But with good government and a committed staff, the DVA will continue to meet the needs of our veterans. Over recent years, the coalition has carefully considered the adequacy of the TPI pension and its means of indexation to ensure it achieves its intended purpose. The Clarke review of 2003 said:
Overall, the current special rate disability package is broadly adequate when considered over the veteran’s lifetime.
Having said that, I was one of those who called for improvements to the government’s response to the Clarke review, and my strong support for veterans is well known. I will not wear the charge that I am disrespectful to veterans, as the veterans in my electorate well know. So it angers me that Labor is looking to use veterans as a quick headline by peddling redundant policies and telling untruths about this government’s record of indexation for veterans’ payments. I might point out there were no MTAWE payments under the Labor government, no MTAWE payments at all.
Since 2004, the above general rate component of the TPI pension has been indexed with reference to both the CPI and MTAWE, as it is considered compensation for loss of income. The general rate component of the TPI pension is paid as compensation for pain and suffering, not as compensation for loss of income. As such, it continues to be indexed in line with increases in the CPI to ensure that it retains its value and is not eroded by inflation. They are two separate things. It is important for members to note that veterans who are eligible for the veterans disability pension are also eligible for the service pension, meaning that a large proportion of veterans receive both payments each fortnight.
No government in the world has taken its responsibilities more seriously in its commitment to the care, compensation and commemoration of its veterans and war widows than the government of this country. I know that to be true because of the contacts I have had and the number of functions I go to to honour veterans. More interestingly, a number of people from other Commonwealth and allied countries who come into my office are trying to get the same benefits now that they live in Australia. If our benefits were not the best, why would people be wanting to transfer from overseas entitlements to ours?
The introduction of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme in 2004 has given us a modern, military specific compensation scheme that will meet the needs of a new generation of service personnel and their families. The coalition is spending $6.1 billion on compensation and income support for veterans—an increase of 36 per cent since 1996 and that is well ahead of inflation.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
66
Grievance Debate
Question proposed:
That grievances be noted.
Calwell Electorate: Iraq
66
66
16:27:00
Vamvakinou, Maria, MP
00AMT
Calwell
ALP
0
0
Ms VAMVAKINOU
—Today I rise to speak on behalf of the many constituents living in my electorate of Calwell who currently have family living in Iraq, or family members who have been forced to flee Iraq as refugees. My electorate of Calwell is home to over 5,000 Iraqi Australians. They represent a number of different ethnic and religious groups, all of whom share a strong commitment to Australia.
Whenever I speak with members of the local Iraqi community, our conversations invariably turn to the fate of those family members left behind in Iraq. These conversations bring into sharp focus the untold tragedy of what is happening in Iraq and the effect this war is having on Australia’s own Iraqi community. More than anything else, they are a sobering reminder that innocent civilians are always the first casualties of war.
There is little doubt today that the war in Iraq is increasingly unpopular, both here and overseas. In March 2003, the Howard government was among the first to offer its support for the US led invasion of Iraq. At the time, antiwar rallies held in many of Australia’s capital cities attracted record crowds, reinforcing what numerous opinion polls were saying, namely that the majority of the Australian public was against the war and adamantly against any Australian involvement.
For those of us who opposed the war, who questioned the accuracy of intelligence reports linking Iraq to weapons of mass destruction, who pointed out the absurdity of attempts to link Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda, and who warned of the tragedy that would unfold if we went to war before all diplomatic efforts were exhausted, history has unfortunately proved us right, just as it has proved the Howard government horribly wrong.
We now know that, in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion, the Howard government was given ample warning that Australia’s involvement in Iraq was likely to make us more of a terrorist target, that invading Iraq would likely act as a recruitment tool for both established and newly emerging terrorist organisations and that regional instability caused by an invasion was likely to increase petrol prices. Any cursory knowledge of Iraq’s political history and demographics should have been enough to alert the Howard government to the dangers of civil strife and disintegration if the political vacuum created by the collapse of the Iraqi regime was not filled immediately. Whether through incompetency, neglect or the Howard government’s willingness to abdicate Australia’s independence in determining its own foreign policy, this government chose to ignore all the warning signs. And, by announcing Australia’s involvement in the war, it also chose to ignore the will of the Australian people.
The fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs keeps changing his mind when it comes to pinpointing the exact reasons why Australia went to war in the first place is testament to the ill-conceived nature of Australia’s involvement in Iraq. Initially, our involvement in Iraq focused on its non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Since then, the justifications used by the foreign minister for our involvement in Iraq have included ‘regime change’, creating a beachhead of democracy in the Middle East, protecting Japanese army engineers working in the south of Iraq and ‘security overwatch’. This was, of course, before the defence minister announced that Iraq was actually about oil, a faux pas of gigantic proportions that was quickly retracted by the minister and avidly talked down and denied by the Prime Minister.
Notwithstanding the confusion as to the reasons for Australia’s involvement in Iraq, the Howard government’s preferred approach has been to shut down all debate on Iraq completely by maligning opponents to the war as either terrorist sympathisers or supporters of Saddam Hussein’s regime. This is not the response the Australian public expect when it comes to responsible government.
The damage that our involvement in Iraq has done to Australia’s international standing and to its international reputation is, I believe, comparable to the damage that has been done to Australia’s international standing as a result of this government’s intransigence when it comes to climate change.
The Howard government’s support for the invasion of Iraq fell far short of the international norms and standards used to justify the war. The invasion of Iraq was not authorised by the UN Security Council, it did not fall under the terms of humanitarian intervention and it did not amount to an act of self-defence against an immediate and present danger to Australia’s security and sovereignty. In effect, what the Howard government has done is undermine Australia’s role as a middle power in international affairs, one that pursues multilateral solutions to international problems. It has damaged Australia’s reputation in an international system where reputation remains a vital asset, especially in negotiations. And, through its intransigence and hostility, the Howard government has managed to ostracise the one organisation that a middle power like Australia should be promoting at every possible opportunity for the sake of its own international interests—namely, the United Nations.
Further adding to the charade surrounding the government’s approach to Iraq are the weekend’s revelations that the Prime Minister has written to the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, warning him of a possible Australian troop withdrawal if his government does not do more to curb the violence in Iraq. In the lead-up to an election campaign, and given the unpopularity of our involvement in Iraq, we now find the Prime Minister trying to create the conditions for a possible Australian troop withdrawal from Iraq by blaming the Iraqis for the bloodshed and chaos this war has created.
Australia’s involvement in Iraq has cost the Australian taxpayer some $2 billion. According to AusAID figures released last year, the money Australia has committed to humanitarian aid and reconstruction projects in Iraq amounts to less than one-tenth of this figure. We have spent 10 times more on the invasion of Iraq than we have on helping Iraq get back on its feet, and now we see the Prime Minister trying to pin Iraq’s misfortunes on the Iraqis themselves. This is hypocrisy of the highest order.
The Prime Minister has never tired of misusing Iraq to suit his own political interests and, in the process, he has shown complete disregard for Iraqi civilian life, for the rule of international law, for the will of the Australian people and for Australia’s international reputation.
Iraq is now disintegrating before our eyes. Its civilian population live in fear. Each day adds to the sober headcount of numbers dead, maimed and wounded. Lives are destroyed, children are traumatised and civilians are targeted. Anywhere from 400,000 to 600,000 Iraqis—with some estimates putting that figure a lot higher—have been killed so far. The war has resulted in two million people being internally displaced, and it has created a further two million refugees who have fled across Iraq’s borders.
Recently, a young Assyrian woman named Sophie—who is a constituent of mine—came to see me about her first cousin Aadam, who fled Iraq with his family in late 2006. They now live in Syria as refugees. Before the war, Aadam worked as an industrial chemist in one of Iraq’s oil refineries. Shortly after the war began, he also started work as a consultant for an American company that became involved in the oil refinery where Aadam was employed, following the 2003 invasion. It was not long before Aadam started to receive death threats. Sophie painted a picture of an honest man in Iraq who worked hard to provide for his family and who became caught up in a war he played no part in starting. Each week, Aadam had to live with the pressure of trying to balance the need to provide for his family against the threats he received as a result of his work.
Like so many other Iraqi families who have been affected by the war, Aadam’s story ends tragically. In early June 2006 his eldest son Ninos, who was completing his final year of computer engineering at university, was killed by a bomb that had been placed under his car. Distraught at the death of his eldest son and fearing for the safety of his remaining four children, Aadam and his family fled to Syria, where they remain today. Though recognised by the UNHCR as refugees who face persecution if they return to Iraq, Aadam’s application for a humanitarian visa to live in Australia has been rejected by the Australian government.
There are a hundred similar stories to this one among Iraqi-Australians. They recall the true horror of war and the loss of innocent life. They highlight our failure to provide for the welfare, security and protection of Iraqi civilians. In relation to Australia’s role in the war, they show the extent of the Howard government’s failure to honour its obligations to the many Iraqis who have been displaced and whose lives have been destroyed as a result of this war. The Howard government has a moral and legal duty to help those suffering in Iraq, through its overseas aid program and through Australia’s own humanitarian and refugee visa program. Anything short of this is unacceptable.
Housing Affordability
69
69
16:37:00
Cadman, Alan, MP
SD4
Mitchell
LP
1
0
Mr CADMAN
—I grieve today about the opportunities denied young people to own their own home in the capitals of Australia. Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, I am sure that you are aware because of your knowledge of the area that the cost of a house and land package in Sydney is more than the cost of the equivalent package in New York, San Francisco or Miami. Australia has one of the most expensive homeownership regimes in the world. With taxes and charges of $150,000 per tiny household block of land in Western Sydney, the state government of New South Wales has created some of the most expensive land and house packages in the world.
I will speak to the House today about the theory that interest charges are a significant factor in the cost of a home. Interest rates do have an impact, but not the impact portrayed by some sections of the media and the Australian Labor Party. Some taxes on land have risen by more than 300 per cent in the past five years and the cost of infrastructure that has a life of 30 to 50 years has been loaded onto first home buyers. It is no wonder that homeownership in New South Wales has gone beyond the reach of all but the wealthiest. New houses in Sydney incur total infrastructure charges of $68,233 compared with the actual direct infrastructure cost estimate of $1,752. That difference of roughly $66,000 is paid by first home buyers. These figures are from the Urbis report of November 2006. In fact, local government charges add more than $33,000 to the price of an average block of land and state government charges, including GST, add $115,000 per block. It is no wonder that young people cannot afford their own home.
It is interesting to note the impact of those charges on the amount of mortgage interest paid each month. At the current interest rate of 7.62 per cent on an average mortgage of $550,000, the interest paid on the state government taxes and charges component of $160,000 amounts to $1,130 a month. That is paid every month by new home buyers in Western Sydney just to cover the cost of state and local government charges on their home. The monthly repayment on an average mortgage of $550,000 at the current interest rate of 7.62 per cent is $3,891. Prior to the recent interest rate rise—when the interest rate was 7.37 per cent—the mortgage payment each month was $3,796. The difference in the monthly payment is $94. However, each month homeowners pay $1,100 in interest to cover the taxes and charges imposed on their house and land package.
A number of reports have been prepared, including a Productivity Commission report and reports produced by the Institute of Public Affairs and the Housing Industry Association. Mr Bob Day, the president of the Housing Industry Association, was quoted this year as saying that the artificial barriers that have consigned countless young Australians to a life on the rental merry-go-round have been created by these measures. The report, which was presented by Bob Day and Professor Ron Silberberg, referred to less land and more cost for young people trying to get into the housing market. That is the issue facing those wishing to own their own home in Australia today, not interest rates and rental property availability.
The Australian Labor Party’s proposal to ease pressure on the rental market by providing a concession for rental home builders will make it more difficult for young people to purchase land. There will be more and more competition for a diminishing amount of land being released by the state governments. I will provide the facts about the amount of land available for release. The Australian Land Supply Study released in January states that in 2005-06, 3,150 lots were provided in Sydney, but the underlying trend in demand meant that 5,700 lots should have been released. There was a shortfall of more than 2,500 lots in Sydney last year. Let us project that figure to cover 2006 to 2026. There is a massive difference. The current trend indicates that 69,600 lots will be provided over those 20 years, but that 132,900 will be required. That is a shortfall of more than 50 per cent. The situation in Melbourne is just as bad—housing lots are in short supply. The Australian Labor Party is saying that it will increase demand for the small number of lots available by encouraging renters to purchase land.
One of the interesting quotes from the Property Council and the Urbis study is:
One of the reasons governments have increasingly restricted the supply of developable land has been to curb their infrastructure spending responsibilities. A regrettable parallel policy has also developed whereby state and local governments, particularly in the last five years, are demanding that the costs of any infrastructure associated with residential development be met by the residents living in new apartments or houses, where a developer has supplied that stock to the market.
Instead of the basic direct costs being supplied for things like water, sewage and essential services, now we have road upgrades, public transport services, council libraries and upgrades to water storage and treatment added on to the cost of the land.
One only has to look to see the way in which this has affected the capacity of young people to purchase land. I quote from the same report from the section relating to the area where I live, which is entitled ‘While young families pay more’—in Mosman, the millionaires do not pay any of these costs, but young families in a typical housing estate do:
This typical housing estate in Sydney’s north-west growth corridor is located over 30 kilometres from the city. A typical new four bedroom house and land package will set a young family back $570,240.
Built into that price are $163,000 worth of housing taxes—from the GST to stamp duty ... land tax ... state infrastructure levy, council infrastructure levy and section 94 charges.
Plus, the cost of travelling has been increased by about $14,000 per year for that family. The battlers in New South Wales are being punished. (Time expired)
Water
70
70
16:47:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
0
Mr WINDSOR
—There are two issues that I would like to raise this afternoon that relate to my electorate. They are both based on the water issue. I raised a question in question time today with the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in relation to the proposed BHP Billiton mine on the Liverpool Plains. There is believed to be a coal resource there of about 500 million tonnes. That is an extraordinary amount of coal. One of the difficulties that are being encountered both by BHP and very much by the landholders involved is that that particular area of land, the Liverpool Plains, is some of the best country in the world for agricultural productivity. It has beautiful, black, self-mulching soils interspersed with some red gravel ridges. The other outstanding feature of that country is that there are enormous amounts of groundwater to be found in certain parts of that particular region. A dispute is developing between those who own the land and those who have access to the groundwater about the impact that a longwall mine and a surface mine could have on the groundwater resources.
I particularly bring this to the attention of the parliament because of the ongoing debate about the Murray-Darling scheme and the interconnectivity between groundwater and surface water. I have heard the Prime Minister and the minister talk on a number of occasions about the uncertainty. If you talk to a scientist, you will hear that the interconnectivity between groundwater and surface water is still a grey area. In fact, only a few months ago Senator Heffernan made the point about the possible impacts on the allocation of water further down the track as more scientific evidence comes to bear.
I am not opposed to coalmining. There is a coalmine next door to where I live that I have a very good relationship with. They do a very good job. My concern as a farmer and also as a member of the region—which goes across two electorates at the moment—is that mining should not take place in this particular area until all of the environmental aspects are ascertained. At the moment, the science on the interconnectivity of the various groundwater zones—I think there are something like two dozen of them in the Namoi Valley—is not well known. The other issue that the minister raises from time to time is that of the interconnectivity between groundwater—because there is not just one mass of groundwater; there are a number of interconnected zones—and surface water. In that circumstance, you have the possibility of a major mine exploring in a groundwater area.
I have asked the Prime Minister and the minister on a number of occasions over the last six to nine months—including when the minister was a parliamentary secretary—to look at the planning processes that are in place at the New South Wales level. I do not believe that the way in which this has been hived off to the New South Wales government through their various planning arrangements takes into account the potential impact of devastation. If something does go wrong with the groundwater resource, what does that actually mean? I do not mean just for the local area—that is what the planning process will look at. What would the offsite impacts be of groundwater flows being potentially interrupted by a mine?
This is the only mine that is doing that in the Murray-Darling Basin. In the homework I have done I have not found any evidence anywhere in the world that suggests that mining can take place in an area of such significance in terms of the groundwater that is there. So there is a very real risk, in my view. The Commonwealth government is moving to take over the administration of water. If we are serious about getting the allocation of water in place for the future then we really must understand what is happening with the water underground. I have called on the government to put in place an independent assessment of the possible off-site impacts of coalmining in heavy water-bearing gravels and to use this particular mine as an example. There is no doubt that right along the Namoi Valley these sorts of issues are going to be raised in the future. If we are serious about having a Murray-Darling system that incorporates the four states then we really do need to come to grips with what is actually happening with that interconnectivity that I spoke of earlier.
The other issue I want to mention today is related to water as well—and, again, I raised this question in parliament last week. It is the issue of an enlargement of Chaffey Dam, which is the major water supply for Tamworth city and the Peel River irrigators. This dam has been down as low as 15 per cent of storage. It is up over 20 per cent at the moment, so it is a fairly delicate situation. The proposal that has been put together over the last five years is that an upgrade take place at the time when a safety upgrade is required. The state government will fund that. I think it is something like $14 million to do the safety upgrade. The state government—which, as the minister rightly pointed out last week, is mainly responsible for this particular enlargement proposal—has agreed to part-fund an enlargement whilst the safety upgrade takes place because of the obvious economic benefits of doing both together. The local council has agreed to part-fund this. The irrigators, who will be part-beneficiaries in terms of security—there will be no more water allocated to them; their licences will not be increased but their security of water will be improved—have agreed to part-fund it. And the Commonwealth has been asked for $6½ million as a contribution towards that particular arrangement. So we are talking about a $29 million enlargement and safety upgrade and the Commonwealth has been asked for $6½ million.
The Commonwealth has had this information for quite some time now, and I raised this question with the minister last week in question time. I did not raise the issue of money at all, because to me the money is irrelevant in this. What we need is either an okay or any objection from the Commonwealth. The question I put to the minister last week was: given that the state, the local government and the local irrigators have approved the process of a $29.1 million upgrade and safety enhancement, does the Commonwealth through any of its federal policy initiatives as they currently stand have any objection to the proposal going ahead? The minister went into a bit of a flurry and said that it was the first he had heard of it and all these sorts of things. That is fair enough; that is politics. But since that occurred the minister has been reported in the local media as saying, ‘He should have asked me for the money,’ and, ‘The Deputy Prime Minister is looking at this particular issue as we speak.’ I would have thought that money would be irrelevant to something if there were going to be environmental objections to this particular proposal. I ask the minister again: given that we can find the money—and I have written him a personal note on this; we do not need the Commonwealth’s money because we can get the money from somewhere else—would the Commonwealth have an objection if we went out and raised the $6½ million to complete the enlargement and enhancement of the dam? That is the question that needs to be answered. I have had many people in my electorate say: ‘Don’t get involved in this. We’ll raise the money. This is too important for our community long term. Find out whether the Commonwealth will be a deal breaker on this particular issue. If they are not’—which I would hope they would not be—‘then we can proceed.’ The state government has said that it is okay to go. The locals have said that it is okay to go. Everybody is okay to go. All we need is to know whether there is any possible objection from the minister—because he has three or four copies of this particular document. If there is no objection then we will go out and raise the money, and proceed with the state government’s approval. So I would ask the minister: could he please clarify the position as a matter of urgency because, as I said, Tamworth city is very low on water. (Time expired)
State and Territory Labor governments
72
72
16:57:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—I rise in the House today to grieve about the economic mismanagement of state and territory Labor governments across Australia. During the past year we have witnessed a gradual decline in fiscal responsibility from the states and territories, to a point where today all state Labor governments throughout the nation are now in debt and are projecting, and indeed planning, to increase that debt and operate beyond their means. This situation is reflective of Labor’s inability to be economically responsible and manage taxpayers’ money in a prudent way. Most disturbing of all is the fact that this carelessness has now passed the bill for the payment and servicing of this debt onto Australia’s children, our future generations.
What is interesting about the direction of the Labor states and territories is how it compares with the economic performance of the Howard government at a national level. Since this government were elected in 1996, we have delivered budget surpluses in nine of the past 10 years. When we came to office we inherited a Labor debt of $96 billion. During the past 11 years we have paid off that Labor debt, which now saves Australians $8½ billion in annual interest payments. In fact, this is the first time the Australian government has been free from net debt in over three decades. This means that we now have $8½ billion more to direct to important initiatives and services for the Australian people such as tax cuts, which we delivered in 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.
The Australian economy is now in its longest recorded period of expansion. Australia’s GDP is worth more than $1 trillion, nearly 50 per cent bigger than it was in 1996, and real incomes are higher than ever before. In fact, under the Howard government, real wages have grown by 21 per cent. Unemployment is at historical lows, having fallen from 8.2 per cent to around 4.3 per cent, which has opened up new and exciting opportunities for many Australians. Since the Howard government came to office in 1996, over 2.1 million jobs have been created, and the proportion of the working-age population with a job is at an all-time high. An important aspect to highlight is that, during our time in office, market sector productivity has grown at an average annual rate of around 2¼ per cent and inflation has averaged 2½ per cent. These facts and figures paint a compelling picture, but the real net benefit is that more Australians are now in greater control of their destiny than ever before.
Let us compare the economic performance of the federal government with the economic performance of the state and territory Labor governments. Each state and territory has handed down its 2007-08 budget. These budgets illustrate a trend towards increasing revenues yet, at the same time, growing deficits. In other words, each Labor state and territory government is reaping more and more dollars from the taxpayer than ever before but, at the same time, plunging us deeper and deeper into debt. If private businesses operated the way Labor runs state finances, they would soon be out of business and shareholders would be left carrying the can.
Some examples of Labor’s gluttony: Labor in Victoria is now increasing, by automatic indexation, over 5,000 fees, fines and charges, including the cost of vehicle and licence renewals, year on year; and Labor in Queensland will increase vehicle registration duties from 1 January next year to raise an estimated $80 million this year and $205 million in 2008-09. As a whole, the Labor states and territories have planned for increased debt financing for the five years from 2006-07 to 2010-11. Net debt for Labor state governments is expected to increase by a staggering $70 billion over the next five years.
Obviously this change in direction is alarming and disturbing for all Australians. It has substantial impacts for the economy and will put more pressure on resources and Australian families. If Labor had been more prudent and more responsible in their approach to economic management, this debt would not have been necessary. The most alarming aspect of this Labor debt is the impact it will have on pushing up interest rates. This will happen because, at a federal level, we are net savers—that is, we are directing surplus funds to savings—whilst Labor, at a state level, are borrowers and, therefore, competing in the market for funds.
It is important for all of us to remember that governments that borrow money and get into debt put upward pressure on interest rates, which is something that we cannot afford to have happen. What this shows us is that you cannot trust Labor with money. What this shows us is that, if Labor were in control of money at a federal level, they would take the same approach as their Labor mates in the states and plunge Australia deep into debt once again, just like they did when they were last in office. Regrettably, Labor’s actions reveal the immense risk that confronts Australians. What Labor has done in the states is the beginning of a momentous downward spiral that could put at risk the positive achievements earned by all Australians at a national level.
It is clear to see that we have a success story at the federal government level, but worrying and disturbing trends—indeed, large cracks—are beginning to emerge at the state and territory government level. We will have state and territory Labor governments racking up $70 billion of debt over the next five years—that is, $70 billion of debt that we Australians will have to carry, fund and tolerate for years and years to come.
The achievements of the federal government were not the result of a complacent approach to the task of economic reform. They required strength of commitment and an absolute determination to do what was right for the country—to do the things that needed to be done. The Howard government undertakes its tasks today with the same degree of commitment and dedication that it has always shown. Our objectives are clear: we want to keep Australia’s economy strong and we want our nation to be secure. We do not want to put this at risk with the election of a Rudd Labor government. We want to protect the Australian people from the catastrophe that would eventuate if Labor were ever to totally get their hands on the nation’s finances.
As the member for Aston, I want to ensure that not only the people in my local community but all Australian families, wherever they are across this wonderful nation of ours, are protected and shielded from Labor’s gross negligence and egregious economic vandalism. The past is an important indicator of the future. Labor’s economic track record at a federal level is an ominous warning of the damage they would inflict on Australia. More importantly, Labor’s performance at a state level validates that risk. Labor presents an unacceptable risk to the great country of Australia. All Australians should never forget that you cannot trust Labor with money.
Water
74
74
17:06:00
Elliot, Justine, MP
DZW
Richmond
ALP
0
0
Mrs ELLIOT
—I rise to speak about an issue of grave concern within my electorate—that is, the Howard government’s plan to build a dam right over the village of Tyalgum. The village of Tyalgum is in the middle of my electorate of Richmond. It is almost impossible to convey the depth and level of distress and concern this has caused local residents. It is very wide ranging.
In an attempt to summarise the effects of this proposal, I will run through the time line that we have seen with respect to the statements the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. On 12 April, the minister initially outlined a proposal to dam the Oxley River at Tyalgum. This was contained in the SMEC report—a report that was commissioned by the minister himself. In this report, he looked at five options. These options were to look at water being piped to south-east Queensland. One of these options was to have this dam built at Tyalgum. When the SMEC report came out, this proposal was put forward with no community consultation and no site visits at all. There was no acknowledgement of the fact that it would indeed flood the entire village of Tyalgum, and there were no scientific, environmental or socioeconomic studies.
It should be noted that, of the five proposals outlined, the Oxley proposal, for a dam at Tyalgum, is the cheapest. Of course, on top of everything else, this caused a huge amount of alarm within the community as soon as the minister released the report on 12 April. We then go to 17 April, when the Prime Minister stated in the Daily Telegraph that the plan ‘passes the common-sense pub test’. I don’t know what pubs the Prime Minister has been in to hear that sort of response. He certainly has not been to the Tyalgum pub; he certainly would not have got that response there. I do not think he would have got that response in any of the pubs in the Northern Rivers. I think he would have got a very different response. It certainly shows how out of touch the Prime Minister is on so many issues that we raise in the House. Particularly when it comes to this one, it shows how out of touch he really is. I suggest that he should go to the pub in Tyalgum, or even in the nearby village of Murwillumbah, and see whether the plan passes the common-sense pub test there. I can assure him that it would not.
On 26 April, I launched a petition against the plan, which so far over 1,500 people have signed. As I say, there is widespread community concern and many more will continue to sign this petition. On 2 May, the Tyalgum community organised a meeting in the Tyalgum hall to discuss the issue and their concerns about the construction of this dam. Over 300 people attended that meeting. Keep in mind that the population of Tyalgum is 380, so I think that is a reflection of the very deep-seated concern that people have.
On 8 May, I submitted questions in writing to the environment minister, asking him to rule out the dam and asking him if he was aware of the social, economic and environmental consequences of constructing a dam. I will get to his reply later, as it took many months to get a reply. On 24 May, I put a question to the environment minister in question time, asking him to rule out the dam, which he refused to do, and asking him to visit Tyalgum and talk with residents, which he refused to do and still has not done to date. He also refuses to answer various amounts of correspondence from locals in Tyalgum, Murwillumbah and indeed throughout the Tweed Valley, which I personally find quite disrespectful when I know they have put forward many concerns to him and there have been many invitations requesting that he come to Tyalgum and speak to them directly.
Let us move to 20 July, when I was very pleased that the federal Leader of the Opposition visited Tyalgum. He met with locals and heard firsthand their concerns about this proposal. The opposition leader told the many people gathered there that under a Rudd Labor government the dam would not go ahead. Of course, the local community were very pleased to hear this. So on one side we had the Tweed community, the federal Labor Party and also the New South Wales state government opposed to the dam plan. The New South Wales water minister has released a statement against the dam proposal, saying that the New South Wales government was not in favour of the plan. So here we were, on 20 July, with the Tweed community, the New South Wales state government and the federal Labor Party all opposed to the dam plan. On the other side, the Liberal and National parties still refuse to categorically rule out the dam—again showing how out of touch they are with the concerns of people on the North Coast.
On 23 July, a large community forum was organised at the Murwillumbah Civic Centre by the Save the Caldera Rivers Campaign Committee. I note that this committee has done a magnificent job in raising the concerns of local residents. By this time, there were still no statements from the environment minister, the Liberal Party or the National Party ruling out the coalition’s plan to dam Tyalgum. By this stage, the community were very rightly annoyed that all we seemed to get from coalition representatives was political spin and more clever words—indeed, just like we get from the Prime Minister. They are quite rightly getting very annoyed with that. What the community want is answers. They do not want game playing; they do not want spin; they actually want answers. They want written confirmation about where the Howard government, the Liberal Party and the National Party stand in relation to this dam. That is what they want. Quite frankly, it is not just downright rude; it is very patronising to treat the community in this way.
A few days after this, we were all very surprised to see the environment minister make a surprise visit to Tugun on the southern Gold Coast. That is only a 40-minute drive from Tyalgum—not that far at all. This was viewed as an act of contempt by the community, as this really was an opportunity for him to come and visit Tyalgum and clarify his government’s position. On 25 July, the Assistant Minister for the Environment and Water Resources came to the area. Unfortunately, he too refused to rule out his government’s dam plan. The community was left not knowing much more than that it was still on the agenda, from the perspective of the Howard government.
On 4 August, the community organised a major rally and march throughout the streets of Murwillumbah. I was very proud to march with them in relation to this matter. This was well attended, by over 100 people. On 10 August, I finally received answers to questions in writing that I had put to the environment minister back in May. In his response he refused to rule out the dam and he stated that he was unaware of the economic, social and environmental consequences of the dam. This answer is, quite frankly, contemptuous. If the minister had bothered to visit Tyalgum, as he had been invited to do, or to read the submissions from the committee, and the dozens and dozens of letters sent to him by members of the community, he would certainly have gained some insight into the devastating effect this dam would have. These sentiments were very accurately expressed by the community in last Saturday’s local paper, the Daily News. An article on the front page is headed ‘Put ‘em up Malcolm: Turnbull ignites new fury over dam plan’. There were many comments from very concerned community members about the very contemptuous way in which the minister is treating the community.
If we look at the effects of this dam, the village of Tyalgum as it exists today would be flooded. Many village and rural properties would need to be fully or partially resumed. All the village infrastructure, such as the post office, the store, the primary school, the preschool and the pub, would be flooded. That is what would happen. Families would be displaced and all employment and small business in the town, particularly tourism, would cease to exist. There are also major environmental concerns about the viability of building a dam in such a location.
Locals right across the Tweed Valley are also very concerned about ensuring adequate water supplies for the future of the Tweed region. There has been a lot of community concern about water from northern New South Wales going to south-east Queensland. Those of us in northern New South Wales look over the border and see a very overdeveloped Gold Coast. The reality is that the Gold Coast was very quickly overdeveloped and there was inadequate planning in place to provide for future water needs. Contrast this with northern New South Wales, where there has been extensive planning to ensure adequate water supplies. So you can see why people are, quite rightly, very concerned about this matter and why there has been widespread anger about this plan in general and about the issue of water from northern New South Wales going to south-east Queensland.
I conclude by congratulating all of the community, who I know have worked so hard on trying to stop this dam plan, particularly the Save the Caldera Rivers Campaign Committee. These people have worked tirelessly in bringing the matter to the attention of the environment minister in particular. As I say, it is patronising that he has not responded to them. I call on the Liberal and National parties and their representatives to stop the spin. That is what people want. They want the spin and the clever words to stop; they want answers. They want the environment minister, the Liberal Party and the National Party to come clean and do the right thing. They want them to rule out the dam, but they also want them to produce documented evidence that they are ruling out the dam. (Time expired)
Hospitals
77
77
17:17:00
Haase, Barry, MP
84T
Kalgoorlie
LP
1
0
Mr HAASE
—I was prompted to rise today because of my awareness of the state hospital systems in regional Western Australia. They are in an absolutely deplorable condition and, with the Prime Minister’s announcement of financial assistance to the Mersey hospital near Devonport, Tasmania, there is now a call from Western Australia that the federal government may wish to contribute financially to the running and rescue of Western Australian hospitals. I would like members of this House to be aware of some of the disastrous situations in Western Australia that we may be asked to contend with and fund to once again pull the tardy Western Australian Labor government out of its financial doldrums.
There are about 80 hospitals operating across regional Western Australia and the majority of them are in my electorate. There is a very modern hospital in Karratha—certainly it was built after 1978. It is supposedly well equipped, cyclone built and able to act as a shelter. It is a very safe building, with every modern convenience. It is well staffed and has great facilities, but it cannot deliver a baby today. Women living in the Karratha/Roebourne/Dampier/Wickham area now have to go to Port Hedland or Perth to have a child. It is a deplorable state of affairs—and it gets worse.
Tom Price Hospital, which was always going to be there whilst the services at Paraburdoo Hospital were reduced, is now threatened with closure. Paraburdoo Hospital, which was once a thriving hospital delivering babies in the community and attending to incidents at the Paraburdoo mine—and, of course, the occasional road accident and weekend-evening trauma that is unfortunately suffered in some of my constituencies—is doing a wonderful job. That hospital now has just one person on duty overnight. On the weekends, because of state failure once again, the two police officers in Paraburdoo shift from Paraburdoo on a Friday evening and do not return until Monday morning. So you have a hospital with one staff member on duty all night. That person has to answer a call at the hospital emergency door from possibly a group of people under the influence of some chemical who may have done damage to themselves or suffered damage from somebody else. They knock at the door and one person in the hospital has to make a decision as to whether they open that door and put their own welfare at risk, or deny access to the person and perhaps deny them the treatment they need to sustain their life. They cannot call on the local police to come down and assist, should it be necessary, because the nearest police are in Tom Price, about 45 minutes away or more.
All of these services are funded by the state government. The state government are culpable for this disastrous level of servicing in Western Australia. Now that we have announced funding for the Mersey hospital, they say, firstly, ‘We condemn you for daring to dabble in state affairs because the Constitution says that we are rightly looking after the hospitals in our state.’ But then they say, ‘But we really expect you to fund us more to look after our hospitals.’ When we came up with a practical solution of direct funding we were criticised for dabbling. So it is a no-win situation for us and, from a public relations perspective, it is a win-win situation for the states. I have outlined what a dreadful job the state government are doing in a couple of places with state funded and state directed regional services, be they hospitals, police forces or educational facilities, right across the electorate of Kalgoorlie in Western Australia. Yet the Labor Party, with their mismanagement and their inability to coordinate a vision for the future, aspire to take over federal government. They think they are fit to rule this country and to head it into the future for the good of all people in this nation. Their track record in the states indicates that they would be battling to run a good booze-up in a pub.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House just some of the consequences if—and I underline ‘if’—this Labor Party took over federal government. Many of the listeners, of course, will not be aware that after 13 years of Labor government the debt was increased from some $16 billion to $96 billion. Thirteen years under a Labor government saw an additional $90 billion worth of debt suffered by every Australian. No wonder interest rates were high: $90 billion worth of extra borrowing by the government put pressure on the availability of funds for all Australians. The price had to go up. Just watch them do it again.
Not many people here would realise that one of the checks and balances put in place when the GST legislation was put together was that governments in federal control could not abuse the system and suddenly put consumers at a disadvantage by increasing the percentage of the GST. It was agreed, by all concerned, that the only way there could be an increase in the GST percentage was by agreement between all state and territory governments and both the Senate and the House of Representatives federally. That would be the only circumstance under which the GST percentage could be increased. We have that situation looming. Right now we have all states and territories under Labor control and the possibility of Labor being elected to federal government. Watch out for any attempt by the states to get their hands on more money via collection of the GST.
Something else that comes to my attention is the fact that in this election year of 2007, with our youth for the very first time going to vote and to exercise their wonderful democratic powers and advantages in this nation, anyone aged between 18 and 29 will never have suffered in this country under a Labor government. I say to everyone: the Labor years were hard years. I bore bridging finance interest at 24 per cent. I know how hard it was. I worked for a company where there was ‘no ticket, no start’. I had to be a member of the BLF, the dreaded Builders Labourers Federation. So anyone who is unaware of the drudgery and the depths to which a Labor government can drag us should come and see me—I will give them the goods.
More importantly, some people out there are saying: ‘Don’t worry, MPs of this country. Don’t worry, leaders of this country. The Liberal Party—with the coalition, of course—has held the reins now for nearly 12 years. We believe in a fair go in Aussie, so why not let the other mob have a go? After all, it is fair.’ We know what they did in 13 years of government: they ruined this country. It took us the best part of this 12 years to bring it back, to put it ahead and to put it in a condition where everyone had a job, everyone had an opportunity and there was something to look forward to in this nation. It is not a footy match. It is not a matter of being fair and giving the other mob a go, because they will fail. They have a track record of failure, and they will do it again. So to everyone who has a love of this country and a belief in its future: get a good head on your shoulders, realise how bad it could be with a Labor government federally and make sure that you stick with a good government, a government that is led by this coalition of the Liberal and National parties.
Hospitals
79
79
17:27:00
Hull, Kay, MP
83O
Riverina
NATS
1
0
Mrs HULL
—It must be a day for hospitals. Since 6 November 1980, when the then Premier Neville Wran announced plans for a new 250-bed hospital—valued at more than $30 million in those days—Wagga Wagga has witnessed successive state governments, both Labor and coalition, shift blame, break promises and announce funding as quickly as it has been retracted. Both governments have ignored rallies with thousands of people in attendance and, more importantly, the deaths of many individuals over a period of time which may have been avoided if we had had a facility that this city dearly needs. I have outlined this issue many times in various places, and I have a major issue to confront here as I try to outline the issues associated with the failure to deliver promised outcomes for the Riverina.
We have a converted, old and dysfunctional Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. It has been converted into a regional referral centre. It has had no attention to ensure the adequate capacity of the structure to accommodate such a move. There has been no money for capital works, and the morale of the wonderful staff is at an all-time low. They are forced to work in the most disgraceful conditions, and it is out of pure dedication that the fabulous staff continue under these conditions and under these circumstances.
To put the plight of the Riverina in perspective, it may be beneficial for me to address certain aspects of the history of our hospital. The Wagga Wagga Base Hospital is based on a 1930s design. During the latter half of the 1950s, the Minister for Health and the local member, with massive support from an ever-growing population, lobbied the New South Wales Health Commission to replace the outdated and defunct original hospital. The current building was completed in 1962. Over the years, our local hospitals across the region have been downgraded, and patient care has been moved to a regional referral centre at the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. Yet no effort has been made to do the works required in order for the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital to actually service a regional site and to have regional hospital status.
The original 110-bed facility was transformed into a 220-bed facility by making many single rooms into doubles. Then, of course, double rooms were made into quadruples. Whilst small-scale redevelopments have taken place since 1962, including projects such as the upgrading of accident and emergency, the hospital, located in the biggest inland city in New South Wales, has evolved into the referral point for 250,000 people. Yet it is still essentially the original 110-bed facility. It is almost unbelievable to think that this could continue to take place.
I am going to outline some of the issues because I think it is prudent of me to put this on the record. This outline comes courtesy of the Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser and it shows the reason the people are very upset about what has taken place over the years. In February 1980, $15 million was provided in the then Labor state government’s 1979-80 capital works program for a Wagga Wagga Base Hospital redevelopment program. The amount was intended to finance all phases of planning and construction. In September 1980, no money was allocated to the project in the government’s loan program. In November 1980, the government promised Wagga a new hospital, to be built on the corner of Red Hill Road and the Holbrook Road. Construction of a 250-bed hospital, costing $30 million, was to start in 1981. The then Premier Neville Wran said, ‘I see no reason why this site should not be prepared next year.’
In June 1981, the then minister for health confirmed that there was no specific allocation in the state budget for the promised Wagga hospital. In February 1982, the government scrapped any plans for a new hospital. The then minister said it was one of a number of projects scrapped because of a shortage of funds. He said that $300,000 worth of planning would proceed on redevelopment of the existing hospital. In April 1982, the government diverted the planning money to short-term renovations and improvements. In July 1982, more than 1,000 people attended a protest rally to complain about the government’s treatment of Wagga Wagga, including the dropping of the hospital plans.
In March 1988, the then opposition leader, Nick Greiner, pledged to continue to work on the hospital if the coalition were elected later in the month. After the coalition won the election, it said that the reinstatement of architects for work on the hospital would be a priority for the government. In June 1988, doubts arose over a $75 million upgrade of the hospital after the then minister for health told the hospital board the works had not been included in the former Labor government’s five-year works program. In July 1988, the acting regional health director, Brian Tutt, said that there would be no major redevelopment of the hospital for five years, but planning for $30 million worth of upgrading would continue. On 30 July 1988, the government said that $300,000 worth of planning would position the hospital for inclusion in the government’s 1992-93 capital works program. He then blamed the former government for the major redevelopment not going ahead, saying that that government had ‘checked out without paying its bills’. In October 1988, the hospital board was told by the secretary of the department of health that the redevelopment of the hospital had been set down for 1992-93 at a cost of $30 million.
There was no action between October 1988 and March 2003, when the state Labor government announced $400,000 for the planning of a new regional hospital at Wagga Wagga. On 9 March 2003, the opposition pledged to spend $90 million on a new hospital if they were elected. In October 2005, a value management study chose to build a new hospital on the existing site at an estimated cost of more than $220 million. In March 2007, specialists lashed out at the state government after the Greater Southern Area Health Service chief executive officer said that work on the hospital would not start before 2011 under current funding models and would not be finished before 2015. On 15 March 2007, 2,000 Riverina residents attended a public rally in Baylis Street in Wagga Wagga to demand a start to a new hospital that would be able to deal satisfactorily with the referrals and the way in which health was being run in the Riverina.
Successive state governments—and I am not here to run down any particular Labor government or the one that is still standing—have failed at every level of responsibility to provide a hospital capable of dealing with a catchment of around 250,000 people. Various problems have eventuated from these 27 years of broken promises. It is widely accepted that people in Wagga Wagga can be forced to spend days in the emergency department whilst a bed is found. Granted, every hospital in Australia does at times experience circumstances of overcrowding such as this, but they are not forced to contend with juggling 220 beds for a catchment of around 250,000 people. The hospital is the primary referral point for a radius of greater than 400 kilometres.
Amongst the many issues, here is a shortlist of the problems that are compounding day by day: antiquated facilities in children’s wards and bathrooms, sometimes making infection control very difficult; inadequate lighting in rooms, which limits accurate patient examination; outdated and inadequate beds, which were to be replaced in 2005; a lack of privacy in the renal dialysis unit; grossly inadequate physical facilities for pathology, radiology and other services; and inadequate bathrooms, toilets and basins—in many cases bathrooms are shared by male and female patients at the same time.
The facilities are inadequate. We have a major problem getting this message across. Riverina residents deserve better, the people of Wagga Wagga deserve better and the very committed and dedicated health professionals in the city of Wagga Wagga deserve better. Today I have raised the very significant issue of the plight of the Riverina people and their access to quality health care, particularly with the quality of a public hospital system that has seen successive governments—(Time expired)
Sustainable Energy
81
81
17:37:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
0
0
Ms GRIERSON
—Recently I spent two weeks in the United States of America studying developments in solar energy and clean coal technologies. I did so as the member for Newcastle, understanding that sustainable energy and our regional economy are intertwined. In fact it is my belief that the Newcastle/Hunter/Central Coast region has a major part to play in the sustainable energy future of this nation. Newcastle is the largest exporter of coal, by volume, of any port in the world and is the regional centre for energy producers, with many coal fired power stations feeding into the state and national electricity grid. Undeniably, our region has a carbon dependent economy and could easily be seen as part of the climate change problem. As asserted in CSIRO’s report into climate change, The heat is on, regions such as ours stand to lose the most from the climate change agenda. That is of course unless we seize the opportunities that come from being an energy centre for the nation and become a region of sustainable energy solutions.
Fortunately, Newcastle also has a rich heritage of industrial skill and innovation and world-class research institutions. The CSIRO national energy flagship and energy divisions are both located in Newcastle and are leaders in sustainable energy research across diverse areas, but particularly in clean coal and solar thermal technologies. Newcastle University has collaborative research underway into clean coal and geothermal energy and remains a leading university in the engineering that underpins our knowledge based manufacturing capacity. In fact we are well placed to link into the global research and enterprise networks that are currently working overtime to find sustainable energy solutions. CSIRO’s James McGregor said recently:
We have all of the right conditions to set Newcastle up as the next Silicon Valley of the sustainable energy industry.
I agree with him.
Whilst in the US, I visited Silicon Valley in California to study firsthand how that region is building on its existing high-tech, knowledge based industries to create new opportunities in sustainable energy, attracting billions of dollars of investment in the process. Silicon Valley offers an exciting example, with its array of sustainable energy projects and its world-leading commercial Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, providing technological and research support to the electricity industry. Its critical mass of research and commercial activity, all in synergy with the strengths of its region, offers low risk for investors, so projects and investment dollars are flowing.
At Silicon Valley I met with Australian researcher and businessman David Mills, who took his expertise and potential commercial gain to Silicon Valley, from Australia, and formed his company AUSRA. Located close to Stanford University, and backed by one of America’s leading venture capitalists, AUSRA is proposing solar thermal energy as the solution for the US national grid. David’s original solar project is still in operation at Liddell power station in the Hunter Valley.
In America I also met with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL, the US equivalent of CSIRO’s national energy flagship, to learn of their approaches to photovoltaic and solar thermal energy research. I visited Nevada Solar One in the Mojave Desert, the world’s third largest solar power plant. This exciting project had only been operating for a month and was contributing solar energy into the electricity grid. Its capacity of 60 to 75 megawatts, although far smaller than the average commercial power station, is a significant contribution to the state power grid. Solar One aims to eventually progress into solar energy storage at their site, but clearly getting started and gaining a commercial return is a necessary precursor to continuing research and development.
I also had briefings from FutureGen, the international alliance tasked with building the first commercial-scale clean coal power station with carbon capture and storage technology. Interestingly, although Australia is not a member of this important alliance, it was stressed by FutureGen that a similar venture by Australia to build a commercial-scale clean coal power station, such as projects like ZeroGen, would be a very welcome initiative to add to the scientific research. A critical mass of international research could save money, obstacles and stumbles in research and precious time in this important sustainable energy endeavour.
I therefore take this opportunity to commend the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation for their report, released today, Between a rock and a hard place: the science of geosequestration, advocating additional funding to CSIRO to assess the storage potential for CO geosequestration in New South Wales and recommending funding for at least one major large-scale plant to demonstrate the operation and integration of carbon capture and storage. This is very much in line with the view of FutureGen expressed to me in the US, and also reflects the current policy of the federal opposition and the Labor government in New South Wales.
Policy discussions with the United States Department of Energy in Washington revealed some recent major injections of funds into sustainable energy projects, and the presentations on geothermal, energy efficiency, solar energy and solar thermal technologies showed much overlap with research and developments in Australia. But although the current US Department of Energy initiatives are supporting research and industry projects to find sustainable energy solutions, similar to the Australian experience under the Howard government the federal policy delay has brought about a situation where state governments have taken the sustainable energy policy initiative putting in place both incentives and targets. Unfortunately, the diversity of state approaches, with states like California having particularly aggressive policy whilst other states have very little policy at all, reinforced the importance of federal leadership for advancing investment and research in this vitally important economic area.
Talks with the Division for Sustainable Development at the United Nations reinforced the need for climate change leadership by developed nations such as Australia and the imperative to mentor and support our developing neighbours. A debate on climate change had just concluded in the United Nations, and the division noted that the number of countries that spoke in this debate far exceeded all expectations. The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was discussed and recent developments shared.
The IPCC’s report highlights just how great a challenge we face. But to meet this challenge we cannot rely on simplistic solutions proposed by extremists on either side of this debate. We cannot stop exporting coal or close down the coalmining industry, nor can we risk John Howard’s nuclear option. We need to learn what is working around the world and use this knowledge to explore the full range of sustainable energy options. As Newcastle’s federal representative, forging links, promoting the achievements of our region and tapping into global opportunities is an important part of my role. I believe Newcastle can replicate the Silicon Valley success story. But getting the sustainable energy policy settings right, so that our talent and investment opportunities do not disappear to other states or offshore, is of critical importance so that Newcastle can be a successful hub of global sustainable energy networks.
Within the framework of supporting a range of sustainable energy technologies, Labor’s commitment to setting emissions targets to aid industry certainty, our promise of an additional $50 million to create an Australian solar institute at CSIRO in Newcastle and our $500 million national clean coal fund all place the Newcastle region at the forefront of opportunity. We do need to aggressively promote globally the attributes of regions such as Newcastle to attract sustainable energy investments.
That is why I initiated and hosted two meetings this year with our coal companies, researchers, energy generators, unions and business and industry groups to discuss setting up a sustainable energy research council in the Hunter. Such a collaborative body could facilitate building a critical mass of industry and research activity and assist in transforming our regional and national economies from carbon dependent ones to ones that are based on sustainable energy—both from clean coal and renewables. Sustainable energy is after all the economic currency of the 21st century. To sustain our regional economy we need to optimise our global presence in this field.
I wish to acknowledge the work of CSIRO’s energy flagship and division in Newcastle. Their work was well known and highly regarded in the US. Importantly, without their credibility and their assistance I would not have been able to make contact with so many eminent researchers, businesses and policy leaders in the United States of America. I particularly thank Dr John Wright, Dr David Brockway, Wes Stein and their colleagues for their inspiration, patience and support in making sure that their local member of federal parliament understands the challenges of climate change and is an informed advocate for sustainable energy research, technology and policy development. I do wish to register here my gratitude for the many people I met with in America who were so generous with their knowledge, intellect and time. They were inspiring and particularly good global citizens. Time precludes me from naming them here but my report, which will be tabled within the next month, will include my sincere gratitude for their valued contributions.
In conclusion, the last 11 years under this government have been a wasted and a lost opportunity in positioning Australia at the forefront of sustainable energy research. It is important for government to provide leadership if our businesses and our investors are to take seriously the opportunities that present themselves. Those opportunities are abundant in my region. I recommend that policy setters look at the potential for Newcastle as a hub for sustainable energy development, given its lengthy involvement in energy and energy research.
10000
Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Hatton)—The question is:
That grievances be noted.
Question agreed to.
SPECIAL
Special Adjournment
Mr ROBB
(Goldstein
—Minister for Vocational and Further Education)
17:47:00
—I move:
That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 14 August 2007, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting and for government business to take precedence from 12.30 p.m. until 2 p.m. on that day.
Question agreed to.
AVIATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2007 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2007
84
Bills
R2831
First Reading
84
Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
APEC PUBLIC HOLIDAY BILL 2007
84
Bills
R2847
Second Reading
84
Debate resumed from 8 August, on motion by Mr Hockey:
That this bill be now read a second time.
84
17:48:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
0
Ms GILLARD
—The APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007 deals with the question of a public holiday to assist with security arrangements around APEC. Under Labor, Australia was a foundation member of APEC and Labor was a driving force behind its establishment. Labor welcomes the return of the APEC summit to Australia in 2007 but notes that, based on other profile summits held in Australasia and southern Asia, it presents security challenges. Labor supports arrangements to ensure the security of the APEC summit, including the provision of a public holiday on 7 September 2007 to allow for the smoother and safer running of the event. Consequently, Labor will support this bill, the purpose of which is to make the arrangement so that 7 September 2007 can be a public holiday in relevant Sydney local government areas under various federal industrial instruments—generally those industrial instruments made prior to the commencement of the Work Choices changes.
Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 employees in the federal industrial relations system are generally entitled to public holidays declared by or under the law of a state to be observed within a region of that state. However, this general entitlement does not extend to employees employed under certain types of federal instruments that were made before or upon the commencement of the Work Choices changes to the Workplace Relations Act. Employees employed under those instruments are entitled to public holidays only in accordance with the terms of the instrument. Many of those instruments may only provide for public holidays that are declared for the whole of the state. As a result, the localised APEC public holiday would not necessarily be treated as a public holiday under those instruments. This bill addresses that situation to ensure that the APEC public holiday will be treated as a public holiday under those instruments. Usually this will mean that employees will be entitled to a day off or penalty rates of pay under the instruments, if they work. I will come back to the matter of penalty rates shortly.
Employees affected are those employed under the following instruments in the federal industrial relations system: a transitional award—that is, an award that covers employees of employers who were part of the federal system prior to the Work Choices changes but, because they are not constitutional corporations, are excluded from the mainstream industrial relations system; a pre-reform AWA—that is, an individual Australian workplace agreement made prior to the commencement of the Work Choices changes; a pre-reform certified agreement—that is, a collective agreement made prior to the commencement of Work Choices; a section 170MX award—that is, a limited award made prior to the commencement of Work Choices when arbitration followed the termination of a bargaining period for a collective agreement, usually for reasons associated with industrial action that might harm the economy or the safety, health or welfare of the population; an old industrial relations agreement—that is, an agreement made prior to the commencement of the 1996 changes to the Workplace Relations Act that is binding on employers that, because they are not constitutional corporations, are excluded from the mainstream industrial relations system; and, finally, a preserved state agreement—that is, an enterprise bargaining agreement made under state laws prior to the commencement of the Work Choices changes as it applies to employers who are now part of the federal system. If you are confused, Mr Deputy Speaker, you, like the rest of the Australian community, have cause to be. The Howard government promised, when it introduced the Work Choices changes, to introduce a simpler system to this country. I defy anybody following this debate to say that this is a simpler system. With all its mind-numbing complexity, it comes with $1.8 billion of bureaucracy as well—the heaviest burden of bureaucracy from industrial relations that this country has ever borne.
Clause 7 of the bill provides that regulations of a transitional saving or application nature arising out of or relating to the provisions of the act may be made that provide, for the purposes of a law of the Commonwealth or an instrument made under the law, that the APEC public holiday is taken to be a public holiday or taken not to be a public holiday. Clause 7(3) provides that those regulations may be made retrospectively. The explanatory memorandum says that this provision is required because:
It is possible that under a particular law of the Commonwealth, or under an instrument made under such a law, anomalous circumstances could arise which have not been provided by the provisions of the Bill, or in which the provisions of the Bill would have unintended consequences. Proposed subclause 7(2) would allow regulations to be made to remedy any unforeseen or unintended consequences that may arise.
This, of course, is a complex piece of machinery in terms of the regulations, and I do note that the explanatory memorandum does not provide any examples of the unintended consequences that could arise. It is likely that regulations will need to be made under clause 55 of schedule 8 to the Workplace Relations Act to ensure that section 612(4) of the act operates in relation to notional agreements preserving state awards—the so-called NAPSAs—in the same way that it operates in relation to awards and workplace agreements. If those regulations are not made, a term in a NAPSA that is contrary to the entitlement to the APEC public holiday, subject to a request to work, could have effect. Yes, complex indeed!
We note that the government is going to move a series of amendments to the bill, having apparently twigged to the problem that, despite all of the complexity which this bill comprehends and the complex industrial relations system of the government’s making that it is relating to, there were remaining issues about penalty rates and whether or not people who are required to work on the APEC public holiday would have an entitlement to penalty rates—that is, whether or not any entitlement in their underlying industrial instrument would be sufficient to deal with the question of penalty rates for them. Of course, Labor welcomes any clarification on the question of proper payment for people should they be required to work the APEC public holiday because they are in occupations where it is necessary for them to work through. Having said that, one would be entitled to a bit of bemusement at this grand irony that the government should, in a pre-election bill, be turning its mind to the question of penalty rates and their provision to people when, in the design of Work Choices itself, the government made sure that there was a system that could have people working without penalty rates.
We have to remind ourselves—and it is now a matter of public record in the Prime Minister’s biography—that, when the Work Choices legislation was submitted to cabinet and considered around the cabinet table, the government knew that there would be losers under their new system and they determined to proceed with it in any event. Indeed, that was not a simple act of omission, a question of there being some things that they could remedy which would have ensured that there were not losers. It was fundamental to the design of Work Choices that people could lose. The government, in its so-called information booklet for Work Choices, which of course was nothing more than a piece of propaganda, invited employers to strip entitlements off employees by giving the example of Billy, who had a minimum-wage job and who had lost all of his entitlement to penalty rates and overtime. So this government invited employers to make such agreements, having made them perfectly lawful, and then propagandised on their availability.
The government likes to criticise everybody else’s research, as we know and as we saw the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations do today when he criticised research about women and Work Choices. We also know that this government has never opened the books to tell Australians the full story about what its Work Choices changes have done to the working conditions of Australian families. It has deliberately covered up the Australian workplace agreements that have stripped penalty rates and other conditions. What we do know on the public record—not because the government gave the information voluntarily but because either it was forced out of them at Senate estimates or it subsequently leaked—is that, of the Australians who have signed Australian workplace agreements, 44 per cent have had stripped off them all the conditions that Mr Howard’s very expensive advertising told them would be protected by law. There is some grand irony that the government is now scurrying around making amendments relating to penalty rates when it has created a system purpose-designed to enable entitlements to things like penalty rates to be stripped away.
Mr Hockey, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, is out there trying to give the community the impression that these matters are now resolved by the latest changes to Work Choices. Of course, that is not true. Even under the government’s so-called fairness test—the recent changes to Work Choices—there is no guarantee that an employee will be granted full compensation for lost public holiday penalty rates. The employee’s compensation for lost penalty rates will depend on what the employer decides to tell the Workplace Authority about the employee’s obligation to work on public holidays throughout the five-year life of the agreement.
The Workplace Authority’s own policy says that employees will only be contacted if the lodgement does not contain sufficient information—that is, the employer puts in all of the information, including the information about public holidays, and from the point of view of the Workplace Authority, except in the exceptional case, the views of the employee about the fairness of these arrangements will not even be sought. From what we know of its operations, the Workplace Authority will not even take a critical view of the information provided and it will not contact employees if it doubts the veracity of the information provided; it will only contact them if there is not sufficient information. The Workplace Authority is not required to provide information to employees on why it reached a decision that an agreement passed the so-called fairness test, so an employee might never know that he or she is being ripped off in relation to their public holiday penalty rates.
By its design of Work Choices the government has shown the Australian community that it has no respect for public holidays and other important conditions of hardworking Australian families. Under the government’s workplace relations legislation, an employee is only entitled to refuse to work on a public holiday if the employee can prove that the employee had reasonable grounds to refuse the public holiday work. In determining the reasonableness of the employee’s refusal, regard must be had to a lengthy list of factors set out in the legislation, including the nature of the employee’s workplace, whether a workplace agreement might require the employee to work and the nature of the work performed by the employee.
As we know, the government is enforcing that all employers hand out a propaganda sheet, curiously titled a ‘workplace relations fact sheet’, by 20 October to each employee. If they do not do this, of course, they will be dragged through the courts and fined. Nowhere on that fact sheet does it mention that employees are entitled to refuse a request to work on public holidays. Somehow employees are expected to be aware of sections 612 and 613 of the government’s obscenely lengthy and complex industrial relations laws. The government claims that it is providing employees with information, but it is very selective about what information it provides.
In terms of the lack of regard by the government for public holidays in this community, it should be noted that all government members voted against amendments moved by Labor in connection with the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill that provided special protection for employees who have religious or ceremonial commitments on Christmas Day, Good Friday and Anzac Day. For example, an employee wishing to attend religious activities on Christmas Day or Good Friday would, under Labor’s amendment, have been taken to have reasonable grounds for refusing a request to work on those days. Each and every member of the government voted against that.
Under Labor’s amendments, an employee wishing to attend commemorative events on Anzac Day or wishing support the attendance of a family member at such events on Anzac Day would be taken to have reasonable grounds for refusing a request to work on Anzac Day. The government members, to a person, each and every one of them, voted against that. So it is on the record in Work Choices itself and in relation to the government’s response to Labor’s amendments that the government does not believe it is appropriate to provide Australians with proper protections for public holidays.
Once again, the government shows contempt for the legislation-making process by including, as I have noted, a broad, retrospective regulation-making power that could potentially reverse employees’ entitlements to public holidays or payments on public holidays, and why this is required has not been adequately explained in the explanatory memorandum.
As we know, the government’s Work Choices legislation is riddled with examples of the government using regulation-making powers to circumvent the legislative process. For example, the content of agreements made between parties is subject to the whim of regulations made by the government, and this is unfair to both employers and employees. Similarly, the government can simply determine in regulations whether an agreement provides a more favourable outcome than the Australian fair pay and conditions standard in a particular respect. Labor will ensure that Australians get proper protections for public holidays in a fair and balanced industrial relations system, one that ensures that these important conditions can be relied upon by Australian workers and not stripped away.
Whilst I have made those critical remarks about Work Choices and about this government’s lack of respect for public holidays and for the ability of Australian families to take those public holidays together, Labor will be supporting this bill because of the security arrangements surrounding APEC. However, I will at the conclusion of my remarks move a second reading amendment about the question of fairness and balance at work and beyond work.
I have given notice to the Minister for Vocational and Further Education at the table that my colleague the member for Cowan, Graham Edwards, when he speaks in this debate, will make a series of broader remarks. As we all know, Graham is not contesting the forthcoming federal election, whenever that may be, and will use this opportunity to make some remarks in what may be one of the last sitting days before that election is held. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence—and I understand the minister has no difficulties with this indulgence—to record that, as members of this House are undoubtedly aware, and particularly members on the Labor side, Graham has a long and distinguished record of selfless work serving his community, his state and his nation. Both Graham and I were elected to this place in October 1998—we are part of the class of 1998—Graham coming in as the member for Cowan and me as the member for Lalor. I would very cheerfully concede he came to this place as someone with far greater life experience than I or I think any other member of the class of 1998.
Graham has served at all levels of government. It is a trifecta. He served as a councillor with the City of Stirling and as an officer with the Commonwealth Department of Defence, the Commonwealth Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. Between 1983 and 1997, before his election to this place, Graham was a member of the legislative council of the Western Australian parliament—an achievement which many people would have thought was more than enough without coming to this place in 1998 and serving the years in between. When he was in state parliament Graham served as the Minister for Sport and Recreation, the Minister for Racing and Gaming, the Minister for Youth, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and the Minister for the Aged over a period of four years between 1987 and 1991. Recording the breadth of those ministerial offices shows just how much of a contribution Graham made in state politics to his home state of Western Australia. Graham has made a great contribution here as the member for Cowan serving his local community but also as a very valued member of the Labor opposition—a man with a breadth of expertise across defence matters particularly but also well beyond.
As I think is fairly well known in this place, Graham served this country in the Regular Army for three years between 1968 and 1970, during which time he engaged in active service in Vietnam as a member of the Pioneer Platoon, 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. During that service Graham lost both his legs in a landmine blast. On returning to Australia, having received what anybody would have defined as the blow of a lifetime, instead of simply turning inwards Graham turned outwards and commenced a life of contribution to public service, and in particular a life of contribution specifically to the affairs of Australian veterans and their families. There would not be too many people who, for a lifetime, can say that they were presented with such adversity and overcame it. Graham can certainly say that.
Before moving the second reading amendment, I refer to a letter that Graham wrote to the member for Brand and then Leader of the Opposition last year on Vietnam Veterans Day and the 40th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. In that letter, which I think summarises Graham’s inherent sense of decency and forgiveness, he said:
In closing Kim I want to say I am proud to have served my nation and proud of all who served with me. I am proud of my mates and the contribution they made to Australia. I take pride in the mateship. I don’t need anyone’s apology for that.
We are proud to have served with Graham in different circumstances. That is a very heartfelt contribution from the Labor caucus, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, to have recorded those remarks.
10000
Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Hatton)—It has been very good of the minister to give that indulgence. I might say, while you are considering that amendment, I have served in this House from 1996 with the member for Cowan. In this last parliament it has been my great privilege to serve with him on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. He has been a wonderful deputy chair of that committee. In having the great honour of serving as the Deputy Chair of the Defence Subcommittee, it has been fantastic for me to work so closely with Graham. He has been an absolute adornment to the parliament. He knows how to fight and fight hard. He has always fought at every level for his constituents, and he has fought for his country and given everything that he could. I am glad to be in the chair to thank him for his service to this House. With that, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition might wish to move her amendment.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. To conclude, I move:
That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
-
condemns the Government’s:
-
failure to ensure fairness at work and fairness beyond work through its inherently unfair Work Choices laws; and
-
failure to provide proper protections for important Australian national public holidays like Anzac Day; and
-
further condemns the adverse impacts these unfair laws have had on working Australians, their families and the wider Australian community’.
10000
Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Hatton)—Is the amendment seconded?
83R
Edwards, Graham, MP
Mr Edwards
—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later.
90
18:13:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
1
0
Mr JOHNSON
—As the federal member for Ryan, it is a pleasure to speak on the APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007 in the House of Representatives today. I am delighted to support this very important bill. Hosting the APEC meeting is an enormous undertaking for any nation, even for a country such as ours which has the experience and the skill of running enormous operations such as the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games. I am very confident that all our professional security forces will do a superb job in ensuring that the APEC event in Sydney runs very smoothly.
In total, between January and September this year, Australia will host 100-plus days of meetings across the country. All the preparation and meetings will culminate with the APEC Economic Leaders Meeting, which commences on 2 September 2007. The APEC Economic Leaders Meeting is the most significant international gathering of an economic kind that Australia has hosted. At the conclusion of the discussions, the leaders will issue the APEC Economic Leaders Declaration, which will contain the shared vision of the leaders and set the strategic directions for APEC for the next year. The focus of the 2007 APEC Economic Leaders Meeting will be not only on economic development and trade but also on regional security, job creation and, importantly, climate change. One of the reasons I am very pleased to speak on this bill is that I am passionate about promoting freer trade and greater liberalisation of the world’s economies. I think that is the most effective way of bringing prosperity and opportunity to the peoples of the developing world.
APEC will be attended by 21 world leaders, over 40 ministers, 400 international business leaders—a handful from the Ryan electorate, I might add—6,000 delegates and support personnel, as well as over 1,000 media representatives. It will involve over 35 VIP aircraft, 300 secure VIP traffic escorts and 30 hotels. During APEC Leaders Week, meetings will take place at venues in and around Sydney’s CBD, including our famous Sydney Opera House, the Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre, and Government House. Hosting the likes of the US President, George W Bush; the Chinese President, Hu Jintao; the Russian President, Vladimir Putin; and, from our own region, the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Shinzo Abe, I think is a great honour for this country. Of course, it is critical that we ensure the security of those leaders from those respective countries.
We have enormous confidence in the security forces of our country to carry out their job with professionalism and skill. In the 2006-07 budget, the Howard government allocated $70 million over four years for security related purposes, together with some $600,000 for additional and ongoing operating costs for transportation. The funding has supported the coordinated and whole-of-government security preparations for all APEC events and includes: $56-plus million for the Protective Security Coordination Centre and the security costs associated with hosting the APEC Leaders Week in September; $4 million to the PSCC to purchase armoured VIP limousines; $7.2 million for the Australian Federal Police to establish 22 firearms and explosives detector canine teams to conduct firearms and explosives searches at the Leaders Week and the relevant ministerial meetings; and $900,000 for Emergency Management Australia for the development of consequence management plans for an incident that might arise during the APEC Leaders Week. Altogether, the government has committed more than $300 million to host APEC.
In addition to this funding there are a number of practicalities which will be implemented during the Leaders Week to ease the disruption to the lives of those who live and work in Sydney. These practical measures include operating parts of Sydney under event time, traffic controls and access arrangements similar to those in place during the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, and also declaring a public holiday for the Sydney CBD on Friday, 7 September 2007. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations said:
The purpose of the APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007 is to ensure that employees in the Sydney metropolitan area receive a public holiday on Friday, 7 September 2007 if they are covered by certain pre-reform industrial instruments, including transitional awards, pre-reform AWAs, pre-reform certified agreements and preserved state agreements.
This public holiday is necessary to facilitate the holding of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings that will be hosted in Sydney over the week of 2 to 9 September 2007. The APEC Economic Leaders Meeting is one of the most important annual meetings of world leaders.
We all know that the New South Wales government has also introduced relevant legislation. But the APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007 will ensure that all employees covered by federal industrial instruments receive public holiday entitlements for the APEC holiday.
The Australian taxpayer, I think, is entitled to know why the government is investing such a significant amount of their money in APEC. It is appropriate that all of us promote this important gathering, because of its benefits not only for Australia but also for the world at large, particularly the 21 APEC member economies. The benefits are enormous; indeed, they are profound. I think it is important for me, as the member for Ryan, to explain to my constituents something of APEC. Many in the business community would know that APEC is the pre-eminent forum for facilitating economic growth and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. It is the only assembly that brings together a range of developed and developing economies from the region. APEC was established as an Australian initiative in 1989 by the Hawke Labor government, and it is to be commended for that. I think Canberra hosted 12 members on the first occasion. Initially, it was just a consultative dialogue on trade negotiation objectives and since then APEC has grown to include 21 member economies and is now the subject of leaders’ discussions which are both formal and informal and cover an enormous range of areas, including trade, energy, climate change, security, health and regional development.
I know that the residents of Ryan would be very keen to know that the 21 APEC member economies represent 40 per cent of the world’s population, 56 per cent of global GDP and around 48 per cent of trade. APEC is also very important to our country and to Australian jobs. Sixty-nine per cent of Australia’s total trade is with APEC economies and they include eight of our top 10 trading partners. I know that Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton would be very keen to convey how important trade is not only to our nation but also to his electorate. APEC nations account for 40 per cent of inward investment in Australia and 70 per cent of international visitors to Australia—and we all know how important the Australian tourism industry is to Australian jobs, particularly the jobs of young Australians. APEC nations buy 95 per cent of Australia’s beef exports, 89 per cent of Australia’s medicinal and pharmaceutical product exports, 84 per cent of Australia’s petroleum exports, 82 per cent of Australia’s iron and steel exports, 77 per cent of Australia’s non-ferrous metal exports and 64 per cent of Australia’s very important coal exports.
APEC is a unique organisation in that it is the only intergovernmental grouping in the world committed to reducing trade barriers and increasing investment without requiring its members to enter into legally binding obligations. I believe that this structure in our part of the region is fundamental to understanding APEC’s success hitherto. It is this informal, unbinding obligation that I think best fits the identity or personality of many of the member economies of APEC. Of course, this in no way diminishes the clear fact that we all share common space on this globe and some common problems. It is an opportunity for the leaders of these nations to share issues and ideas. Trying to set a common agenda for solutions is something that would be well received by their respective peoples.
Over the past 15 years, APEC economies have outpaced the rest of the world in reducing barriers to trade and delivering economic growth. As I said earlier in my speech, I think that all nations should try as much as they can to tackle the trade barriers that exist around the world, because it is only by making a big impact on these trade barriers that we will be able to bring prosperity and opportunity to the peoples of the developing world. Of course, people of developed nations such as ours also stand to benefit enormously.
Average tariffs have declined from some 16.6 per cent in 1988 to 6.4 per cent in 2004 and no tariff barriers have been substantially increased. The real GDP for APEC economies has increased by some 46 per cent from 1989 to 2003, compared to the performance of non-APEC economies, which increased by some 36 per cent. I just want to comment on the developing APEC economies. They grew by some 77 per cent, more than double the economies of the countries that are not members of APEC. I think this is a very good reflection of the benefits that APEC has delivered to their respective economies.
By hosting the 2007 APEC meeting, Australia has a very special opportunity to forge stronger relationships in the region. I think that the Doha Round is a very significant element of the global architecture of international trade and international trade liberalisation. I congratulate the Prime Minister for bringing forward the issue of the Doha Round and trying to promote greater liberalisation in this particular APEC meeting. In June, at the annual Asia Society dinner in Sydney, he talked about the advantage of Australia’s chairmanship of APEC to press leaders for a strong statement of support for the conclusion of the Doha Round.
International trade has always been tied very significantly to our national prosperity. One of the first examples of the benefits of trade to Australia was way back in the 1860s, when the gold rush encouraged large-scale immigration and created a massive wealth effect from gold exports, which of course made Australians at the time amongst the wealthiest in the world, per capita. Unfortunately, protectionist policies fuelled by the Second World War led to a rise in tariffs. Our ranking among the world’s richest nations dropped from fifth in 1950 to ninth in 1973. A lot of that can be put down to an inward-looking world. We must never return to such a state, as it is not a formula for bringing jobs, opportunity and prosperity to the people of the world. I should say that, from 1970 until 2001—
Opposition members interjecting—
00AMX
Johnson, Michael, MP
Mr JOHNSON
—I am glad that the members opposite share my view of promoting prosperity and a liberalisation campaign. I even want to take the opportunity of commending Labor governments for trying to wage liberalisation campaigns. I only wish that they would continue to step up their efforts in this respect and support continued industry assistance. I take the shadow minister’s commitment to continuing to promote trade liberalisation very genuinely. Indeed, he has a staff member with whom I had an opportunity to share some time at Pembroke College, Cambridge. I remember debates with him about free trade versus protectionist policy. I am not sure what sorts of policies he is now advising the shadow minister on in his portfolio, but, rest assured, I very much stood on the side of greater liberalisation. I am sure that he would convey wise words to the shadow minister and those opposite. Indeed, the Ryan constituency very much supports greater free trade and greater job opportunities for Australia.
Let me just say that, if Australia had not reduced tariffs on passenger motor vehicles, average working families would be paying an additional $10,000 on a $30,000 family car. That is certainly something that all of us here would not want to impose on working families. It is fortunate that they have a job in the first case, given that under the Labor government a million working families did not have jobs.
More importantly, the Howard government has reduced national government debt from $1 billion in 1996, which hung over the heads of all Australians. I mention this because businesspeople seeking to export to the world and be part of the global economy certainly were not in a position to expand their businesses when they were paying massive interest rates in their business operations. Not only have reforms led Australia to now be ranked third in the 2007 Index of Economic Freedom, compiled by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, above the United States and the United Kingdom, but below Hong Kong and Singapore. Reforms have opened up Australian businesses of all kinds and sizes to the world market. You do not have to be a BHP or a Rio Tinto to reap the benefits of trade.
According to the ABS, around 86 per cent of exporters in Australia are small and medium sized enterprises. They account for some 30 per cent of Australia’s GDP. We must do all we can to promote their successes so that they can connect into the international economy and continue to provide jobs and opportunities for Australians. There are approximately 3,815 Australian exporters selling to China, 1,800 selling to India, 425 selling to Brazil and 291 selling to Russia.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Hatton)—Members of the opposition might adopt a quieter tone at the moment.
00AMX
Johnson, Michael, MP
Mr JOHNSON
—I thank the Deputy Speaker for his encouragement of his colleagues to support my presentation, because we are all about promoting prosperity and greater economic engagement. That is precisely what APEC does and it is precisely what the Prime Minister will be doing when he chairs APEC and talks about the success of Australia’s policies in plugging into the region and the world.
Many countries coming here will be very envious of the 4.3 per cent unemployment in our country. They will be very envious of the zero government debt that we have, and I am sure they will be seeking to learn as much as they can about Australia’s national economic success story over the last decade. I am sure that the Prime Minister will be talking to them about how important Australia’s success in trade has been in that endeavour. Australia does punch well above its weight, and I hope that every shadow minister and every other Labor member will talk about how significant Australia has been in the last decade and how important it has been in punching above its weight. I hope that they go back to their electorates and promote Australia, instead of talking Australia down—as was done in a shadow minister’s blurb, which he ended up sending to my electorate instead of to his own constituents. I found that very interesting in terms of the competence of the shadow minister in that case.
Australia’s population is 0.3 per cent of one per cent of the global population, yet our economy totals over $1.1 trillion, making Australia the 13th largest economy in the world. That is some 50 per cent larger than it was in 1996. In 10 short years, we have grown some 50 per cent and are punching well above our weight and our size. Put in comparative terms, our population is around 1.5 per cent of China’s, but our per capita GDP is four times as much. We can and should be very proud of this picture of Australia. Indeed, as the OECD says, Australia is now ranked eighth in the OECD’s standard of living rankings, up from 13th in 1996, and it is third out of 177 countries on the 2006 United Nations Human Development Index, which takes into account things like achievements in education, GDP growth and life expectancy.
Unfortunately, my time to speak is coming to an end. I did want to talk about—
Opposition members interjecting—
00AMX
Johnson, Michael, MP
Mr JOHNSON
—I am delighted to hear the warm and generous support of my colleagues in the parliament! I know that, deep down, many of them want to be Liberals, like the aspiring Prime Minister. Indeed, the shadow ministers and the aspiring Prime Minister have arrogance; the federal opposition leader came into the Ryan electorate a few weeks ago and talked about my arrogance in representing the Ryan electorate. He deep down wants to be a deep blue Liberal. I like the blue tie he is wearing, reflecting his support of—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Members of the opposition!
00AMX
Johnson, Michael, MP
Mr JOHNSON
—I do not want to waste my time here. I know that the opposition are trying to sidetrack me from talking about my strong representation of the Ryan electorate, which has the lowest unemployment rate in the country. I should say that, because many of the Ryan businesses export to the region and indeed to the world.
I end my remarks on this point: the world must never return to protectionist policies. It must never return to an inward-looking approach to our national and international policies. The wealth of our nation and, indeed, of our globe will continue to rise and expand if we can engage with the world. I commend a very interesting and significant book called The World is Flat by Tom Friedman. For anyone who might be listening, I commend the very interesting chapter on free trade to them. It is chapter 5, and it talks about how significant it is for economies and for societies to be able to connect with the rest of the world. That is the best formula for delivering opportunities and jobs to the people of those communities—in particular, to the people of the developing world. I want to continue to promote innovation and entrepreneurship, particularly in the Ryan electorate. I know that many businesspeople will be watching the success of the APEC meeting very closely—(Time expired)
10000
Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Hatton)—The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Prior to calling the member for Cowan, I would like to welcome Mrs Edwards, friends and family, members of the Vietnam Veterans Association and Senator Webber from Western Australia for what is to be, as promoted, the member for Cowan’s last speech. I would also like to thank the member for Deakin for allowing me to stay in the chair during that speech. I call the member for Cowan.
95
18:34:00
Edwards, Graham, MP
83R
Cowan
ALP
0
0
Mr EDWARDS
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your kind words earlier and note also those of Julia Gillard, which I really appreciated. I must say, after listening to the member for Ryan speak, that that is probably the best speech that he will ever make in this House but, having heard it, members might understand why I really will not miss this place when I go!
In talking to the amendments to the APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007 and in making probably my last speech in the House, I want to take the opportunity to cover a range of issues. Firstly, as this bill relates to APEC and as I will be attending APEC at the invitation of the Prime Minister in my capacity as deputy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I want to comment on some of the activities of that committee—a committee, Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton, of which you are a notable member.
The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade is probably the most interesting committee in the parliament. As a joint committee, it is a busy one; not only does it require attendance at an additional seven meetings in a sitting week but it also requires attendance at a number of meetings outside of sitting times. The committee has been fortunate enough to travel to and visit our troops on the ground in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, it has become somewhat of a tradition for committee members to visit our troops in the field.
Whilst we on this side do not agree with our involvement in the Iraq war, I have had the opportunity to tell troops in Iraq that the parliament gives them strong bipartisan support and that we on this side stand behind them and their families during their service and on their return. In that respect, I think our nation has learnt much following the Vietnam War. Our committee has also produced a number of well-researched reports, and we are about to finalise our report on the air superiority gap issue, which has come from an inquiry requiring much work. I want to recognise the staff of the committee and give particular thanks to the Defence attaches we have had over the years. I thank the committee staff and those personnel for the kind personal support they have given me over the years. I know that without that support I would not have been able to visit Iraq and Afghanistan.
Being a Vietnam veteran has given me a responsibility to pursue veterans issues. I have done so willingly and sometimes aggressively. I make no apology for that, as I firmly believe that, if this nation has the capacity to send young men and women overseas to fight in foreign wars, it certainly should have the capacity to support them when they return and in later years.
Back in 2000 I brought to the attention of this House the suicide of Ken Freeman, a former member of the Special Air Services in Perth. His widow did not want his suicide to pass without something being done to try to help veterans with similar issues. Tragically, suicide within the veteran community has continued. I recently raised the issue of the suicide of another former member of the SAS in Perth on behalf of his partner. She too did not want his suicide to pass without something happening to assist other veterans who may be facing similar problems. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, facing pressure from a number of issues relating to that suicide, announced an inquiry but neglected to consult with the veteran’s partner. She was only advised of the inquiry through the thoughtfulness of a member of another ex-service organisation.
Who can forget that the same lack of courtesy and consideration was extended to war widow Kylie Russell when the President of the United States laid a wreath in honour of her husband at the National War Memorial but this government neglected to advise or invite her? Here was a young mother grieving the loss of her husband, tragically killed by a mine in Afghanistan. She felt a great sense of injustice and pulled the government on over the treatment of war widows. She sought nothing for herself but to win improvements for other widows who would face similar issues in the future unless changes were won. Because of her strong stand and because of the strong support she received from many sections of the veteran community, the government backed down and did indeed make changes.
I have been prepared to confront successive ministers and the government on a number of these issues over the years. I have done so in the knowledge that I have had strong support from people like Blue Ryan, National President of the TPI Federation, a man who has done an immense amount of work for the veteran community. It is beaut to see Blue in the gallery of the chamber tonight. I have also had strong support from the Vietnam Veterans Federation, particularly from blokes like Tim McCombe and Graham Walker and it is beaut to see Graham here tonight as well. I have an immense admiration for Graham. I have appreciated all the support and I know that these ex-service organisations—these two in particular—believe that they exist to represent the needs of their members, they do so without fear or favour and they do so regardless of the politics of the government of the day.
I have been a member of the RSL since I joined the Scarborough branch in Western Australia in 1971, the branch that my father was a member of. I am currently a member of North Beach branch. I have great respect for much of the work done by veterans on behalf of veterans in the branches of the RSL. What has disappointed me over the years, however, has been the deafening silence of the RSL at the state and national levels over some of the issues which go to the heart of the wellbeing of the veteran community. Perhaps the time is coming when the RSL needs to elect its national president from the rank and file of its membership.
I also believe it is imperative to re-establish the national veterans advisory council to ensure that the veteran community does have direct and clear lines of communication with the minister of the day. It is also important that the minister has the capacity to consult with the veteran community in a transparent and accountable way. I hear the minister of today saying, ‘I have consulted with the veteran community over a whole range of issues.’ But I know many veterans heavily involved in the veteran community who have never been consulted. Indeed, most of them wonder whom it is that the minister has consulted. We need to make the actions of the minister accountable and transparent.
Last Friday Alan Griffin and I visited the Pe-ac-ed With Love quilting exhibition here in Canberra. This is an exhibition put together by widows, partners and families of Australian war veterans. What a moving exhibition PVA have put on, with the partners’ theme being unity, love, peace. It was a wonderful exhibition, I congratulate PVA for the tremendous work that they are doing, and I wish them well for the future. Indeed, under a Rudd Labor government I hope that they will be given a voice in national veterans issues and it is a delight to see some of the members of the PVA here tonight. I hope, at some stage in the future, that the wonderful exhibition they put on might be displayed at the War Memorial. I think it is one of the best exhibitions of veterans paraphernalia that I have ever seen.
I also want to take this opportunity to recognise the great work done on behalf of veterans by my mate Ric Giblett. Ric and I joined up together and he has worked with me for one day a week on veterans advocacy. I want to say thanks, mate, and well done, cobber. The first bill I spoke on in this House was the bill introduced by the government to ratify the Ottawa Convention. For me this was the continuance of a journey started as a member of the Pioneer Platoon in the 7th Battalion, RAR where we were taught to lay mines. Having stood on one in Vietnam and been lucky enough to survive and then to have joined the movement to campaign against them is a continuing part of that journey. I am currently patron of the Australian Network to Ban Landmines and I want to recognise their wonderful work and pay tribute to their commitment. I know that their priority now is to extend the ban to cover antivehicle mines. I wish them well in their work and I assure them of my continuing support in the future.
Today I want to direct some comments to the people of Cowan. I simply want to say thanks. I take this opportunity to express my appreciation to them for the privilege, courtesy and opportunities afforded me over the past nine years as their federal representative. I hope I have returned the trust placed in me. Australia faces many challenges into the future beyond the current mining boom. It is recognised that the Prime Minister, John Howard, is a clever politician. However, like many Australians, I am not convinced that he has a vision for the future of this nation beyond the next election. As a proud Australian, a father and a grandfather, I have a number of concerns for the future. These include mortgage stress brought about by high interest rates, despite John Howard’s pre-election promise to keep interest rates at record lows. They also include the high cost of living, lack of provision of health services, declining aged care, lack of job security, high home rentals and the declining opportunity for young Australians to achieve the dream that my generation grew up with—that is, the dream of homeownership.
As the only veteran in the Australian parliament, I also have taken a strong interest in defence and security matters, including the wellbeing of Australia’s veterans past and present. Australia’s involvement in the Iraq war has been shrouded in lies and deceit. I fail to see how sending young Australians overseas to fight in that war has in any way enhanced the world’s or Australia’s security—indeed, I fear the reverse. I look forward to the time when our political leaders no longer require young Australian men and women to be sent overseas to fight in unnecessary wars that do nothing to improve security in our own country or our own region.
I believe Kevin Rudd does have a vision for the future of this nation, a vision which includes a fair go for all Australians, and I will be strongly supporting his bid to lead Australia into the future. This is a view shared by Liz Prime. Liz has been selected by Australian Labor to replace me as the ALP candidate for Cowan. Liz is currently director of nursing at Joondalup hospital. Liz has a proud record of involvement in community organisations in our northern suburbs. As a mother she knows the challenges facing families as they struggle to balance family commitments, work responsibilities and making the family budget stretch from one payday to the next. Liz is a fine person with a commitment to the future of this nation, and I will be working hard to see her elected.
I have spent most of my life living and working in Perth’s northern suburbs. In retirement I intend to continue to work with and support a number of voluntary organisations that are doing great work in our community. To all of the people in Cowan: I wish you and your family peace, security and a fair go into the future.
In Cowan we have a number of wonderful organisations. One of them is Wheelchairs for Kids. This organisation constructs wheelchairs for kids and sends them to many overseas countries including East Timor, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Bosnia, Vietnam and Iraq. I recently attended a ceremony to mark its 10,000th wheelchair. It has now sent 11,402 wheelchairs overseas to 57 different countries. Wheelchairs for Kids is run by a group of former Christian Brothers with the support of Scarborough Rotary and other volunteers, including a group of Vietnam veterans. Wheelchairs for Kids have 150 wheelchairs ready to go to Iraq. The wheelchairs are demountable and take up little room. Wheelchairs for Kids have approached Senator Ellison’s office in Perth to get government support to send these wheelchairs to Iraq to the 150 kids who have already been identified. The government has told Wheelchairs for Kids that it is unable to assist. I find this incredible, and I call on the Minister for Defence, Minister Nelson, to review this decision. I want to congratulate Brother Ollie Picket, Bob Sheridan, Gordon Hudson and all of the volunteers at Wheelchairs for Kids, who do a tremendous job. I say to them: you really do epitomise the spirit of volunteers, and I salute you.
One of the important issues facing Australia is the need to foster and increase the spirit of volunteerism. Many adults, facing increasing uncertainty in the workplace and a lack of job security, coupled with longer working hours and rising costs, are turning away from community involvement. P&Cs, sporting groups, service clubs and a host of other community organisations are feeling the pinch, with a lack of volunteers making their time available. Often the same family groups are involved in more than one community group, which means that they face burnout. I want to encourage the Labor Party to look at incentives to keep families involved in community groups.
I often say that the three most important principles of sport and recreation are participation, participation and participation. As young people seem more vulnerable to obesity or spending more time in front of personal computers and less time exercising, and as parents work longer hours, it seems to me that participation in healthy sport or recreational pursuits is declining or at least becoming more expensive for families to maintain—indeed, prohibitive for many. Being involved with your children in the community is crucial. I urge Labor to look at incentives to help keep families involved in community sporting and recreational clubs. The future health and wellbeing of young Australians depends on this participation in healthy lifestyles, and that practice needs to start from a young age. I say to parents that the time spent with your children in community groups is important for them and you. I also believe that young children like to see their parents involved and helping out in a volunteer way with the club or group they are involved with. I believe that we must look at tax incentives to help break down the cost of family involvement in junior sport. We must also take steps to rekindle the wonderful spirit of volunteerism which is the backbone of all community groups in this nation.
In conclusion, I want to thank the staff of Parliament House for the tremendous support afforded me since my election. Indeed, the friendliness of all staff here, including the security people, guides and Comcar drivers, has gone a long way to making my job here so much more enjoyable.
I am not the sort of bloke who makes friends easily, but I have appreciated some great friendships in Canberra. I particularly want to say thanks to Gibbo for his mateship. Steve is a committed member for Bendigo, and I doubt that there is a more dedicated local representative in this place. To Annette Ellis, who is indeed a fine and delightful lady, I also say thanks for your friendship and advice from time to time. To Kevin Rudd: well, all I can say, mate, is that it is all in front of you and the party, and I wish you well. I listened to your speech to the Christian group, replayed last night on the ABC. Kevin, you certainly represent the values of the ALP and our hope for the future of this nation. To Jenny Macklin I also say: many thanks for the advice, for the many times you have been to Perth and for the friendships you have extended to me and my family over the years. To Kim Beazley, a great man and a great Australian: it is my privilege to have served with you, Kim, and I wish you all the very best for the future. I know that you will continue to make a great contribution to this nation. To Ruth Webber: thanks very much for doing me the honour of coming here tonight. I also want to thank Roger Price and his staff for their consideration and support since he has been in that position. To all of my colleagues I say: thanks for your support, and I wish you well for the future.
We all know that our reputations and electorate offices depend on the calibre of the people involved. My electorate office does have a good reputation. This is a reflection of my staff, and I want to thank them. I thank Maurene, who has been with me for over 20 years and has carried the brunt of many issues and many difficult constituent problems. That she has lasted so long is testimony to her professionalism, dedication to the job and enduring capacity to put up with a grumpy boss. My thanks to Lisa, who is as quiet as a church mouse in the electorate office but who has a tremendous passion for righting the wrongs of the world and pursuing a fair go for people, particularly in areas of migration. To both Tony, the Dockers supporter who has stuck his head into the lions den, and to Simon, who came, left and returned, I also say thanks for your professional approach and your conscientious care of constituents. You have both been great assets to this office. I know that this has been a challenging time for my staff, with some uncertainties in the future, but you all have well-deserved high reputations, and I know that your futures will be secured.
Lastly, to my family: you simply cannot do this job without the love, support and encouragement of your family. To Noelene, who has been with me every inch of the journey, I say thanks. Our marriage has survived Vietnam, politics and her support for Collingwood Football Club. Hopefully we can look to the future, enjoying our family and our retirement for many years to come. To Kerryn, our eldest daughter, her partner, Paul, and our delightful little grandson, Jake, I say g’day. I know that they would like to have been here tonight, but that was simply not possible. Likewise to Jaynie—who would also like to have been here, but who has just started her prac as a teacher and is unable to be here—I send all my love. To Rosemary and Billie, my sister and her partner—my brother-in-law, a Kiwi—who are here, I also send my thanks.
The most important structure in our society today is the family. I know that the ALP goes into the next election with a leader with policies that recognise this. For the future of my children and their children, and thousands of other Australian families, I know that a Rudd Labor victory at the next election is imperative. Just as I have lived my political life loyal to the principles of the ALP and loyal to the catchcry that I grew up with—’A fair go for all’—so will I end my political career with my strong commitment to see a Rudd Labor government elected.
I thank the ALP for the opportunities they have given me. I thank my colleagues who are here tonight for their support. I look forward to the future. I look forward to future challenges. I look forward to a world which will be better for my grandchild and all the grandchildren in the world. If I could leave with one thing in this House, it would be that which the Partners of Veterans Association captured in their quilt show. It is simply this, for all the kids in the world: unity, love, peace.
10000
Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Hatton)—I thank the member for Cowan. As with the first speech, given that this is the last speech, the relevance, of course, is that the member for Cowan is facing his own public holiday. In summing up the APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007, the question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. I wish to thank the House for its elasticity and indulgence, and the member for Deakin for his consideration.
100
18:54:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
0
Mr HOCKEY
—We are very elastic, Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton. To briefly recap, to facilitate the holding of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings being hosted in Sydney over the week of 2-9 September 2007, the New South Wales government has declared a one-off APEC holiday for the Sydney metropolitan area on 7 September. The APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007 ensures the employees in the federal workplace system to whom the APEC public holiday applies will receive on that day the public holiday entitlements provided under their industrial instrument. This means that federal system employees who are affected by the APEC public holiday will receive the same public holiday entitlements for this holiday as they would receive for other public holidays under their instrument. I commend the bill to the House.
10000
Barresi, Phillip (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Barresi)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Lalor has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
100
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
101
18:56:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
0
Mr HOCKEY
—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments 1 to 8, as circulated, together.
Leave granted.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—I move government amendments 1 to 8:
(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 3), omit “certain”.
(2) Clause 4, page 2 (line 13), omit “a pre-reform”, substitute “an”.
(3) Clause 4, page 2 (line 17), omit “pre‑reform”.
(4) Clause 4, page 2 (line 19), omit “pre-reform”.
(5) Clause 4, page 2 (after line 21), after the definition of excluded employer, insert:
industrial instrument means any of the following:
(a) an award within the meaning of section 4 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996;
(b) a workplace agreement within the meaning of section 4 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996;
(c) a workplace determination within the meaning of section 4 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996;
(d) a transitional award within the meaning of subclause 2(1) of Schedule 6 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996;
(e) a pre‑reform AWA within the meaning of clause 1 of Schedule 7 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996;
(f) a pre‑reform certified agreement within the meaning of clause 1 of Schedule 7 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996;
(g) a section 170MX award within the meaning of clause 1 of Schedule 7 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996;
(h) an old IR agreement within the meaning of clause 1 of Schedule 7 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996;
(i) a notional agreement preserving State awards within the meaning of clause 1 of Schedule 8 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996;
(j) a preserved State agreement within the meaning of clause 1 of Schedule 8 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996;
(k) an instrument prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.
(6) Clause 4, page 2 (line 27) to page 3 (line 9), omit the definition of pre‑reform industrial instrument.
(7) Clause 5, page 3 (line 12), omit “pre‑reform”.
(8) Clause 5, page 3 (line 20), omit “a pre‑reform”, substitute “an”.
The APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007 was drafted to ensure that all federal system employees would be entitled to public holiday entitlements for the APEC holiday. Employer bodies in New South Wales have pointed out that it was not uncommon for public holiday provisions in state awards to be drafted in a way that does not recognise local or regional holidays, like the APEC public holiday, as a public holiday. These public holiday provisions in New South Wales state awards are being carried across into notional agreements preserving state awards, or NAPSAs. This position gave rise to a concern that an employee might not receive the same entitlements for the APEC holiday as for other public holidays under their instrument. There is also some concern that there may be confusion as to what public holiday entitlements should be paid to particular employees on the APEC public holiday, as it would depend on the category of the industrial instrument covered by the bill.
The government wishes to ensure that its original intention that there be a public holiday entitlement for the APEC public holiday is clear. Accordingly, having regard to the concerns raised, the government has proposed this amendment to the bill, which would deem the APEC holiday as a public holiday for all federal instruments to which the APEC holiday could apply, including notional agreements preserving state awards, or NAPSAs, operating in New South Wales. This amendment would avoid any doubt that employees working in local government areas in which the APEC public holiday is to be observed will receive the same entitlement for the APEC public holiday as for other public holidays under their instrument.
Amendments agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
102
Mr HOCKEY
(North Sydney
—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service)
18:59:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2007 MEASURES NO. 4) BILL 2007
102
Bills
R2820
Cognate bills:
TAXATION (TRUSTEE BENEFICIARY NON-DISCLOSURE TAX) BILL (NO. 1) 2007
102
Bills
R2836
TAXATION (TRUSTEE BENEFICIARY NON-DISCLOSURE TAX) BILL (NO. 2) 2007
102
Bills
R2837
Second Reading
102
Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Mr Pearce:
That these bills be now read a second time.
102
19:00:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—On indulgence, I would like to briefly remark on the address we just heard from the member for Cowan and say how much I will miss him from this House. I have not served with him for as long as some other members, but it has been one of the honours of the last three years to serve with a man of his calibre. We will certainly miss him. I would prefer that he go on as the member for Cowan in perpetuity, but that cannot be the case. I am certainly sure he will enjoy his retirement.
We will be voting for the Tax Laws Amendment (2007 Measures No. 4) Bill 2007, but I will be moving a second reading amendment and a substantive amendment in the consideration in detail stage. Schedule 1 of this bill repeals the existing foreign loss and tax credit quarantining rules and replaces them with a simplified foreign tax offset arrangement. The main measure is the abolition of the foreign loss and foreign tax credit quarantining and the rewriting of the remaining complex foreign tax credit rules as part of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.
Here we go again. We are debating elements which arose out of a Board of Taxation report of 2003, which were announced by the government in 2005 and which are being legislated in the final period of the term which ends in 2007. These amendments mean that taxpayers will no longer be required to quarantine assessable foreign income amounts into four separate classes. Rather, a taxpayer can combine all assessable foreign income amounts when working out a tax offset entitlement, allowing the taxpayer a greater averaging capacity than under the old foreign tax credit rules. This greater averaging capacity will minimise the amount of foreign tax income that goes unrelieved. Consequently, the mechanism allowing the carrying forward of excess foreign tax income will be removed and the foreign tax credits still cannot be used against domestic sourced income. This provides for a sensible balance which we will support. It reduces compliance costs for taxpayers and increases concessions while minimising the effect on government revenue.
Taxpayers who earn attributed income through controlled foreign companies will no longer be able to quarantine revenue losses into separate classes. The amendments introduce a de minimis cap, which is a sensible simplification measure. A taxpayer does not need to calculate the foreign tax offset cap if they elect to use the $1,000 de minimis cap. In this case, of course, they cannot claim more than $1,000 of foreign income tax. The amendments also mean that economic double taxation arising as a result of transfer pricing adjustment by another country will no longer be remedied by foreign tax credit. Instead, Australia will adopt OECD practice and allow the Commissioner of Taxation to adjust a taxpayer’s taxable income or tax loss in the event of a transfer pricing adjustment in another country so as to relieve potential double taxation.
The bill also allows taxpayers with a minority interest in foreign companies to choose to calculate attributable income using the CFC branch equivalent rules rather than the foreign investment fund rules. This should reduce compliance costs for taxpayers and financial institutions that have to deal with the notoriously complex FIF rules and allow Australian investors to take advantage of existing exemptions and concessions of CFC measures.
I note that the new legislation is 67 pages long, with 17 pages of transitional rules, 19 pages of new legislation and 30 pages of consequential amendments. This does not take into account the ATO rulings and determinations which will be needed to flesh out this new legislation. It is hard to characterise this bill as a major step forward in tax simplification.
I was astounded to read in the explanatory memorandum the government’s characterisation of this bill as promoting the competitiveness of Australian funds. The explanatory memorandum says:
It will also improve the competitiveness of Australian managed funds in attracting the management of funds from other countries.
You might say, ‘Fair enough’, but it is extraordinary for this government to claim that it even cares. It is extraordinary for this government to make sweeping statements about attracting more foreign funds into our managed funds when it has refused point-blank to give Australia a competitive tax regime when it comes to this area. It has absolutely refused to give Australia a 15 per cent flat and final withholding tax rate. It has refused to give this country bipartisan agreement on reducing our tax on overseas investors coming into Australian managed funds in order to make Australia the financial services hub of Asia. It claims that this is a major reform but it has completely ignored what industry wants.
This also rings hollow when you consider that, after 11 years in office, this government has singularly failed to act on the moribund division 6C of the tax act, the thing that causes the most compliance grief for Australian managed funds. Last week I announced that the first reference to the Board of Taxation from a Rudd Labor government would be the operation of division 6C and the implementation of a purpose-built managed fund and REIT tax regime and that we would instruct the Treasury to sit down with industry in the meantime and work through sensible solutions to the administrative inefficiency of division 6C as it stands.
There was deafening silence from the government in response. They have had 11 years to fix the issue and they have done nothing. Instead, we see claims in this bill that this is a major step forward in making Australia a financial services hub. This bill is welcome. We certainly do not oppose it, but this government have simply refused to do what industry has been asking them to. Industry has been asking for a competitive withholding tax rate. The government have simply refused. Industry has been asking for a sensible approach to division 6C of the tax act. The government have refused.
It is particularly interesting that the government trumpets this bill as being important to the future of Australia as a financial services centre when you look at some of the submissions to the Senate inquiry. The submission of the Australian Bankers Association says:
... the ABA believes the amendments as they impact Offshore Banking Units is in conflict with the policy intent behind the offshore banking regime, instead weakening Australia’s attractiveness as a financial centre.
The explanatory memorandum says that it is a boost, a great addition to our plans to make Australia a financial centre. The ABA says that it will weaken Australia’s attractiveness as a financial centre. When it comes to this issue, I think that on balance the ABA has got it right and the government has got it wrong. The government is undermining Australia’s attractiveness as a financial centre and letting industry down. By its policy failures it is continuing a situation in which Australia’s financial services industry is burdened with an uncompetitive tax regime. We continue to run trade deficits in this sector of the economy, which is bigger than agriculture but which exports a measly proportion of its services. When you look at all the competitive advantages we as a nation have in funds management and the provision of financial services, you see that this government stands in the way of exporting more of those services. As I have said before, this is not about picking winners; it is about getting the monkey of government off this industry’s back and letting them do their job. This government fails to do that.
I move:
That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
-
expresses concern that Offshore Banking Units are not included in schedule 1 of this bill;
-
notes the concern of the Australian Bakers Association that this omission will weaken Australia’s attractiveness as a financial centre; and
-
condemns the Government for failing to embrace policies which will promote Australia as a financial services hub such as a flat and final 15% withholding tax rate and the introduction of a managed funds tax regime’.
This is about promoting Australian exports and giving young Australians highly skilled, well-paid jobs. This is about ensuring that when the commodity boom ends, as it eventually and inevitably will, Australia has something to fall back on. When that happens the Australian people will ask what this government did to support industries such as the managed funds industry, which is doing such a good job—and the answer will be, ‘Not much.’ I call on the government to reflect on the omission of the offshore banking units regime from this bill and to fix it. They will have bipartisan support to do so. They have done it before; they did it on section 128F. They came into the House, admitted that they were wrong and got the bipartisan support of the opposition to fix the issue. Again, that issue was a major stumbling block for the banking and financial services industry in this country. It made their job a lot harder. We pointed that out. The government admitted their mistake, begrudgingly, and amended the bill. It would be quite easy to do so in this case as well.
Schedule 2 of the bill proposes to provide a capital gains tax rollover for membership interests in medical defence organisations, or MDOs. This rollover will generally be available when a membership interest in an MDO is replaced with a similar membership interest in another MDO and both MDOs are companies limited by guarantee. Labor support this as a sensible measure which will remove a tax impediment to mergers and takeovers of MDOs when the market prefers such takeovers or mergers. Schedule 3 of the bill contains an amendment to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to provide an exemption from the borrowing prohibition to allow superannuation funds to invest in instalment warrants so long as certain borrowing criteria are met. An in-house asset rule contained in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 is also amended to allow for the purchase of an interest in a related trust forming part of an instalment warrant if certain conditions are met. This measure overcomes the view of the Australian Taxation Office and APRA that instalment warrant arrangements constitute a borrowing and that an investment by a self-managed superannuation fund in an instalment warrant is an in-house asset and therefore breaches the borrowings provisions and in-house assets rules of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act. Labor believe this proposal will assist superannuation funds to grow their assets to support Australians in their retirement. As a result we support that measure.
Schedule 4 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 so that trustees of closely held trusts are no longer required to report to the Commissioner of Taxation the details of the trust’s ultimate beneficiaries. Instead, trustees of closely held trusts are now only required to report details of the trust’s trustee beneficiaries. The ultimate beneficiary rules require the trustee of a closely held trust to provide the commissioner with an ultimate beneficiary statement where one or more trustee beneficiaries are interposed between the closely held trust and its ultimate beneficiaries. That statement must disclose the identity of the ultimate beneficiaries in respect of the trust’s net income. In order to meet this requirement, the trustee must trace these through trustee beneficiaries to ultimate beneficiaries. This is an antiavoidance measure designed to prevent the use of a chain of trusts to hide income. It alerts the ATO to the amount of income a beneficiary will receive from a trust to check that they report this income. The ultimate beneficiary rules were introduced by this government in 1999 as an antiavoidance measure. They were aimed at preventing complex chains of trusts being used to avoid or indefinitely defer tax. This measure undoubtedly waters down the government’s own 1999 closely held unit trust integrity measures.
We will not be opposing this measure, but I do indicate that the opposition reserves the right to closely monitor its operation. I note that the government has estimated a zero cost for this measure. I am not sure if that is correct. I am willing, for the purposes of this debate, to give the government the benefit of the doubt, take it at face value in good faith and assume that it is a zero cost measure. If that is the case, we will support it on that basis. However, I do make it clear—as I have said—that we will be closely monitoring the operation of this section. We are reluctant to support the watering down of antiavoidance measures generally where there is evidence that they were introduced to fix a mischief in the first place. We will be ensuring through that monitoring that this does not impinge on the operation or the integrity of the tax base.
Schedule 5 amends various acts to assist in the smooth transition to the simplified superannuation regime and ensure the intended policy outcome is reflected in the legislation. Schedule 5 makes the following minor amendments to the superannuation rules: to limit strategies which could circumvent the minimum drawdown requirements for account based pensions; to facilitate the provision of tax file numbers to superannuation and retirement savings account providers; to change the treatment of ‘no tax file number’ contributions income under the pay as you go regime; and to revise the application of the small business capital gains tax relief amendments. The amendments also improve the readability of provisions rewritten as part of the simplified superannuation reforms and clarify the intended operation of the reforms. This is to improve the new superannuation regime, which builds on Labor’s superannuation policy of the 1980s and 1990s—which the coalition opposed. These are sensible measures which enjoy Labor’s support.
Schedule 6 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to update the list of deductible gift recipients or DGRs. It adds the following organisations: the Australian Peacekeeping Memorial Project and Social Ventures Australia. It also reflects the name change of a specifically listed DGR—that is, Mawson’s Huts Foundation. Social Ventures Australia seeks to improve the effectiveness of other charitable organisations by providing financial support, business skills and development mentoring. The Australian Peacekeeping Memorial Project was established for the construction of a national memorial in Canberra to commemorate and celebrate Australian peacekeeping. Labor supports this schedule and wishes those organisations well.
Schedule 7 of the bill makes various minor amendments to the taxation laws. The amendments rectify errors such as duplicate definitions, missing asterisks from defined terms and inoperative references. Other amendments include providing for the income tax deductibility of gifts to certain scholarship funds for masters or doctoral theses, as originally intended; correcting the formula—as Dr Emerson would support—for calculating the fringe benefits tax depreciation rate for a car to align it with the income tax diminishing value capital allowance figure, which is currently 200 per cent rather than the previous 150 per cent; preventing the unintended tax file number withholding from payments to exempt foreign superannuation contributions; and preventing an unintended capital gains tax exemption for certain not-for-profit mutual organisations. These updates and clarifications also enjoy Labor’s support.
I will now turn to the final schedule, which the Labor Party cannot support. I will be moving a substantive amendment removing schedule 8 from the bill. Schedule 8 provides more flexibility to family trusts by allowing trust election to be varied or revoked in a broader range of circumstances and expands the definition of ‘family’ to include lineal descendants of nieces and nephews, amongst others. Also, distributions to former spouses, widows and widowers and former stepchildren will be exempt from family distributions tax. These measures come at a cost to revenue of $8 million a year. The issue of taxation of family trusts has been an ongoing issue that this government has grappled with over the last 11 years. Put simply, the government has not made a case for these changes. The explanatory memorandum indicates a cost of $34 million over the forward estimates. That is not an insubstantial amount of money. We believe that there are better ways to spend that money.
Labor does not see this as a priority for tax reform. We support tax reform which promotes the productive capacity of the Australian economy. We support tax reform which promotes the competitiveness of the Australian economy and we support simplification in a holistic way. As I said, we support, for example, the reduction of the withholding tax to 15 per cent—flat and final. We believe those sorts of things are the priorities for tax reform in this country. It would be nice to see this government giving priority to section 51AD and division 6D of the Income Tax Assessment Act, for example. We do not believe that schedule 8 should be a priority for government. This is not a matter of attacking the government and saying, for example, that family trusts are a complete rort or that family trusts should be closed down. This is about priorities. We do not believe that expanding the operation of family trusts and making them available to more people—more lineal descendants such as great nieces and nephews and great-great nieces and nephews, for example—should be a priority for government. We do not support it and we will be closely monitoring the operation of that particular section. As I said, in the consideration in detail stage I will be moving a substantive amendment. I have already moved the second reading amendment that stands in my name.
10000
Barresi, Phillip (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Barresi)—Is the amendment seconded?
107
19:19:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
0
0
Dr EMERSON
—The amendment is seconded, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought I would take the opportunity of raising the tone of the House by dressing up for the occasion in my dinner suit. I also have a commitment, as I know the member for Prospect does, with the Australian Industry Group—our friends in the manufacturing and service industries. I hope you will forgive me. I hope I am not in violation of any dress code. I thank the duty minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, for his mercy in not taking action against me.
The Tax Laws Amendment (2007 Measures No. 4) Bill 2007 and cognate bills before us tonight are complex. We do support most of the legislation with the exception of the broadening of the definition of ‘family’ in respect of disbursements from family trusts. I want to concentrate the time that I have on that provision, but before I do I want to make some general remarks about the complexity of the tax system. The member for Prospect has informed the House of the volume of the legislation that is before us tonight. It reminds us of the increasing complexity of the income tax system in this country. The Treasurer undertook an exercise that he described as ‘simplifying the tax system’ and as a result of that exercise he thought it was a terrific outcome that the government had removed a couple of thousand pages of redundant provisions from the Income Tax Assessment Act. It is not the redundant provisions that are the problem but the operative provisions. I doubt that implementing changes that remove redundant provisions actually constitutes genuine tax simplification. Since I have been in this parliament, from 1998, probably on a fortnightly basis we have been confronted with incredibly complex taxation law amendment bills. This is yet another and it adds to the complexity of the income tax system. There have been many opportunities for the government to simplify the tax system. Indeed, the great tax adventure, launched by the Prime Minister before the 1998 election, was supposed to be the ultimate in simplification. The Treasurer, from 1999 through 2000, described this endeavour as a ‘streamlined new tax system for a new century’. Streamlined? The government never streamlined the tax system. It introduced a monster new tax, the GST, itself involving many kilos of legislation. And we know that the GST is anything but a simplified tax.
Since that time, the government has had an enormous amount of revenue at its disposal. It is revenue that initially was generated by the productivity surge built on the reform program of the previous Labor government—and carried forward, in some places, by the coalition—and more recently through the bounty of the mining boom. You would have thought that, in the 11 years it has had, the government would have seized the opportunity to use those proceeds to implement genuine tax reform. It had the opportunity to set out what it considered to be the ultimate tax system. It could have used the proceeds to march towards that goal. At least the Australian public would have known what was in the minds of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and would have seen that destination getting closer and closer.
The government, though, for pretty base political reasons, declined that opportunity. It would have perhaps limited the capacity of the government to make tax cuts in areas which were of the greatest political benefit. That has been the constant driver of this government. Rather than introducing tax reform, the government has sought to harvest political benefit from targeting particular groups at particular times—usually much closer to elections—and giving them back some of the bracket creep that they have been paying because of the operation of inflation on the income tax brackets. They then say: ‘What jolly good fellows we are. We have given back some of the tax that we have taken from you. Now we deserve to be re-elected.’ The Australian people are well and truly awake to that caper. They are sick and tired of the ever-increasing complexity of the income tax system and the cynicism of the Howard government in providing tax cuts, but not tax reform, close to elections. This legislation, though in the intent expressed is mostly laudable, does surely fail the test of simplicity.
The member for Prospect has spoken eloquently on the second reading amendment. We are disappointed that this legislation does not take the opportunity to implement Labor policy that offshore banking units be included in this bill. We note that the Australian Bankers Association has expressed concern that this omission will weaken Australia’s attractiveness as a financial centre and we condemn the government for failing to embrace policies such as a flat and final 15 per cent withholding tax rate and the introduction of a managed funds tax regime, which would promote Australia as a financial services hub. I commend the member for Prospect for developing these policies and for being resolute in his determination to have them properly debated in this parliament. The relevant industries know the importance of these and they know that they pass a vital test—that is, to boost the productivity and competitiveness of Australian industry. A key criterion for any reform relating to the business tax system in Australia is that it should in some way or another boost productivity. And, in relation to the personal tax system, wherever possible rates should be reduced to ameliorate the incentive-crushing effects of the personal income tax system.
While we are on the issue of passing the test of boosting productivity or in some way increasing overall the prosperity of our great nation, I now take the ruler to that provision with which we do not agree—that is, that the definition of ‘family’ under the family trust system be broadened to include lineal descendants of family members. This would expand the definition of family to include any lineal descendant of a nephew, niece or child of the relevant individual, or that individual’s spouse. Obviously, this considerably expands the number of people who can receive distributions from family trusts.
The amount involved—$8 million per year—is substantial. With $8 million a year you could do a lot towards the overall exercise of the tax reforms that have been proposed by the member for Prospect, just by way of example. I would be fascinated to hear from the minister how he considers this to be good for the nation as a whole. Obviously, it would be good for the beneficiaries of family trusts. We are, in this case, putting our money where our mouth is. We do not think that this is a priority and therefore think that the money could be better spent elsewhere. As a consequence, we are moving a substantive amendment to remove this particular provision from the bill.
Around the year 2000, following the Ralph Review of Business Taxation, the government announced that it was going to implement recommendations of the Ralph review relating not only to the alienation of personal services income but to changes to the taxation laws as they related to trusts. Indeed, I remember that I was sitting in the chair now occupied by the member for Gorton. The then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hotham, was sitting in the chair next to him and the Treasurer was sitting in the chair opposite, now occupied by the member for Aston. Over the table there was a conversation in which basically the Treasurer put the proposition that Labor agree to a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 36 per cent to 30 per cent on the condition that it was revenue neutral. He asked whether we would, and we said that, so long as the government proceeded with measures dealing with the alienation of personal services income and with trusts—as announced by the government—that would be fine by us.
Just to be sure—because you do need to be sure with the Treasurer—we sought that commitment in writing. By the end of the day, the commitment was provided in writing, signed by the Treasurer and soon thereafter completely repudiated by him with no apology or explanation other than that he either rolled himself or got rolled in the cabinet room. I remembered the then member for New England, Stuart St Sinclair, had led the charge, and the Treasurer of the country got knocked over by the member for New England on this matter. It is now history that the company income tax rate was cut from 36 to 30 per cent—we still support that—but, shamelessly, the Treasurer reneged not only on an undertaking given across the table but on a signed undertaking.
This measure before us tonight goes even further. It does not by any standard pass the test of improving productivity and improving the overall prosperity of the nation. It is good for one small group. We believe that there are higher priorities for changes to the tax system in this country, priorities that would in fact support our export industry and our growth industries. That is why we consider that the $8 million a year could be better spent elsewhere. It is for that reason that I have great pleasure in seconding the amendment. I commend the amendment to the House.
109
19:31:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—I would like to thank all the members who have taken part in the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2007 Measures No. 4) Bill 2007 and the associated imposition bills, the Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) Bill (No. 1) 2007 and the Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) Bill (No. 2) 2007.
The measures proposed by the Taxation Laws Amendment (2007 Measures No. 4) Bill 2007 are contained within eight schedules. Schedule 1 gives effect to the government’s announcement in the 2005-06 budget that it would abolish foreign loss and foreign tax credit quarantining and streamline the remaining foreign tax credit rules. This is achieved by repealing the existing arrangements and replacing them with new, simplified foreign income tax offset rules. These amendments also include transitional rules for the treatment of existing foreign losses and credits. By reducing tax complexity and compliance costs, these changes will assist businesses of all sizes operating, or seeking to grow, internationally. They build on the previous reforms undertaken by the review of international taxation arrangements to ensure Australia has a competitive international tax system.
Schedule 2 to this bill will ensure that capital gains tax need not be an impediment to mergers or takeovers of medical defence organisations that are also companies limited by guarantee. This schedule provides a capital gains tax rollover, similar to the scrip-for-scrip rollover, for membership interests in companies limited by guarantee that are also medical defence organisations. Schedule 3 will allow superannuation funds to continue to invest in instalment warrants, consistent with longstanding practice. Such warrants must be of a limited recourse nature and can be held over any asset a fund would be permitted to invest in directly.
Schedule 4 to this bill introduces simplified trustee beneficiary reporting rules that will reduce compliance costs for trustees of closely held trusts whilst maintaining the integrity of the tax system applying to trusts. Under the new rules, trustees of closely held trusts will be required to report only the details of trustee beneficiaries that are presently entitled to income of the trust and tax-preferred amounts, rather than trace through amounts to ultimate beneficiaries. Furthermore, family trusts will be excluded from the new reporting requirements and the commissioner will be given a determination-making power not to require annual reporting for some trusts where he considers it unnecessary. The new arrangements demonstrate the government’s commitment to reducing red tape and regulatory burdens whilst maintaining the integrity of the tax system.
Schedule 5 will assist in the smooth transition to the simplified superannuation regime, known as Better Super, and ensure the intended policy outcomes are reflected in the legislation. Schedule 6 amends the list of deductible gift recipients in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Deductible gift recipient status will assist the listed organisations to attract public support for their activities. Schedule 7 implements various technical amendments and also some general improvements to the law of a minor nature. These amendments are an important part of the government’s commitment to improving the quality of the taxation laws and, again, reducing their complexity.
Finally, schedule 8 amends the trust loss rules which apply to family trusts. The amendments allow family trust elections to be varied or revoked in a broader range of circumstances. The amendments also expand the definition of ‘family’ to include lineal descendants. Furthermore, distributions to former spouses, widows or widowers and former stepchildren will be exempt from family trust distribution tax.
The amendments in this bill are part of the government’s ongoing commitment to improving the quality of the tax laws and reducing compliance costs for taxpayers. I again thank those members who have participated in the debate and I commend the bills to the House.
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. AM Somlyay)—The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Prospect has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2007 MEASURES NO. 4) BILL 2007
111
Bills
R2820
Consideration in Detail
111
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
111
19:36:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I move:
Schedule 8, page 120 (line 2) to page 128 (line 7), omit the schedule.
As I said during my remarks in the second reading debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2007 Measures No. 4) Bill 2007, this is a matter of priorities. The Labor Party does not regard it as a priority to simplify the operation of family trusts in this country. The Labor Party does not regard it as a priority to expand the definition of family member to include lineal descendants of nieces and nephews.
As the member for Rankin said, and as I said in my second reading remarks, we are not talking about small amounts of money—$8 million a year or $34 million over the forward estimates is a substantial amount of money. For example, our policy of cutting the withholding tax rate to 15 per cent as a flat and final rate is costed by us at $15 million a year. So you can do substantial reform with small amounts of money. However, we do not regard this as a priority. We think there are better ways of spending that money and we will be advocating that this not be proceeded with and that the $8 million a year or $34 million over the forward estimates should be spent elsewhere. On that basis I commend the amendment to the House.
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
111
Mr PEARCE
(Aston
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)
19:37:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
TAXATION (TRUSTEE BENEFICIARY NON-DISCLOSURE TAX) BILL (NO. 1) 2007
111
Bills
R2836
Second Reading
111
Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Pearce:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
111
Mr PEARCE
(Aston
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)
19:39:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
TAXATION (TRUSTEE BENEFICIARY NON-DISCLOSURE TAX) BILL (NO. 2) 2007
111
Bills
R2837
Second Reading
111
Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Pearce:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
111
Mr PEARCE
(Aston
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)
19:40:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
JUDGES’ PENSIONS AMENDMENT BILL 2007
112
Bills
R2813
Second Reading
112
Debate resumed from 14 June, on motion by Mr Ruddock:
That this bill be now read a second time.
112
19:42:00
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
0
0
Ms ROXON
—I want to speak today on the Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 2007. Labor supports the contents of this bill. It contains largely technical amendments to the formula by which superannuation of former federal judges is payable. I note, however, for the benefit of the House, that Labor does not agree that this bill goes far enough and we will be moving a second reading amendment, calling on the government to make a significant change to this bill. I will move that amendment before the end of my speech. Depending on the time of the House it may be necessary to stand it over. I may well be able to speak long enough to get us to eight o’clock. I am not sure how many other speakers there are on this bill.
Currently, upon the death or retirement of a federal judge, a formula operates to reduce a judge’s pension by averaging the rates of surcharge that apply to the judge in each full financial year of his or her service. The bill makes four technical amendments to that scheme. Firstly, it amends the reduction for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05 which, according to the explanatory memorandum, brings the formula into line with the maximum surcharge for those years. Secondly, the bill amends the formula for invalidity pensions to take into account the abolition of the surcharge from 1 July 2005. Thirdly, the bill allows the spouse of a judge who dies in office to choose between having the judge’s pension reduced under the formula or a commutation scheme. Fourthly, the bill allows the trustee of the judge’s pension scheme to draw on an existing special appropriation for the payment of judges’ surcharge debts to the ATO as they retire.
As I said, Labor supports the bill’s passage. However, as I foreshadowed, we intend to move a second reading amendment here and amendments in the Senate. The amendments that we will be moving are not to amend the substance of the bill but to seek to add to them by correcting the discrimination that exists in the primary act, the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968. That act as it currently stands excludes same-sex de facto couples from its operation. Heterosexual de facto couples are, for the purposes of this act, taken to be bona fide married couples if they have lived together for three years or more as man and wife or, in the case of less than three years, the Attorney-General, having regard to any relevant evidence, is of the opinion that a person ordinarily lived with that other person as that other person’s husband or wife on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis regardless of whether or not that person was legally married to the other person. Same-sex de facto partners of judges are currently completely excluded from this scheme.
What does all of this mean? For a married or de facto heterosexual couple the current sections 7 and 8 of the Judges’ Pensions Act provide that on the death of the judge or retired judge the surviving partner is entitled to a payment of 62.5 per cent of the judge’s relevant pension. This is a pretty standard clause which exists to ensure that the partner of a judge who has served the judiciary and Australia is not left high and dry upon their death. Unfortunately, as I have already mentioned, it was not drafted to envisage—and it certainly does not encompass—circumstances where judges are in a same-sex de facto relationship of long standing. This is not a situation which Labor finds acceptable and, as such, we will move amendments to ensure that these injustices do not continue.
The amendments are clearly within the objects of the bill before us. The bill’s long title is ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to Judges’ pensions, and for related purposes.’ We cannot understand why there would be criticism of us for moving these amendments. However, I might flag that, having raised similar issues with regard to disability payments for federal magistrates last week in the Main Committee, the Attorney does not seem to have a consistent approach on this. He exhorted us to move these issues on a case by case basis and then, when approached with that, refused it on the basis that it was looking at one piece of legislation in isolation from the others—and obviously you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Again, we will persist with the approach that we have been taking and take the Attorney at his word that he wants to deal with this on a case by case basis. We will be arguing that judges with longstanding same-sex partners should be entitled to the same benefits and protection as those judges who are married or in longstanding heterosexual relationships.
It is imperative that this parliament takes these measures and starts moving these types of amendments and changes the laws that exist and have this discriminatory impact. There is no other way for this to be dealt with when the government continues with its intransigence on the issue of discrimination against same-sex couples. I want to repeat some of the sentiments and Labor’s reasons for moving a second reading amendment, which I touched upon recently in the Main Committee, on another bill—the Federal Magistrates Amendment (Disability and Death Benefits) Bill 2006. As I have said, there is no logical reason or rationale for continuing to refuse access to these pensions to same-sex de facto couples. Following the exclusive definition of marriage in common law and the Marriage Act 1968, same-sex couples are left with no other option. The transferability of these pensions to a partner of the deceased judge is a recognition of their contribution to judicial life and the immense workload that these judges undertake during their tenure. The payment is to ensure that the partners of these judicial officers are not left high and dry in the event of their death. There is no provision in place barring homosexual judges from accessing the judicial pension scheme. There is no suggestion that a judge who is in a same-sex relationship is any less worthy of receiving a pension as one who is in a heterosexual relationship. The only thing that is barred is transferring the pension to the other partner in the same-sex relationship on the same grounds as are provided in a heterosexual relationship.
Of course, I should not have to point out to the House that—but some may need to be reminded of it—the issue of whether homosexuality should be legal is well and truly settled, and rightly so. It is over a decade since the Keating government passed the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994, which overrode Tasmanian law—the last of those laws that outlawed homosexuality. So the debate on that matter is settled. Logically, there is no reason why the payment of pensions to judicial partners after a judge’s death should not be extended to include same-sex de facto partners, yet the legislation as it stands does not allow for this to occur. To be perfectly frank, it is about time that the government began to move with society to extend benefits to persons in these relationships.
The government is well behind on these matters. I know that some of the members of the government are acutely aware of this. The opportunity that members will have to vote on Labor’s second reading amendment will show whether those who have been prepared to argue the case in the media—the members for Wentworth, Leichhardt, Flinders and a few others—will actually be prepared to vote with us on the issue that they say they have been pursuing for some time.
A report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission looked into how many pieces of legislation continue with a variable approach to same-sex and heterosexual de factos. HREOC’s report entitled Same-sex: same entitlements found a massive total of 58 pieces of legislation which discriminated against same-sex couples. After this sitting fortnight the number will probably be 60 pieces of federal legislation. I think we should do our bit to ensure that we are reducing that number, not adding to it.
We know that some of those pieces of legislation, by treating same-sex couples in a different way, actually sometimes discriminate in a way that might be beneficial for those couples. Some benefits are reduced where a person is living in a marriage-like situation with a person of the opposite sex, and same-sex de facto relationships do not count for those purposes. So, in some limited cases, a same-sex de facto couple might actually get a financial advantage out of the discrimination. By and large, for the most part, same-sex de facto couples are denied the benefits which are provided to married couples and are certainly denied the recognition. I would like the Attorney to take the time when he sums up on this bill to indicate the government’s position on the HREOC report, specifically whether he proposes to address discrimination on a case by case basis, such as the one that we have before us.
It might be an appropriate time for me to move Labor’s second reading amendment so the House is aware of the issue that we would like to flag. To remove the discrimination which operates in relation to the Judges’ Pensions Act, I move:
That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the Opposition believes that the bill fails to give equal treatment to all judges by not treating judges in same-sex de facto relationships in the same way as heterosexual judges and their spouses or de facto spouses, and calls on the Government to amend the bill in order to give judges in same-sex relationships equal treatment’.
I understand that my colleague the shadow Attorney-General will be moving amendments in the Senate when the legislation is considered there. I call on the government to seriously consider this amendment. When you read many of the statements the Attorney-General has made on this issue, you will see that it is about time he decided which way to go on this. He has to decide whether he will stick with his approach that the government wants to consider the discrimination on a case by case basis, in which case he needs to stand up today and argue why this is or is not a good idea. He cannot, as he did in the Main Committee when this was raised concerning a similar issue, say, ‘I can’t do this on a case by case basis because I can’t look at this entitlement in isolation from all others.’ The Attorney has two approaches, but, whichever approach we take, he always decides on the day to use the other one. I think the public are starting to see through him, and I am sure that the backbench and those who are committed to equal rights for the gay and lesbian community will be pleased to have the opportunity to actually vote on this issue today and stand up for what they believe in.
When HREOC issued its report that I mentioned before, the Attorney-General, on 21 June this year, said:
In connection with interdependent relationships, including same-sex relationships, the Government will consider making further changes to the relevant legislation on a case-by-case basis.
That is exactly what we are calling on the government to do today. I also noticed a statement by the Prime Minister at a doorstop interview at around the same time, 8 June last year, where the Prime Minister very clearly said:
I am in favour of removing areas of discrimination and we have and I’m quite happy on a case by case basis to look at other areas where people believe there’s genuine discrimination ...
The case that we have before us today is about as clear-cut as it gets. There is a clear benefit that is being denied to same-sex couples in a de facto relationship. It is not as if we are having this debate in complete isolation. There is an actual example of someone who is most immediately going to be affected by this decision. The High Court’s Justice Michael Kirby is a real-life case for the government to consider. The government says it is determined to act only on a case by case basis, yet Justice Kirby himself has stated in a letter to the Attorney-General that, if he were to die today, the legislation as it currently stands—and it will not be changed following the passage of this bill unless the government accepts our amendments—will deny his partner a judicial pension.
Justice Kirby will retire from his judicial career by early 2009—and I stress that we hope and pray that the following does not occur—but, if he were to die before or after his retirement, the person whom he has loved and forged a life with for nearly four decades would get nothing, not a single thing. The bill that the government is proposing today will not change that. The government has a chance, on a case by case basis, not to change the law for one person but to see that there is one very high-profile person who is affected by this and whose relationship, by anybody’s measure—four decades plus—must be one where the partner has provided all of the significant support that is provided in many other relationships to many other judges who serve our country so well; of course, there would be many other people affected, either currently serving judges or in the future. It is hard for the Attorney-General to argue why this discrimination should not be removed. There is a clear and unambiguous example of how these laws impact on law-abiding Australian citizens, with no justification.
I hope that the government will consider supporting our amendments. With the government’s self-publicised reputation for truth and honesty with the Australian public, if they do want to keep saying—as they do in so many other areas—‘Trust us, trust our record and trust the word we give you,’ we expect that the Attorney will actually act on his word in this instance. It is no small matter; it is something that should be taken seriously. We would much prefer to have a more significant change across the board, affecting a whole range of these laws. Labor are committed to removing discrimination, with the exception of the Marriage Act. We are committed to ensuring that de facto heterosexual couples and same-sex couples are treated equally, but the government refuse to do that, so we are forced into the position of moving amendments on each occasion where it is appropriate. We hope that, piece by piece, we will be able to convince the government and get the good people within the government’s ranks to continue to put pressure on their government to do the right thing.
There is an opportunity for anyone who wants to be judged by their constituents to really take this as an example of where they should do the right thing. I have said before that the members for Wentworth, Leichhardt, Flinders and, I think, McMillan, and certainly the member for Cook and a range of others, have been prepared—in the media and, I understand, in their party room—to raise these issues. Tonight they will have an opportunity to vote with their feet, stand up for something that they believe in and continue to keep pressure on the government to act.
That is as much as I really need to say on this issue. I am conscious of the time. There is another speaker. I seek confirmation that this will not cause any problems with the dining of our colleagues during this restricted period. Obviously, Labor support the bill. We support the content of the bill. We think the technical changes are entirely appropriate, but we think that my second reading amendment would significantly improve the situation for judges by removing this discrimination. I hope that the government will consider supporting the amendment.
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. AM Somlyay)—Is the amendment seconded?
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr Brendan O’Connor
—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gellibrand has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
116
19:57:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
1
0
Mr TUCKEY
—I really thought I was coming in here to deal with a routine matter of some adjustment to the law to bring it into line with laws that apply to other superannuants. The other day, when a senior member of the government, one of their frontbenchers, told us that the Future Fund was only for public servant superannuation and therefore was entitled to be raided for other purposes, I nearly fell over. I now find that a piece of this sort of legislation—just making some adjustments to the present law to bring it into line with other laws—is going to be a statement of policy for the Labor Party. I would give them credit that they are not trying to be mischievous and embarrass a couple of members on this side of the House who certainly hold alternative views to my own, but the reality is that this would be Labor policy, were they to achieve government, and they are letting the people of Australia know how much further they wish to push the concept of same-sex relationships. The interesting thing is that, if it comes to your right to a job, they have a different view. If you want to join the workforce or drive your own truck, you are entitled to be discriminated against, as far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned, if you fail to join a union. So we get some rather hypocritical, if not mixed, views about discrimination and the rights of the individual.
The view of the coalition, and the Liberal Party in particular, is that you have a right to decide whether or not you want to be a member of a trade union, and you should not be discriminated against if you choose to or not. But we have just had a lecture on the rights of the individual and their right to cohabitate with someone of the same sex and be a recipient of a pension that is substantially funded by the Australian taxpayer. It might not be a bad idea for the Australian Labor Party to put their view on this matter on YouTube or wherever they publicise these things these days so that the taxpayer can know their opinion on this matter.
The point has been made that, on the sudden death of an eligible superannuant, the provisions of the law are quite clear about their dependants: that person’s children—that is, I assume, those under the age of 18—or a wife who has no employment, for example. I can only assume that to extend it that stage further, as proposed here tonight, is a policy decision that the Labor Party will trumpet in the forthcoming election. I hope they make that clearly known through their trade union people who are ringing up people every day that this is their view. I happen to mix with a lot of those people, probably more so than many on the frontbench of the Labor Party, and I think they have an alternative view. I do not think they think that their taxes should be used to pay pensions in this situation.
It is an interesting point because, otherwise, on retirement, it is available to superannuants in all different categories to take part of that pension as a lump sum, and there is nothing against that being gifted to your partner, whatever their description, as their nest egg. So we are talking about a massive change of government policy purely and simply on the percentage of judges who will die while still in service. I do not believe for a minute that the Labor opposition would go to the barricades on that issue, so I think I can put their initiative down to mischief. But tomorrow I expect to be able to get somebody in my office who is more computer literate than me to look up YouTube to see if this is a clear policy initiative. Otherwise, it is mischief. That is what this is all about, and it says nothing for the integrity of the shadow minister, who has just put this heartrending proposition to us, if it is mischief, because the people concerned should not be used for that purpose.
I note that the shadow minister also said that this is just a small move in Labor’s campaign to recognise in all areas the rights of same-sex couples. She said that the Labor Party would prefer to do more of this. As I said, we will await their policy announcement. It will be interesting to see how many of the Kevin Harkinses of this world will want to be on the telephone all day in their new employment—and I guess that is what he will be: a fella who rings up everybody else—making this a No. 1 issue for the forthcoming election.
The purpose of this legislation, the Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 2007, is routine. It has been established because there are special circumstances applicable to judges. This matter escaped the attention of the draftsmen at the time of preparing new legislation. That in itself, one would have thought, should have been the subject of the amendment prepared by the member for Gellibrand. Why do we have to make these adjustments? It is because we introduced a phasing out of the superannuation surcharge. That is something with which I was never comfortable, but I recognised that it was a necessary measure to pay off Labor’s $96 billion debt. We had to raise unpopular taxes for that purpose.
We introduced that in our early years of government to gain the revenue necessary. Nobody liked it, ourselves in this House included, but at the first opportunity, as good economic management allowed, that matter was commenced, firstly, in a phasing out arrangement and then, of course, with a budget announcement that it would occur no more. In the process of that, and in considering the special legislation relevant to judges, their circumstances were overlooked, and it is the role of this legislation to correct it. Not anticipating that we were going to get another stage of Labor Party policy, I also thought it appropriate. Labor are strong on same-sex marriages but seem to claim no differentiation on economic policy. They are, of course, very far distant from us on industrial relations policy.
We now know that the Labor Party does not believe that public servants should have the security of the Future Fund. We now understand that in the area of superannuation same-sex marriages need to be fixed up as a matter of great importance to this parliament. It is a pretty interesting comparison when one thinks about it, because that superannuation is relied upon by the defence forces, the Federal Police and a large number of other public servants, many resident in Canberra. Considering the demographic changes that will occur in the future, there is no guarantee that the true and proper entitlements of those people can be met by the taxpayers of the future without the support of the Future Fund. So we have learnt that superannuation does not matter for public servants, as far as the Labor Party is concerned, but it does if you are in a same-sex arrangement.
I support this legislation, which corrects the anomalies that have occurred. I want to add at this time that I am also a supporter of adequate salaries and superannuation arrangements for judges and other people who leave their professions, highly paid as they are, as barristers or legal practitioners to take on the responsibility of adjudicating on the laws that this parliament delivers. We clearly want the best and we clearly should pay them properly.
One of the things that disappoint me is when we constantly get confronted with media and sometimes parliamentary comments about the salaries that certain people earn. When one considers the moment of the decisions that are made, for instance in the High Court, and compares them to the rewards that can be achieved in the financial sector in Australia or by the top managers, be it of Telstra or the major mineral companies or whatever, the remuneration that this parliament approves for judges is not high.
It is time that people in this House avoided talking about how much people get paid. I heard a member of parliament, a backbencher, say the other day that he told a group of schoolkids that he got the same wages as their school principal. I hope he was right for the school principal’s sake, because state governments have a habit of underpaying them with respect to their responsibility for young people in this day and age. Let me repeat that, with respect to the people it invites to take on responsibilities like judgements and rulings on other very serious matters, government should be generous in the funds that it offers to ensure it gets the best people.
The legislation comes down to adjusting superannuation to bring it into line with the wonderful offer that this government has made to the Australian people. There is the incentive we have given them to invest in their own retirement by removing the taxation on super, giving them the opportunity, as we did, to invest very large sums of money in their superannuation tax free. All of those measures were properly reflective of our concern for the future when none of us who are sitting in this chamber at present will be here. That is an unusual form of government which has typically, from my observations over a long time, been one that says, ‘What do we need to do for the next couple of years to survive?’ Therefore I strongly oppose the amendment. Labor are not going to oppose the bill, but they are going to play a bit of mischief. It is on the record now that this is their view and I hope it is on YouTube tomorrow morning. (Time expired)
118
20:11:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
0
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I rise to speak in favour of the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Gellibrand to the Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 2007. It is important to refute the arguments put by the member for O’Connor in what can only be described as an extraordinarily narrow speech in each and every way. Labor does support equality between same-sex de facto couples and heterosexual de facto couples.
We support removing discrimination in a range of areas, including immigration, social security, health care and, indeed, economic issues such as superannuation. The member for O’Connor made an extraordinarily homophobic contribution to the debate suggesting that somehow this is a secret Labor position. In fact, I moved a private member’s bill as far back as 1998 and had to reintroduce it three times when it lapsed because the government refused to allow it to be debated. It was called the Superannuation (Entitlements of same sex couples) Bill. That bill sought to give the same recognition for and entitlements to superannuation for same-sex couples as are currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples. This amendment seeks to give effect to that principle. It states:
... whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the Opposition believes that the bill fails to give equal treatment to all judges by not treating judges in same-sex de facto relationships in the same way as heterosexual judges and their spouses or de facto spouses, and calls on the Government to amend the bill in order to give judges in same-sex relationships equal treatment.
It is a very simple principle, one which should not be contentious in this parliament in the year 2007.
We had no justification from the member for O’Connor as to why that would not be permitted. Pandering to prejudice was essentially the only argument that was put forward. Yes, there are people who disagree with this proposition, but it is the role of parliamentarians to appeal to people’s better nature, to drive forward social change in a way which improves the social relationships between individuals and groups in our society. I am afraid that that is something which the Howard government has not been prepared to do. The Howard government at each and every opportunity has been prepared to divide people according to race, class, gender or sexuality.
I read in today’s paper that the member for Wentworth suggested that he is going to champion this cause. Well, let him come into this House and vote for this amendment; let him come into this House and support this very basic, fundamental amendment, which goes to the human rights of individuals, and the right to respect that every individual deserves.
We all know of course that being part of a minority, not just on the basis of sexual preference but on the basis of race or religion, can be extremely difficult. We know that Justice Michael Kirby paid a great price for being open about his sexuality and about the fact that he is in a long-term stable relationship with a partner of the same sex. For that, he suffered vilification in the Senate from the Prime Minister’s hatchet man, Senator Bill Heffernan. It is quite clear, I think, that this amendment should not worry anyone. For someone, like the minister opposite, who wears an Amnesty International badge, which would indicate a concern for human rights, it certainly should not concern him.
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr Ruddock interjecting—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—The minister says he does not have it on his tux and dinner suit, and that is right—perhaps you should consider not putting it back on again, Minister, until you are prepared to actually show that you do support human rights in any direction. The fact is that you cannot call yourself a liberal and not support human dignity and equal treatment on the basis of relationships, whether they be same-sex relationships or heterosexual relationships. That is all this amendment does.
Indeed, prior to the last election the Howard government gave a commitment that they were going to deal with the issue of superannuation—a small element. Indeed, the Prime Minister has made comments that he supports equal treatment across a range of areas for people in same-sex relationships. Yet, not only have we seen no movement in social security, health, migration and other areas from this government; on the minuscule area of superannuation we have seen a very inadequate reform, which has left discrimination in place for Public Service employees. I commend the amendment to the House and urge all those opposed to discrimination to vote for it.
120
20:18:00
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
0
Mr RUDDOCK
—I thank the members who have contributed to this debate—the members for Gellibrand, O’Connor and Grayndler. The Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 2007 is intended to rectify technical deficiencies in the Judges’ Pension Act 1968, relating to the application of the superannuation surcharge to federal judges appointed between 7 December 1997 and 30 June 2005. The government acknowledges the role the judicial pension has to play in attracting and retaining the best candidates for the bench, and has therefore decided to address certain deficiencies. The main object of this bill is to pass on reductions in the top surcharge rate in 2003-04 and 2004-05 and to give judges the option to commute a portion of their pension to pay their surcharge debts. Judges are entitled to receive the benefit of lower maximum rates of surcharge which apply to other high-income earners in those years—2003-04 and 2004-05. The bill also provides judges with a commutation option as an alternative way of paying their surcharge debts since other Commonwealth defined benefits schemes already offer their members such an option. This is simply to bring the judges’ scheme into line. This bill will address the judges’ concern about the application of the surcharge and give them the benefit of the lower maximum rates and the flexibility to make partial payments of their surcharge debts before they retire.
I take it that, notwithstanding the opposition amendment that says, ‘whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading’, they support the measure as proposed, and when other matters have been disposed of I hope they will support the second reading of this bill to ensure that this issue is addressed quickly. If the issue is addressed it means that judges are not being advantaged by this measure but are being put in the same position as other high-income earners.
The opposition have proposed a formal amendment which they will move in the committee stage. The second reading amendment I referred to earlier reads:
... whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the Opposition believes that the bill fails to give equal treatment to all judges by not treating judges in same-sex de facto relationships in the same way as heterosexual judges and their spouses or de facto spouses, and calls on the Government to amend the bill in order to give judges in same-sex relationships equal treatment ...
When I spoke on a like matter involving disability payments to magistrates I set out the government’s position and why we did not intend to support such an amendment. The government is giving consideration to the recommendations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s report Same sex: same entitlements, which was tabled in this parliament on 21 June.
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms Roxon
—When are you going to do that?
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr RUDDOCK
—It was only a short while ago; it is a month-and-a-half—not a long time ago. The committee is also considering the issue of reversionary benefits to those in interdependent, including same-sex, relationships with members of Commonwealth defined benefit schemes. I make the point that the government did deal—and I say this to the member for Grayndler—with superannuation issues but—
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms Roxon interjecting—
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr RUDDOCK
—The member makes that assertion, and she can speak when she deals with the committee stage. But I would just make the point that there are a range of defined benefit schemes in which the Commonwealth participates. The member wants to deal with one in isolation—the one that deals with judges.
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms Roxon interjecting—
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. AM Somlyay)—The member for Gellibrand will cease interjecting.
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr RUDDOCK
—That is one which, I would say, is not necessarily as deserving as those relating to returned servicemen and those relating to Commonwealth public servants. It is in the context that we are dealing with defined benefits schemes that the totality of them and the arguments relating to that issue need to be addressed. Those matters are being considered by the government, but it is our view that it is inappropriate to single out members of the judiciary for special treatment in advance of the consideration of the members of other defined benefit schemes. Those matters will be the subject of consideration, but they will be the subject of consideration in the broader context to which the opposition pays no regard—that is, defined benefits schemes involve additional outlays if you introduce a new class of beneficiaries. That has quite significant impacts over the longer term. I notice that the opposition claims to be fiscally conservative these days. A fiscal conservative would want to know what the impact of a measure of this type might be, particularly in the context of the class of beneficiaries that are involved—that is, those who are beneficiaries of defined benefit schemes. In order that those matters can be dealt with in a considered way, the government will reject the amendment.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Roxon’s amendment) stand part of the question.
20:29:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. AM Somlyay)
76
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Downer, A.J.G.
Draper, P.
Dutton, P.C.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, D.M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Robb, A.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
46
NOES
Albanese, A.N.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Elliot, J.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Irwin, J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S. *
Quick, H.V.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Snowdon, W.E.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—A message has been received from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending, in accordance with section 56 of the Constitution, an appropriation for the purposes of this bill.
Third Reading
122
Mr RUDDOCK
(Berowra
—Attorney-General)
20:36:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
AUSTRALIAN TECHNICAL COLLEGES (FLEXIBILITY IN ACHIEVING AUSTRALIA’S SKILLS NEEDS) AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 2007
122
Bills
R2833
Second Reading
122
Debate resumed from 9 August, on motion by Mr Robb:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Mr Stephen Smith moved by way of amendment:
That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
‘whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House recognises that the Government has failed to act to address the skills needs of the Australian economy by:
-
its continued failure over 11 long years in office to ensure Australians get the training they need for a skilled job and to meet the skills needs of the economy;
-
slashing funding to the existing TAFE system, with Commonwealth revenues in vocational education decreasing by 13 per cent from 1997 to 2000 and only increasing by one per cent from 2000 to 2004;
-
failing to make the necessary investments in existing vocational education and training infrastructure to create opportunities for young Australians to access high quality vocational education and training in all our secondary schools and in the TAFE system;
-
creating an expensive, inefficient, and duplicative network of stand alone Australian Technical Colleges, without cooperation or consultation with the States within the existing Vocational Education and Training framework;
-
appropriating more than half a billion dollars for 28 Colleges that will produce 10,000 graduates by 2010 when by the Government’s own estimates there will be a shortage of 200,000 skilled workers over the next five years;
-
failing to provide opportunities for young people interested in pursuing vocational education and trades training who do not live near the 28 Australian Technical Colleges; and
-
not recognising that a broad approach covering all of Australia’s 2650 secondary schools and the 1.2 million students in Years 9, 10, 11 and 12 is needed to meet Australia’s future skills needs.’
122
20:37:00
Randall, Don, MP
PK6
Canning
LP
1
0
Mr RANDALL
—This is now the third go I have had at speaking on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson
—Why don’t you quit while you’re ahead?
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr RANDALL
—I thank the member for Batman for his interjection, because he encourages me incredibly to highlight issues in this bill which I am sure he will agree with. As he knows, we need a skilled workforce in this country. In the current climate in Australia we have 4.3 per cent unemployment. With an unemployment rate of 4.3 per cent we need as many skilled people as we can get, because we have a growing economy requiring a growing workforce. We have an economy that requires skilled people to work in jobs which for so long have been considered menial; they are now highly valued. We know that these people are being paid incredible wages for jobs which were essentially called blue-collar jobs before. Now these so-called blue-collar workers are the nouveau riche of this country because they attract enormous salaries in the industries in which they work. For example, it is not uncommon for a plumber to receive $120,000 a year—whether they work for themselves or for somebody else. These are the skilled workers that the Australian technical colleges will produce.
I will not go back over the speech I made in the previous 10 minutes I had in this debate because that would just be repeating myself and I want to move forward. But what I was leading up to when we rose on Thursday was the fact that the Australian Education Union in particular and the unions in general are trying to sink the Australian technical colleges. Why are they trying to do this? It is because these colleges are not their idea. It is because they do not wish to have people in the industry who they did not train and who they cannot control through their unions. This is what is happening in this case. For example, Anne Gisborne from the State School Teachers Union of Western Australia and Pat Byrne—who is from Western Australia but is now the head of the Australian Education Union—are people who do not like the Australian technical colleges.
I will give an example from my own electorate. A constituent, who was a principal of one of the local high schools but who has now retired, came to me and said: ‘Don, I hate to tell you this, but we’ve been told to go slow on these technical colleges because the local office of the education department in Western Australia have told us that they do not want us to help. They actually don’t want us to help these Australian technical colleges get off the ground because they have been told not to by their masters in head office.’ We know who puts the senior bureaucrats in head office in the state education department: it is the union masters. Who does their preselections? Who is coming into this House shortly? Most of the union hacks from all over the country. This place is going to be full of union inspired careerists. So they say, ‘Whatever you do, don’t allow people to go into these Australian technical colleges; they are not things we allowed to go forward because we cannot control them.’
I want to refer to a flyer from a member of the Labor Party. Because I have a certain agreement with this local member I will not mention his name. He has put out a flyer in Western Australia which is obviously generated by Labor Party head office. It says, ‘The local member and Kevin Rudd will build a new trade training centre in local high schools.’ If you turn to the policy side, you see that it says: ‘Australia has a serious skills shortage and skills have become a core economic challenge for the nation. This is particularly the case in the traditional trades.’ Yes, we all agree with that. The flyer continues, ‘That’s why Kevin Rudd and I have plans to give every local secondary school the opportunity to be a first-class provider of technical education.’ It is funny that they have only found this to be an issue in the last year or so before an election. The flyer says, ‘We want every child in X electorate to get the best chance in life.’ And it is signed off, ‘Yours sincerely, your local member.’ It rabbits on. There is a picture of the local member and the Leader of the Opposition. ‘Trades training in every local high school,’ it says. ‘Rudd takes fight to PM on skills crisis,’ it says. ‘Labor pledges $2.5 billion for training,’ it says. Again it says: ‘Australia has a serious skill shortage and skills have become a core economic challenge for the nation. That is why Labor has a plan to give every secondary school the opportunity to be a first-class provider of a technical education.’ I suspect that members opposite have put this flyer out in their own electorates, because it is generated by Sussex Street.
The fact is that you cannot go now to secondary schools and say to them, ‘We’re finally going to do something about putting in place a decent apprenticeship trade skill training regime in your secondary school.’ Until now the state secondary schools have been quite cynical about any training in this area. You had manual arts in schools where kids learned to put a couple of dove tail or tongue-and-groove joints together—or where they did metalwork and learned to make a compass or make something they had turned on the lathe as an exercise. That is not real training for a trade. What the Labor Party are now saying is, ‘We’re going to put a few lathes and a few extra things in schools and try to turn out skilled apprentices.’ It cannot happen because, to start off with, there are no teachers to do this in schools. We have a shortage of trained skilled personnel in secondary schools. Yet the technical colleges that have been established already are staffed with highly competent, trade trained teachers. I will now talk about this in my electorate and the adjoining electorate. In the Perth South area there is a technical college which I, along with the member for Hasluck, worked very hard on securing—and I am sure the member for Hasluck will be in here shortly to talk about the campuses in our area.
In the Maddington campus, for example, there are students studying the auto mechanics and auto electrical trades. In the Armadale campus there are students studying carpentry and joinery, brick and block laying and steel framing. These are real, genuine trades—no flower arranging, no aroma therapy, no transcendental meditation. These are real transportable trades.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr RANDALL
—I hear the member for Batman, as a former President of the ACTU, saying, ‘This is true,’ and good on you. We want real trades for real blue-collar workers. We do not want Mickey Mouse schemes coming out of these technical colleges. So thankyou, Member for Batman, you are on the page in terms of real skills and real trades. You told me once you actually got your hands dirty doing real trades yourself. So good on you. I am pleased to see that you are supporting people who are learning real skills in the blue-collar area. I know you will back them and I know you will support people who are going to get skills in this area. So congratulations and thanks for your support.
There is a whole line of state education ministers coming out and bagging these technical colleges. They have to because you are what you are because of what you have been. You were put there by your union bosses and your unions and, at the end of the day, you have to come and destroy anything that is not part of the Labor union regime. For example, I think I have mentioned previously the poor kids at the Welshpool Training Centre in Perth where businesses are charged $15 a day for each kid on the job and it goes into the Welshpool Training Centre and they end up with millions of dollars a year to train people in trades. But what do they do? They hardly train anyone. This needs to be investigated. They borrow about $1 million a year from the executives and trouser the money and do not pay it back. I think this is a disgrace and it should be investigated. Come the next parliament you can be assured that I will take that on.
Getting back to the Perth South campuses in Armadale and Maddington, we have so much support and the reason they are so successful is that the local businesses support it—the local trades people. As I said, Teresa Gambaro, the member for Petrie, told me that in her area there are over 150 places and they are full. These are in the same areas of skill that I talked about. Next year they are going to have 300. So much for not being able to fill these places!
Capacity at the campuses is 45 and it will be 75 next year. For example, Maddington currently has 41—31 auto mechanics and 10 auto electricians. Armadale has 32, which is made up of eight carpentry and joinery students, 11 brick and block laying students and 13 steel framers. These people have been supported by the local government authorities and they have received scholarships. Their fees are something like $1,550 per semester. This is unlike the state technical colleges which in some cases in New South Wales increased their fees by 300 per cent. In places like Victoria it was 25 per cent. They jacked up the fees so these poor kids could not join in. No wonder they went off to the mining industry and got jobs at about $1,200 a week. I would like to say what a success the Australia technical colleges are. They are going to continue to be a success and the only detriment to them is the Labor Party putting them back in the hands of these—(Time expired)
125
20:48:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007. As has been indicated, the opposition will support this bill. However, we in the opposition suggest that it falls a long way short of what needs to be done to address Australia’s crisis in skilled labour, particularly in traditional trades. Australia has arrived at this point because of more than a decade of neglect by the Howard government.
Perhaps the member for Canning ought to have a look at the facts. The government’s figures show a shortfall of 200,000 skilled workers in Australia over the next five years. The figures also suggest that the government’s technical colleges will turn out fewer than 10,000 graduates by 2010. We are therefore debating a bill that invests in bricks and mortar when there is plenty of existing vocational education and training infrastructure that this government could simply invest in in partnership with the private sector and state and territory governments—a cooperative way forward. The problem is that the Howard government will not invest in the existing secondary schools or the TAFE system around Australia. These are schools and colleges that are convenient to local communities and would greatly benefit from better resourcing and a cooperative approach to training between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and, importantly, the private sector.
What we have got is an ideological war by the Howard government with state and territory governments. The government also lacks an understanding of the needs of the private sector—the people who actually employ apprentices. Alternatively, unlike the coalition, a federal Labor government would invest $2.5 billion in all Australian secondary schools to promote vocational education—an across-the-board approach. That investment would be supported by programs targeting stronger links between schools and industry and it would improve student access to on-the-job training, which is fundamental to success in trade training. Nevertheless, I am sure that the communities getting these new technical colleges—for example, in Penrith, north-eastern Perth and southern Brisbane—will be pleased to get them. What they need more than bricks and mortar are new ideas and initiatives that encourage kids to take up trades in the first place, to finish their apprenticeships, to use their trades in the workforce and to then go on and develop further skills throughout their working lives. I refer to a local initiative in my electorate of Batman—the Northland Secondary College, which is a huge success story. I have an electorate in which there are still young people who do not even finish years nine and 10, let alone start an apprenticeship or go to university, because of some of the social problems that we confront locally. But I have a local secondary college that I am exceptionally proud of—a college that is trying to do something about this in its existing structure. It is a model we should all have regard for—the cluster model. With the assistance of local employers, we have created a skills centre—the Manufacturing and Technology Centre—for school students. This centre offers years 11 and 12 young people VET certificate courses in engineering, automotive and furnishing in the northern suburbs of Melbourne—skills that are required by local industry.
The initiative was made possible by a grant from the Victorian government, supported by ANTA, an organisation unfortunately abolished two years ago on the watch of this government. It was about working and achieving at a local level, drawing in a national organisation made up of the state and territory governments and the Commonwealth. ANTA was therefore about a national approach, whilst bringing into play the role of the Victorian government with a grant of $750,000. That school is actually producing trained young people today, not in 2010. I saw some of them undertake their training only a couple of weeks ago.
Just as the Northland Secondary College is supported by local employers, so is the Gladstone Schools Engineering Skills Centre, in Queensland, which was established in 2003 in one of Australia’s major resource and export centres. The Gladstone Schools Engineering Skills Centre is a unique training and learning environment, co-located within the NRG Gladstone power station and focused on preparing year 11 and 12 students for a smooth transition into the workforce as apprentices or trainees in the engineering fields. I have also visited this centre.
Existing educational institutions and the private sector got together and established their own technical centre on a real worksite where kids could learn about and experience real-life occupational health and safety procedures and standards, learn to operate industrial machinery and, in essence, get exposure to the real world of work. The centre mirrors the expectations, ethics, safety standards and discipline of engineering and manufacturing workplaces. Students strive to develop competency in certificate I in engineering and manufacturing, focusing on both theory and practical components. Working industry hours, in industry clothing and using personal safety equipment, students undertake 1½ days of training at the centre, a one-day work placement and two days of study at school to obtain a senior certificate. Since the centre began operating, 90 per cent of year 12 students who have completed the program have been successful in gaining an apprenticeship or traineeship in the engineering trades.
The program itself is based on the ACCI employability skills framework. It is producing the goods. It is avoiding duplication, inefficiencies and competition for scarce resources out there in the Australian community. See how the private sector, Queensland TAFE and the University of Central Queensland, along with the local secondary schools, are working together to produce results—practical, local training in Gladstone. They did not need an offer of more bricks and mortar from the Commonwealth, which is what they got. I am sure it is welcome, but a better approach would have been to sit down and work with the local community, business, the schools, the TAFE and the university and ask them how they could best build on the successful local initiative to take it to the next level.
There are similar examples in Tasmania. The coalition’s election policy on technical colleges was designed on the run, based on a mainland template for a situation that does not exist in Tasmania. Tasmania’s emphasis on workplace vocational education and training, as opposed to school based VET, is quite different from that of most mainland states. The reality is that the money allocated to this policy in Tasmania should have been spent on adding to and expanding the current VET training system within the existing framework for skills development and training in Tasmania. That is because Tasmania has decent senior secondary colleges, with a number of independent schools also providing relevant VET courses, in addition to TAFE and private providers. Why duplicate it? Why create a mess?
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr Hardgrave
—Like Kevin Harkins? Is Kevin Harkins your mate?
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—Unfortunately, this is not an inclusive government that is prepared to consult and take local communities, state and territory governments and the business community with it; it is one that seeks to divide the community and exploit any political opportunity it can find. The government has forgotten to govern by making the tough policy decisions that need to be made for this country. It is governing to hold and win marginal seats by showering largesse in the form of new technical colleges, new swimming pools or new roads—you name it; you will get it in a marginal seat, without any regard to the fiscal parameters. All communities would welcome new technical colleges, but good policy requires new ideas and tough decisions, not just bricks and mortar.
This aside, there are real problems with the government’s technical colleges program. The Australian National Audit Office has raised concerns about the establishment and operation of Australian technical colleges, but here we are debating a bill to fund three more—in Penrith, north-eastern Perth and southern Brisbane—so that the government can announce them during the election campaign.
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr Hardgrave
—Hear, hear! Great idea!
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—Costs of operation have blown out, and $112.6 million in additional funding was provided in 2006. At the end of March this year, half the 20 Australian technical colleges then operating were significantly below their 2007 enrolment targets. Only two out of 20 actually met or exceeded their targets. The total planned expenditure on ATCs, which is more than $530 million from 2005 to 2011, is very expensive, and the number of young people that will benefit—8,400 students per year once all ATCs are fully operational—is very low compared to state and territory VET systems. By comparison, in 2005 there were approximately 1.2 million publicly funded VET students, and total government revenue to the VET sector from the state and territory and Commonwealth governments was approximately $4 billion. The cost per student at the 21 Australian technical colleges now open averages out at nearly $175,000, according to the government’s own figures. The cost per student at the 21 Australian technical colleges is therefore clearly not money well spent.
In conclusion, this is a program that will be expensive because it is duplicating infrastructure and bureaucracy and because it is being run in isolation from local communities and existing education and business networks.
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr Hardgrave
—That’s total rubbish!
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—It is a recipe, as the former Minister for Vocational and Technical Training knows, for failure and inefficiency—
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr Hardgrave
—Just total rubbish! You don’t know what you’re talking about.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—and reflects his own neglect of his portfolio when he was the minister.
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr Hardgrave
—He is misleading the House.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—That is why he was sacked by the Prime Minister in the recent ministerial reshuffle as a non-performer and someone unworthy of re-election at the forthcoming federal election.
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr Hardgrave
—You won’t even get a look in, so don’t talk about that.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—While the opposition will support this bill—despite the ramblings of the former minister, the member for Moreton—there are many more important measures that need to be taken to improve Australia’s trade training outcomes. One of the most important initiatives was the Prime Minister’s sacking of the member for Moreton as the minister responsible for this portfolio. We need to see sustainable trades for the future of the national economy. But let us be clear: the former minister, by his ramblings in the House this evening, has proven he was inadequate to the task. He failed to put a system in place to produce the goods, and Australian technical colleges and employers are thankful that he was sacked.
ADJOURNMENT
128
Adjournment
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Grocery Prices
Mr David Lentin
128
128
21:00:00
Byrne, Anthony, MP
008K0
Holt
ALP
0
0
Mr BYRNE
—I think the member for Moreton is auditioning for the role of surprise spruiker in The Chaser.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—
008K0
Byrne, Anthony, MP
Mr BYRNE
—He is pretty good. I would like to address the issue of cost of living pressures on my constituents in Holt. I particularly refer to the visit to Cranbourne on Wednesday, 11 July by federal opposition leader Kevin Rudd. He came to Cranbourne and spoke about an initiative to direct the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to monitor grocery prices to ensure that families were getting a fair deal. Mr Rudd said at the time that soaring petrol prices, increased credit card debt, record mortgage repayments—as we know, there was another interest rate rise last week—and a 12 per cent increase in childcare costs has put the squeeze on family finances as never before. To quote Kevin Rudd:
Australian families are under increasing financial pressure due to the rising cost of living.
Working families are finding it harder than ever before. They are doing it tough and getting deeper and deeper into debt and hitting the wall.
And the cost of living is felt most sharply by families at the supermarket. Prices of everyday goods keep going up and up and up. Food costs have well outstripped CPI across the country.
Interestingly, after the Leader of the Opposition made this statement, supermarket chains and those on the government side derided Mr Rudd.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Holt will refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his title.
008K0
Byrne, Anthony, MP
Mr BYRNE
—My apologies, Mr Speaker. They derided the Leader of the Opposition and basically said that he did not know what he was talking about. When you look at these sorts of issues, it is always good to have a third-party endorsement. The front page of the Cranbourne Leader, a very fine paper, reported on grocery prices under the headline ‘Grocery prices skyrocket’. The report stated:
Cranbourne grocery prices have skyrocketed at three times the rate of inflation over the past two years, a Leader survey shows.
The article continued:
We checked prices on a basket of everyday food items including milk, butter and eggs at major Cranbourne supermarkets, Coles, Ritchies and Safeway, and compared the results to our findings from a July 2005 price check of the same items.
This was conducted not by the Labor Party or any associated entity but by the newspaper. The article continued:
The results revealed an across-the-board increase of 19 per cent, more than three times the rate of CPI ...
Cranbourne Information and Support Services manager Leanne Petrides warned that out-of-control checkout prices were having a dangerous impact on battling families already under ‘immense’ financial pressure from interest rate and petrol price hikes.
In her words:
‘People are already spending a big percentage of their income on food. And every time they go to the supermarket, the prices go up and up and up.’
This is an organisation that provides emergency relief funding to people who live in the Cranbourne area. Ms Petrides continued:
‘We are seeing rapidly growing numbers of people forced to choose between paying the mortgage and bills, putting petrol in the car or buying food. It’s highly stressful and it’s having a serious impact on people’s mental and physical health and relationships.’
Ms Petrides said the use of credit cards to pay for essential food items was pushing some struggling families over the edge.
It is a significant issue in my electorate. Look at the statistics on mortgage stress in Holt and the number of people who are paying more than 30 per cent of their gross income in mortgage repayments. Data from the 2001 census showed that 2,724 households were then in mortgage stress. However, the 2006 census shows that this has increased to 7,666 households—a 181.4 per cent increase in the number of households with mortgage stress from 2001 to 2006.
It is interesting that a particular individual from the Liberal Party in that area said that he had been doorknocking and that he found that the price of petrol had not actually had an impact on households. I find that quite staggering, given the number of people who are presenting themselves to the Cranbourne Information and Support Service actively seeking fuel vouchers. These people are from middle-income families. These are not people from the lower income group; they are struggling middle-income families. The interesting thing about the provision of financial counselling to these people in financial stress is that there is basically only one federally funded financial counsellor for the entire area. I think that is an absolute disgrace.
In the brief time remaining to me I want to talk briefly about a person who is seriously ill—a gentleman called David Lentin. He runs 3SER-FM. He is a local voice for the community and a community champion. He is currently battling a serious illness. He is a great champion of the community—a person who binds the community together. He is facing a life-threatening illness, and, on behalf of the House, I wish him well in his struggle.
Climate Change
130
130
21:05:00
Bartlett, Kerry, MP
0K6
Macquarie
LP
1
0
Mr BARTLETT
—Like most members, I receive periodic correspondence on issues relating to the environment, greenhouse gases, global warming and so on. I share these concerns because, like everyone here, I am worried about the future of our children and our grandchildren. However, while most of the letters I receive are genuine and well meaning, I have to say that some reflect a community misunderstanding of the government’s position on this and reflect a myth that is deliberately perpetrated by the other side, aided and abetted by the media.
There are three myths that I want to address. The first myth is that somehow the government is a late starter, only half-hearted in its approach, on greenhouse gas emissions. That could not be further from the truth. I remind the House that in 1998 the government established the Australian Greenhouse Office to investigate initiatives and implement policies that would reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This was in 1998, when the opposition was not even talking about climate change or greenhouse issues. Since then we have committed or spent some $3.4 billion in a range of policies to reduce emissions. These policies include $500 million in the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, substantially leveraged by investment from the private sector to implement very productive, innovative approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have also provided $100 million in the Renewable Energy Development Initiative; $75 million for the solar plant in Mildura, which will probably be the biggest solar energy generating plant in the world; importantly, $200 million for the Australia-China Joint Coordination Group on Clean Coal Technology, recognising that we need to get on board with massive users of energy such as China and India to develop clean technologies to reduce their emissions; and $200 million for the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, recognising that deforestation around the world is one of the biggest contributors to global warming and that we need to do our part to help those countries that are involved in rampant vandalism by deforestation.
There are a whole range of recent initiatives, including, in this year’s budget, a doubling of the residential solar panel rebates to up to $8,000 and, just in the last few weeks, the $1,000 solar hot water system rebate. There are many more that I could mention. The first myth is that somehow we have not been doing anything. We have been doing far more than the opposition has even thought of doing.
The second myth is that somehow Kyoto is the magic answer. It is not the magic answer. In fact, sadly, in many cases, Kyoto is a feelgood excuse for countries to do nothing. If you look at the record, that is clearly the case. Many countries signed Kyoto, patted themselves on the back and said: ‘Aren’t we great? We’ve done our bit,’ then put in place very few practical policies to do any good. A range of countries have exceeded their targets: Japan is 20 per cent over its target; Spain is 22 per cent over its target; Canada is 30 per cent over its target; and Denmark is 34 per cent over its target. On the other hand, Australia, which is criticised by those opposite, is one of only four OECD countries to be on track to meet its Kyoto target. Kyoto is not the silver bullet or the magic answer, and unless those other big emitters like China and India are included it will achieve nothing. It is not what you say; it is what you do that matters.
The third myth that we hear so often is that somehow the Labor Party’s approach is better. This fanciful notion that it will achieve a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 sounds good but is totally unsubstantiated. It is like the example of: pick a number out of the air, double it, take away the number you first thought of and—hey presto!—there is the magic target. This is what Labor is doing, with no idea how to achieve it, no technical analysis of how it would be done, no idea of the technology involved and, just as badly, absolutely no idea of the cost, what loss it would mean in incomes and living standards, and how many hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs would be lost.
This government is committed to doing its part. We have already demonstrated this. We will keep doing it. However, we will do it in a way that does not cost Australian jobs but delivers on our responsibility. We will continue to work with other countries that are the big emitters but in a way that protects Australian jobs and living standards. We will do it in a sensible and balanced way. It is a case of substance, not the spin that we hear from the other side—a case of practical policies, not pie-in-the-sky promises that are unachievable and undeliverable.
Housing Affordability
131
131
21:10:00
George, Jennie, MP
JH5
Throsby
ALP
0
0
Ms GEORGE
—A couple of months ago I undertook a sample survey in the Throsby electorate seeking responses from my constituents on the issues that were causing them financial pressure and on matters of concern to them in trying to balance their work and family responsibilities. Respondents to my survey were asked to rate 12 items. In their replies, five items stood out. These were: rising petrol prices—not of any great surprise because it is a non-discretionary item of expenditure with many of my constituents having to commute to Sydney for employment—increasing health costs, increasing interest rates, rising grocery bills and unfair new workplace laws. The survey results and the comments my constituents made clearly show that many families and individuals in my electorate—and, no doubt, across the nation—are finding it difficult to cope with the spiralling cost of living increases.
I find the Prime Minister’s comment that ‘Australian working families have never been better off’ clearly out of touch with the sentiments expressed to me by the people I represent. If you take one measure alone—mortgage stress—there has been a more than 100 per cent increase in the number of Throsby households now finding themselves in that position. In the 2001 census 1,937 households, or about 19.4 per cent of households in my electorate, were paying more than 30 per cent of their gross income on their mortgage repayments. By 2006 that had jumped to 3,896 households—32 per cent of all households in my electorate—which is a 101 per cent increase between the census of 2001 and the census of 2006. I point out that the 32 per cent proportion of households facing mortgage stress was the figure before the latest interest rate rise and the two others that came after that census data was collected. So 32 per cent is an underestimation of the real number of people who are suffering mortgage stress.
I had a look at the neighbouring electorates of Cunningham and Gilmore. Across the three electorates at least a third of all households in the Illawarra region are now technically in mortgage stress, and that number is growing. It is not surprising that housing is becoming less affordable than ever before. I see that reflected in the marked drop of first home buyers in the past decade, where the proportion has fallen from 23 per cent a decade ago to 17 per cent today. While homeowners are being increasingly priced out of the market, 43 per cent of people I represent in the Throsby electorate who are in private rental arrangements are now also paying over 30 per cent of their gross income on rent. The median property price in the area that I represent is just under $400,000, so while the price of housing is on the increase, many more young couples are being forced out of the housing market, never being able to realise their dream of owning their own home. Increasing numbers of them are in rental accommodation and that is causing them great financial stress.
Last week’s interest rate rise will add to the financial pressures that I have spoken about this evening. Do not forget that in 2004 the Prime Minister promised to ‘keep interest rates at record lows’. Since he made that promise, as we know, they have risen five times. That pledge, despite the comments that the Prime Minister made today, still features on the Liberal Party website and is something that is very much ingrained in the consciousness of people in the community. They know that the latest interest rate rise will add another $50 a month to the average $250,000 home loan, with the standard variable mortgage rate going up to 8.3 per cent. This fifth interest rate rise since the last election has added an extra $164 a month to a $250,000 mortgage and $245 to a $300,000 mortgage. Whilst the 0.5 per cent increases do not seem a lot, when you compound them over the time since the last election they are certainly adding considerably to the financial pressure facing many households in my electorate.
Deakin Electorate: Law and Order
132
132
21:15:00
Barresi, Phillip, MP
ZJ6
Deakin
LP
1
0
Mr BARRESI
—The right of people to feel safe in their local community is one of the most personal freedoms we hold. We all take for granted the ability to walk the streets of our local neighbourhood and shopping centres in relative safety and without interference. When I speak to older Australians in my electorate, they tell me they often feel unsafe visiting the shops and using public transport for fear of being robbed or intimidated by local gangs or hoons. Therefore, with that backdrop, I was disturbed to read again last week about some young people, in the Ringwood end of my electorate, who are now afraid to use a local public skate park for fear of intimidation and physical harm. An article in the Maroondah Leader entitled ‘Edged out of skate park’ quotes a number of young people who now refuse to go to the park. This is a park that was built for young people in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. It is a park that was built following contributions from all three levels of government: the Commonwealth government put in $50,000 and the state government and the local council put in funds. It is a park which was much anticipated and was widely used in its early months of operation.
The kids in the area are now too frightened to use the skate park and, more importantly, they are also frightened to report violent incidents to their local police for fear of reprisal. Quoted in the article was a 22-year-old skater from Ringwood who said that the skaters now only met there and went to safer locations in outer suburbs to avoid getting into fights with groups of local hoons who gather there regularly. This skater went on to say that, because of possible intimidation and thuggery, the number of young kids who usually use this facility has halved. This is an appalling state of affairs for our youth and cuts right to the heart of why our local communities need better protection and services. Because of the actions of these hoons, this public youth resource is not being used to its full potential. An urgent response is needed to make sure that these sorts of actions do not happen in our local community.
In order to find a reasonable solution to this problem, I have been working closely with the Ringwood police and the Ringwood Chamber of Commerce to boost security through the use of real-time cameras in the Ringwood area. With the use of cameras, the police will be able to respond to the pictures taken by the cameras and the pictures will be used to prosecute violent offenders. These cameras will provide live, high-resolution colour feeds direct to the police station, where offences can be tracked as they happen and responded to immediately. These cameras are planned to be used at the skate park and at the Ringwood railway station, which is also an area of activity for hoons and one cited by the residents as being of concern.
This project is not new. Projects like this have been implemented before. I am pleased to see in the chamber my good friend the member for Casey, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. The member for Casey and I worked in conjunction with the Croydon police, with Constable Julie Simpson, with Monika Myers from the Main Street Traders Association and with shoppers and traders in Main Street, Croydon. That joint activity resulted in closed circuit TV cameras being approved for funding in the last round of the National Community Crime Prevention Program. Those closed circuit cameras will provide a monitoring of activities in the shopping area.
The expectation of the Croydon Main Street traders and the police is that these cameras will reduce the number of hoons hanging around outside the shopping centre and make shopping safer for the locals. That is certainly the evidence from other parts of the eastern suburbs where cameras have been used. I know the member for Casey will be able to cite the reduction in crime around the Lilydale railway station, where cameras were introduced sometime last year.
Shoppers are entitled to feel safe when venturing out of their homes to visit the supermarket, the chemist or the newsagency. Because of the Labor state government, police resources in Victoria are stretched. But these cameras are an affordable and effective way of reducing instances of crime and will help provide a valuable resource to the police as they monitor activities in the area. It is important to note that these cameras and any funding support would not be possible without federal government assistance. (Time expired)
Australian Automotive Industry
133
133
21:20:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
0
Mr MURPHY
—Following the sacking of 600 workers from the General Motors car plant in Adelaide earlier this year, I spoke in this place about the progressive collapse of the Australian motor vehicle industry that has occurred under the Howard government. At that time, I said that an analysis of the figures provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed that local manufacturing of motor vehicles would cease by 2030.
The closure of Ford’s Geelong engine plant, which was announced on 18 July this year, with the loss of a further 600 jobs, is a continuation of that trend and is a direct consequence of the failed policies of the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources and of this government. The root cause of the closure of the Geelong engine factory is not a consumer shift away from big cars; it is the fact that the engines produced at Geelong are inefficient and obsolete and are based on a design developed by Nicolaus Otto back in 1876. No matter how modern the external styling, virtually all of the cars sold in our country are powered by Nicolaus Otto’s ancient, inefficient 19th century engine.
The direct consequence of this market failure by the motor vehicle industry and the regulatory failure by the government is that Australian drivers are forced to purchase vehicles that have an overall energy efficiency of less than 20 per cent. In other words, for every dollar spent on fuel by a motorist, less than 20c worth of the energy in the fuel is actually converted by the engine to a useful mechanical output to drive the vehicle forward. The physical principles that underlie the operation of the Otto cycle engine have been understood since Sadi Carnot worked out the thermodynamics of heat engines in the 1820s. These fundamental laws underlie the limitations of the Otto cycle engine and are the reason that the energy efficiency of these engines has been and will remain very poor—a fact that seems to have escaped the attention of the government and its policy advisers.
Despite these inconvenient truths, the government is willing to hand out $5 billion to the local motor vehicle industry, under the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, without any requirement that the low efficiency of current engine technology be seriously considered. This is a national disgrace and a most serious failure of policy by the Howard government because it ignores the underlying reason for the closure of the Geelong engine plant and the loss of 600 jobs. The ACIS has been criticised by other observers for failing to encourage innovation. In fact, there is little in this scheme that would encourage manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles because it simply provides cash handouts to multinational companies as an inducement to continue local production. Where are the incentives for improved fuel consumption? Where are the incentives for reduced vehicle emissions? Where are the incentives for alternative fuels? Not one of these critical issues is addressed by the scheme that presently costs the taxpayer $500 million per annum.
Another reason for the closure of the Geelong engine factory was the fact that the engines presently produced would not comply with the government’s new Euro 4 equivalent vehicle emission standards due to come into force on 1 July 2010. While the Euro 4 emission standards do not incorporate a carbon dioxide limit, a voluntary level of 120 grams of carbon dioxide emission per kilometre for all new passenger cars manufactured from 2012 has been reached by the European Union and the European car makers. An emission level of 120 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre is approximately equivalent to a fuel consumption of five litres per 100 kilometres—less than half the current Australian average fuel consumption of 12.1 litres per 100 kilometres for passenger cars manufactured since 2000. I note that the average fuel consumption of Australian passenger cars was 11.5 litres per 100 kilometres in 1995.
These figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that the fuel efficiency of Australian vehicles is actually declining under the Howard government. No wonder the average Australian family finds that it costs more than ever to fill the family fuel tank. Why does the Howard government not require that the recipients of the ACIS subsidy double the fuel efficiency of their vehicles? In conclusion, there is no reason that this level of improvement cannot be achieved, and the next government—a Rudd Labor government—will take steps to ensure that car makers significantly improve the fuel economy of all vehicles sold in Australia.
Produce of Heaven Campaign
135
135
21:25:00
Baker, Mark, MP
DYK
Braddon
LP
1
0
Mr BAKER
—I take this opportunity this evening to acknowledge the Produce of Heaven campaign that continues in Hong Kong this week. I acknowledged the team earlier today in the 90-second statements. As part of the new initiative under the Produce of Heaven campaign, 17 north-west Tasmanian agriculture business representatives will travel to Hong Kong—they are on the plane right now—from 14 to 21 August, where they will exhibit their produce at the Hong Kong International Food Expo. After the overwhelming success of the Taiwan exhibition, already creating $500,000 in orders as a starting point, and fantastic interest in our region and the creation of new jobs, we look forward to more success from the Hong Kong International Food Expo.
Companies that will be exhibiting their produce include Hellyers Road Distillery, Ghost Rock Winery, Petuna Seafoods, Spreyton Fresh, Richey Fishing, Blue Hills Honey, Stanley Fish, Kay Beef Farms and Greenham. The five-day visit will be packed with some exciting initiatives for attending delegates and the region. Included in the visit will be a private networking function between Tasmanian north-west delegates and leading businesses in Hong Kong, which follows on from the success of the business matching that occurred in Taiwan. This function is destined to be a spectacular success, with larger than life personality and MC Mr Nigel Squibb from TasFresh, the superb skills of chef Jane-Therese Mulry from Cradle Mountain—everybody here would be aware of the fantastic hospitality that occurs at Cradle Mountain—and front area management by apprentice Sally Law.
The Produce of Heaven trade stand at the Hong Kong food show will provide a showcase of Tasmania’s north-west produce to over 100,000 buyers and visitors. The occasion will provide an excellent opportunity for the delegates to meet buyers and CEOs of many major hospitality and retail businesses, including Welcome and ThreeSixty supermarkets and hospitality outlet and hotel leaders. Delegates will meet with businesses for the purpose of discussing trade opportunities, where they will gain valuable export contacts for business with a view to secure contract for supply.
I have spoken many times about the wonderful produce that comes from the southern state. Also, from an agricultural perspective, Mr Speaker, at times in this country we do not appreciate the wonderful produce from your area, whether it be from the perspective of fruit, vegetables, meat or even some of the freshest water in the world. The opportunities are outstanding in Asia and we are just starting to tap into that region. This campaign builds on the Fair Dinkum Food campaign, which occurred some two years ago. In Australia we need to acknowledge the value of food produce. Sadly, at times, with the dominance of the two major supermarket chains, that does not seem to be put forward to achieve the acknowledgement that it deserves.
I would like to acknowledge some of the comments from Taiwan. For example, Richey Fishing said:
Without the Produce of Heaven, this initiative, we would have been unable to achieve these wonderful outcomes.
Spreyton Fresh said:
The interest shown in our apple juice was very promising and we are hopeful that the contacts we have made will enable us to export juice to Taiwan in the near future. We are very confident that this will occur as we are exporting cherries to Taiwan next season.
King Island Cloud Juice said:
This has been truly an exciting opportunity and one that a small business such as ours would not have had the ability to undertake by ourselves. I am expecting to do great business in Taiwan and this will lead to the full-time employment of at least one person, if not two people, on King Island.
Tim Hess from Petuna Seafood said:
Much interest was found in ocean trout. It was extremely promising, with many potential buyers becoming involved in our network in market.
The Hong Kong food show is one of the largest specialist food exhibitions in Asia. This year, 55 countries and 100,000 visitors are already registered to attend. With Produce of Heaven as the only Australian delegation to exhibit, we expect some wonderful and great outcomes.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
136
21:30:00
House adjourned at 9.30 pm
2007-08-13
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) took the chair at 4 pm.
COMMITTEES
137
Committees
Science and Innovation Committee
137
Report
137
Debate resumed, on motion byMr Georgiou:
That the House take note of the report.
137
16:00:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
0
0
Mr HAYES
—It is a pleasure to speak on this report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation, Between a rock and a hard place: the science of geosequestration. It is a report of substance that you will read a little more about in the media for other reasons this evening and tomorrow. It was very timely to look at the issue of geosequestration, for Australia at the moment confronts the challenges of its economic advancement and reliance on fossil fuels as well as its greenhouse gas emissions and its responsibilities to mitigate its effects on the climate.
Before I get too far into it, can I first compliment the chair of this inquiry, the member for Kooyong. A lot of wide-ranging and diverse views came before this committee. The evidence taken over many months and the amount of documentation submitted to the committee gave rise to different points of view being adopted by members of the committee. But I will come back to that a little later on. I would like to also acknowledge, if I may, Dr Anna Dacre, the committee secretary, Dr Alison Clegg and the other inquiry secretaries, Peter Keel and Michael Crawford. Many of us do take for granted sometimes the assistance, dedication and professionalism that is exhibited by committee staff. They work very hard to make us look, in many respects, a lot better than we are. I do thank them for the efforts they have put in on this report.
As I was saying, this is a significant milestone in looking at where we should go in terms of our energy production. One of the things we cannot deny is that the coal industry plays an important part in our economy. At the moment the coal industry directly employs some 30,000 Australians. It is also our largest export earner. Last year I think somewhere in the vicinity of $24½ billion in export earnings was generated through coal exports.
Currently Australia has 8.6 per cent of the world’s black coal reserves. That is in excess of a 200-year supply of black coal. There is something in the vicinity of an 800-year supply in the remaining reserves of brown coal—that is at current production levels. So Australia is very much dependent on our coal industry. Apart from everything else, presently 83 per cent of our total energy is produced from coal sources. One of the things we do need to address in this country, amongst other things in terms of a suite of technologies to take us further—and that includes renewable energies, of which, having worked within that sector, I am particularly partial to—is what can give us a real advantage in using our coal and protecting our environment. So clean-burning coal resources are essential to the future prosperity of this country.
One aspect of that is geosequestration, which is the capture and storage of CO with a view to allowing us to compete and exploit the benefits of our vast coal reserves, while also moving us in the direction of environmental protection and a reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions from our industries. There is no doubt we live in a carbon constrained world, despite what many might think. There is a real potential for Australia not only to fully participate in these industries but also to commercialise its carbon capture technologies.
We pride ourselves on being an innovative nation. It should not take us that long to work out that we are sitting on an abundance of the world supply of coal. If we have worked out that our economy is going to be heavily geared to the export of coal for generations to come, then we should have realised long before now that we should be the world leaders in clean-burning coal resources and technologies such as geosequestration.
There are a number of options that fall to us already in terms of geosequestration. There are a range of storage options that are available to us, including depleted gas and oil fields, unmined or unmineable coal seams and the injection of carbon dioxide into existing reservoirs, which is called enhanced recovery. That is something we have been doing in this nation for a long while, particularly in Western Australia, in trying to exploit the final reserves of oil. It is certainly a known technology.
It became very clear to us during this inquiry that the technologies which are being deployed are not new. They have been finessed and developed, but the whole notion of geosequestration or carbon capture and storage is not necessarily a new technology. We have been doing various aspects of it, including advanced oil and gas recovery by injecting CO into existing oil reservoirs, for some time. We now want to finesse the process to where we commercialise the technology, not to produce additional hydrocarbon but to ensure permanent storage of liquid CO at depth for centuries, if not thousands of years.
Whilst I had thought that most people involved in the inquiry were singing from the same hymn sheet in relation to this issue, to the surprise of most people, four government members of the committee—which is the majority of government members—chose to submit a dissenting report. It is the right of everyone to question, but when they question not the technology and its commercialisation and whether it is capable of doing something to reduce carbon emissions but question what goes to the very heart of this—whether human involvement is exacerbating climate change—I think the Labor members and other members who formed the majority on the committee find that very hard to accept.
There is ample scientific evidence now that indicates that human behaviour in the modern industrial period has contributed to the build-up of greenhouse gases which has contributed to climate change. I am not a scientist, but I would have thought—from the abundance of material submitted to this inquiry and the abundance of material that is on the internet and even what our children learn in school—that this is not a contested position. Yet a majority of government members on this committee challenge the very fact that human involvement has resulted in greater carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, which in turn is having an impact on climate change.
At this late stage, not of this report or this government but, quite frankly, of our industrial development, we have people in our elected positions now coming before us and questioning whether humans have impacted on the emission of CO and whether we need to take steps to reduce the production of greenhouse gases and saying the jury is out on that. I have to say that, if I were living in the electorates of any of those people, I would seriously consider my position coming up to the next election. I would want people who were actually going to sit down and look at what is good for our future. I endorse the geosequestration report and indicate that it does endorse a number of the existing policy positions already adopted by the Labor Party in terms of geosequestration and its investment in this country. (Time expired)
139
16:10:00
Georgiou, Petro, MP
HM5
Kooyong
LP
1
0
Mr GEORGIOU
—I seek leave to speak again without closing the debate.
Leave granted.
HM5
Georgiou, Petro, MP
Mr GEORGIOU
—There is dissent from the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation. Four committee members conclude:
Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has always been with us, and always will be. Whether human activities are disturbing the climate in dangerous ways has yet to be proven. It is for this reason that we strongly disagree with the absolute statements and position taken in this review regarding AGW—
anthropogenic global warming. The view is:
... most of the public statements that promote the dangerous human warming scare are made from a position of ignorance ...
There could be no clearer divergence from the committee’s view, which is:
There is now compelling evidence that human activity is changing the global climate. The majority of scientists, and the community at large, agree that global action is needed, otherwise we risk reaching a point where it is too late to reverse the damage.
Let me make my position clear. As chairman I totally affirm the committee’s conclusion that the evidence is compelling and that the link between greenhouse gas emissions from human activity and high temperatures is convincing. Equally, I affirm the right of others to dissent from this view and to believe that global warming and the human contribution to it is unsubstantiated. However, as chairman of the committee, I also have the responsibility of correcting a number of erroneous assertions made in the dissenting report. I will address three of the most substantial of these.
Firstly, the dissent says the committee ‘strays well outside its terms of reference’ by addressing whether global warming is a problem and human activities are contributing to it. This is not the case. The committee’s second term of reference specifically directs it to report on the potential environmental benefits of geosequestration. Axiomatically, this requires the committee to form a view on whether global warming is a problem and whether human activity has impacted on it. As the committee stated:
... the purpose of CCS ... is to reduce the negative impact of anthropogenic ... emissions on the environment ...
If the committee formed a view that there was no negative impact then it would have to conclude that CCS could not deliver any significant environmental benefit. As one witness bluntly put it under questioning:
... people all around the world are looking at capture and sequestration. If you did not think greenhouse was an issue, you would not be doing anything.
The dissent says that the committee did not take any evidence relating to anthropogenic global warming. This is not the case. The committee received 46 submissions. The evidence given in 94 per cent of these, 43 in number, related to anthropogenic global warming, the impact of greenhouse gases on the environment, the gases’ derivation from human action and the challenge of reducing these emissions. Only one of these submissions argued that global warming has no human cause. The evidence of all the other submissions either expressed concern about climate change, recognised it as a problem, emphasised the need for change to manage emissions or called for urgent action on the climate front. Let me quote some of the evidence tendered. The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association’s submission stated:
The clearest environmental benefit associated with geosequestration technology relates to the technology’s potential to make a contribution to significantly lowering the greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil fuel ...
The Australian Coal Association attested that climate change is a global problem and stated:
... the ... industry acknowledges the challenge posed by climate change and recognises the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ...
The CRC for Greenhouse Accounting’s evidence was:
... all remaining credible scientific argument against human-induced climate change has evaporated—
and I am sure they did not intend a pun there.
Similar evidence was raised at every one of the public hearings by every organisation that contributed to the proceedings. For instance, Mr Alex Zapantis stated in evidence:
Rio Tinto unequivocally accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are contributing to climate change ...
Dr Tony Espie from BP United Kingdom gave evidence that:
Without significant action, global greenhouse gas emissions are now projected to more than double by 2050, predominantly due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Similarly, Greenpeace’s evidence was:
... the driving force behind developing the technology is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere in an effort to reduce the impacts of human-induced climate change.
The dissenting report says that the committee used the pseudoscientific figure of more than 90 per cent certainty that human beings have affected the climate and said that it is ‘in the bureaucratic summary for policymakers, not in the actual technical reports’. This is not the case. The technical summary contained in the IPCC fourth assessment report, at page 23, says:
The standard terms used in this report to define the likelihood of an outcome or result where this can be estimated probabilistically are:
… … …
Very likely > 90% probability
The main body of the text, at chapter 9 and throughout, states:
Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed warming over the last 50 years.
The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the influence of anthropogenic forcing …
I could go on, but I will just concentrate on what might be a lighter note. I have to say that the dissenting report’s criticism of the committee quoting Rupert Murdoch’s comment on climate change, saying it demonstrates the one-sided nature of the report, is misplaced. Undoubtedly, politicians have different attitudes towards Mr Murdoch’s various views and at different times. In this case, however, the majority of the committee simply believed that Mr Murdoch, as a nonscientist, nicely articulated an important point. It is worth while quoting Mr Murdoch’s words that the committee found illuminating and that the dissenting report finds objectionable:
I am no scientist but … I do know how to assess a risk. Climate change poses clear catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can’t afford the risk of inaction.
I believe that is an eminently sensible line but, no doubt, Mr Murdoch is quite capable of defending his own views.
I believe in the right of my parliamentary colleagues to dissent. If some parliamentarians want to deny that human activity is changing the globe for the worst, they have the right to do so. It is important, however, that the record be set straight regarding the committee acting within its terms of reference, having taken evidence regarding global warming and the character of the IPCC’s substantive report and technical comments. I hope that I have done this. I thank the members of the committee. I thank the secretariat for an exercise that made substantial demands on the secretariat and on the committee. I commend the report to the House.
141
16:19:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—The minority report by the Liberal members for Tangney, Solomon, Hughes and Lindsay to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation’s geosequestration report shows exactly why we have had no serious action from the Howard government to address global warming for the past decade. This report rips off the veneer and reveals the rotten core beneath. The government wants us to believe it is serious about tackling climate change, but it is all a sham—it does not want to believe there is any problem; it simply does not want to know about it. It reveals a government infested with members who refuse to believe climate change is happening, refuse to believe the experts and even refuse to believe the evidence happening right around the world before our very eyes. Such a government cannot be part of the solution; it is part of the problem. This is not a government for the planet’s future; it is a government living in the past.
The member for Tangney says that he does not support emissions trading and that he sees no need to cut greenhouse gas emissions. This is a reckless, irresponsible position from an MP who thinks he knows more about the science of global warming than do the 1,500 scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The member for Tangney and the other climate change sceptics remind me of the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail—lying there on the ground with no arms and no legs, blood pouring from everywhere, and still wanting to fight on when the debate is over. It is as serious as it is amusing, because this attitude still lurks within the government’s breast, and it is this attitude which is responsible for Australia’s dreadful track record in tackling greenhouse gas emissions.
While the European nations are cutting their greenhouse gas emissions, at the present rate, by the year 2020, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions will have risen by 27 per cent over the 1990 levels. This dreadful prospect is the consequence of abject failure to take serious measures to introduce an emissions-trading scheme and to substantially increase the share of renewable energy. These things could, and should, have been done at any time during the past 10 years, but the government has deliberately and wilfully ignored them. Now, it says it will introduce an emissions-trading scheme, but it does not say what its emissions-trading target will be and it says it will announce that target after the next election. What an astonishing try-on this is.
The dissenting report is riddled with unsubstantiated assertions. It says the examples of the decreasing snow cover and ice extent given by Al Gore and others are ‘demonstrably wrong’, but then provides no evidence to support this. It asserts that the Stern review has been ‘thoroughly debunked in a scientific and economic sense’, but all we get is that assertion. The dissenting report is tricky with the facts. It produces a graph showing aggregate rainfall in Australia, suggesting little change over time. The problem for Australia’s rainfall is that it is drying up in the south. Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and the Murray-Darling Basin have experienced declining rainfall in the past decade, and the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology are predicting even less in the years ahead. Do the members for Tangney, Solomon, Hughes and Lindsay think the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology have got this wrong, or do they think that it does not matter if Perth, Melbourne and the Murray-Darling Basin dry out, provided there is more rainfall in the tropics? What a shocking abdication of their responsibility to their constituents. The member for Tangney represents voters in Perth, and the members for Lindsay and Hughes represent voters in Sydney. They should be urging action to prevent rainfall loss for their electorates, not hiding behind aggregate data to pretend climate change is not a problem for Australia.
The dissenting report claims that doubling CO will only increase the natural greenhouse effect less than two per cent and produce warming of one degree Celsius in the absence of negative feedbacks. This is dangerously misleading and irresponsible. It is intended to, and will, discourage action. But doubling CO is definitely risky business. Dr James Hansen from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Dr Makiko Sato from the Earth Institute at Columbia University say that the west Antarctic icesheet and the Arctic ice cover are at risk of melting if the earth’s temperature rises by another one degree Celsius. Dr Sato says that CO exceeding 450 parts per million is almost surely dangerous, yet the member for Tangney is relaxed about CO going to 750 parts per million.
Doubtless there will be some people rushing to defend the dissenting report on the principle of freedom of speech. The American judge, Oliver Wendell Holmes, observed years ago that free speech does not mean a man can shout ‘fire’ in a theatre and cause panic. In this case, there is smoke wafting through the theatre and the members in question are telling everyone to remain calm and stay in their seats. Yes, the dissenters are allowed to express their view, but the rest of us are just as entitled to repudiate this monumental irresponsibility.
It is disappointing that the dissenting report by the greenhouse sceptics of the parliamentary Liberal Party will inevitably overshadow the rest of the report and make it that much harder for us to get to first base. But, as I said at the outset, you simply cannot ignore the dissenting report, not least because it has been signed by four government MPs. Four of six government MPs on this committee think global warming is a nonsense. This situation is really quite alarming. Do two out of three Liberal backbenchers really doubt climate change?
But we need to move from first base to second base through a serious investigation of ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and this is what our report is all about. It is about one particular possibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by capturing the carbon produced by coal and storing it permanently. This process is referred to as geosequestration, or carbon capture and storage. It is an excellent idea. The question is: can it be done? In particular, can it be done at a decent price compared with other energy technologies? Can it be done in time to meet our need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Can it be done in a permanent way? What are the risks involved in long-term storage? Finally, are there environmental issues apart from climate change that carbon capture and storage will generate, and can they be resolved?
The committee has studied the evidence on these things and has studied the present state of play. The report contains useful information about carbon capture and storage demonstration projects around Australia. There are no large-scale projects in carbon capture, transport and storage generated by a coal fired plant, but there are a number of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects underway or planned in Europe, Africa and the United States, as well as in Australia.
The committee found that much of the carbon injection technology is already known and available but that there is a lack of experience in integrating the component technologies at the commercial scale required and in the Australian context. Multiple full-scale demonstration projects using different types of capture technology and storage conditions are urgently needed. More research and development is required across a range of applications under varying conditions and on a scale that would demonstrate commercial viability.
The committee considers that carbon capture and storage has a role to play in tackling global warming provided that there is appropriate regulation and scrutiny of environmental risks. We need a rigorous regulatory environmental risk mitigation framework for carbon capture and storage which covers assessment of the risk of abrupt or gradual leakage and appropriate response strategies as well as requirements for long-term site monitoring and reporting.
The committee notes that presently there is simply no financial incentive for power companies to embrace carbon capture and storage technology as this just increases the price of coal fired power. It notes that, if a carbon price were introduced and if the cost of CCS were at the lower end of the estimated range, then it is likely that incorporating CCS technology into the next generation of coal fired power stations would be competitive with other forms of low-emission power generation.
One area of great concern is the impact of the skills shortage on research into this technology. According to Anglo Coal:
This skills shortage arises initially from limited numbers of young geoscientists coming through our universities and being trained in petroleum and CCS expertise, but is currently being exacerbated by the competing demand for oil exploration geoscientists.
Australia has dropped the ball on skills over the past decade, and the impacts of this are far-reaching across a whole range of scientific and engineering endeavours.
I regard global warming as the most serious issue of our time. Given this, we need to consider all possible solutions, and geosequestration—carbon capture and storage—may indeed have a role to play as part of the mix. I regret that the government has firmly set its face against other elements of the mix, in particular renewable energy. I have little doubt that, if the government had put a fraction of the effort into encouraging renewable energy such as solar PV that it has put into denying climate change and scuttling and undermining efforts to tackle it, we would be much better positioned for the future right now.
143
16:29:00
Jensen, Dennis, MP
DYN
Tangney
LP
1
0
Dr JENSEN
—I fully support the report Between a rock and a hard place inasmuch as it addresses the specific terms of reference given to the committee. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, as far as the report does deal specifically with these issues, it is actually a very good document giving a very good account of the technology, economics and other issues relating to the science of geosequestration.
The problem is that the report strays well outside the terms of reference and makes unequivocal statements about global warming and the evidence relating to anthropogenic global warming. One of the supports that anthropogenic global warming relies on very heavily is the issue of consensus. However, as Margaret Thatcher stated, consensus is the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no-one believes but to which no-one objects—the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. The unequivocal statements about AGW are not acceptable.
Indeed, in the last few days the Goddard Institute for Space Studies under James Hansen has been forced to change the surface temperature records for the contiguous USA as a result of errors that had been conducted in the GISS analysis. Instead of 1998 now being the hottest year on record for the US, it is now 1934. What is more, four of the hottest 10 years in the US are now found to have occurred in the 1930s, as opposed to only three in the last 10 years.
Kevin Trenberth, IPCC coordinating lead author, as quoted in our dissenting report, has stated:
Therefore the problem of overcoming this shortcoming, and facing up to initializing climate models means not only obtaining sufficient reliable observations of all aspects of the climate system, but also overcoming model biases. So this is a major challenge.
He could not have known how major this challenge would be. The error of the US surface data was found by Steve McIntyre, the same person who discovered the errors in Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph in the third IPCC report. As an ex-scientist, it concerns me that in both these cases Hansen and Mann did not make their data and algorithms available for peer review. In both cases it was perseverance by dedicated scientists that brought out these flaws.
If the temperature record of the US is found to be in error—and the US would have to have had one of the most accurate and reliable records on the planet—how much store do we place on the rest of the record, where similar secrecy on data and algorithms holds? The politicisation of this issue is so problematic that potential beneficial effects of temperature increase appear not to exist as far as the AGW adherents are concerned.
It is interesting that the late Roger Ravelle, the mentor spoken of in reverent terms by Al Gore in his movie, stated:
… the evidence for global warming thus far doesn’t warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.
Indeed, in the case of Gore, the hypocrisy on energy use, where he uses 20 times as much energy as the average American, clearly indicates that Gore is pushing the issue for personal, financial and political gain. If he genuinely believed his polemic, he would use all measures possible to reduce his energy consumption. He is a hypocrite of the first order.
Unfortunately, the politicisation of this debate extends not only into Australia or into this parliament but indeed into this very committee. Witness the member for Wills, who wrote to leading Australian companies in a threatening way, asking:
Whether your company has donated any money to the Institute of Public Affairs—
and there were a variety of other institutes he named—
or any other body which spreads misinformation or undermines scientific consensus concerning global warming. If your company has donated such money in the past, is it continuing to do so?
Clearly, here is a member who not only lacks political judgement but clearly does not have a clue as to how the scientific process works. If he did have any idea, he would know that science advances due to scepticism and falsification, both of which he is actively attempting to quash. The problem with so much of the debate on this issue is that it is pseudoscientific, having scant regard for scientific process. If evidence contradicting the theory of AGW is produced, the AGW adherents quickly attempt to find some way of explaining away the contradictory evidence in such a way as to fit in with their paradigm rather than question whether their paradigm holds true. This is what is commonly known as ‘group think’.
People have asked me what it would take for me to accept the AGW hypothesis. I have thought long and hard about this. According to the adherents, the models are now so complete that there is no doubt that humans are the cause of most of the warming of the latter part of the last 40 years, as the models cannot attribute the temperature rise to anything else. If the models are so complete, then to satisfy me they should be able to predict for each of the next five years to within 0.1 degrees what the average global temperature would be. The only exceptions would be where there is some unforeseen, non-climatic event such as a large volcanic eruption. Given what Kevin Trenberth has said about modelling not being able to replicate current conditions, and given that by the IPCC’s own admission the understanding that six of the nine radiative forcing mechanisms are medium or low, I would not be surprised to find that the modellers are unable to make these predictions. That the chair of the IPCC has stated that Australia is correct in not setting CO emission reduction targets until the full details of the impact and implications of this are known indicates that the government is being prudent with its policy on carbon.
The point is that the costs are not minimal. The risk of this occurring has not been determined. It would be like Australia committing a very large part of the budget to examining ways of preventing an asteroid strike on the planet. Although the consequences of an asteroid strike would be catastrophic, the probability of its occurring is extremely low. As such, it would be imprudent to expend huge amounts of money on this. A similar sober assessment needs to be conducted with AGW. The problem is that it is not the Gores, Garretts or indeed members opposite who would suffer as a result of this.
10000
Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Secker)—The honourable member should refer to members by their electorate.
DYN
Jensen, Dennis, MP
Dr JENSEN
—The costs would be borne—and make no mistake about this—by every man, woman and child in Australia. It would particularly impact on those who are struggling. That is why I am so concerned about the religious aspect that AGW has taken on, which has carried through to this very committee and this very report.
Stephen Schneider, one of the strongest AGW adherents now and one of the coming-ice-age prophets of the 1970s, has explained exactly how the AGW fraternity is approaching this. He has stated:
To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
Therein lies the entire problem with the debate: being unethical in a scientific sense in order to forward an agenda. There is only a double ethical bind with dishonest scientists. An honest scientist would never bend the truth to push an agenda.
146
16:38:00
Quick, Harry, MP
AV5
Franklin
ALP
0
0
Mr QUICK
—It is rather interesting to follow the member for Tangney. Sadly, with the launch of this excellent report today, a report that is long overdue, the emphasis was on the glitz rather than the substance of what appears in the report.
I urge those who are listening to this debate—and, from some of the emails that I have received, people are listening to what was said this morning and are trying to obtain the report—to get as many copies as possible so that they can read not just the dissenting report, which seems to be the focus at the moment, but rather the five recommendations of Between a rock and a hard place. I urge people to log on to the committee website. Read the transcripts of evidence taken at the many hearings that we have held in this house and around Australia. Read the submissions. As the honourable chair of the committee said, all but one of the submissions endorsed the belief that global warming was a serious threat to humankind.
One wonders if this is a great furphy. Some people talk about things coming from outer space and wiping civilisation out, and they say there is a greater chance of that happening than of global warming having an impact on your life. Why are there nine demonstration projects going ahead at such enormous cost? When you look at the report, you see there are the Monash Energy Project, the Gorgon Project, ZeroGen, the Fairview Zero Carbon Project, the HRL Ltd project, the Hazelwood project and the CS Energy project. These are costing in some cases a billion dollars and in most of the others hundreds of millions of dollars. Why in the name of creation are these organisations and industry expending this enormous amount of money if they do not have to? Are they are just doing it for their own self-satisfaction? Other speakers have mentioned the intergovernmental reports of the 1,500 scientists. Are those people crazy?
Even though we contribute only 1.4 per cent to global greenhouse gas emissions, Australia must set the example to the neighbouring developing countries—the Indias, the Chinas and the like. I am appalled by and disappointed with the dissenting report. It is basically the member for Tangney going off at a tangent, and there are sloppy contributions by the members for Solomon, Hughes and Lindsay, who—I hate to say it—really have not made a contribution to this whole debate and with regard to the evidence taken at our hearings.
I was somewhat amazed when I got back to my office just after question time and I got an email from someone who criticised my use of the word ‘sceptic’ in my speech when this report was tabled in the House earlier today. He said, ‘What about the Catholics in Nazi Germany, Nelson Mandela in South Africa and the Chinese in Tiananmen Square?’ These are the sorts of crazy things that can be linked to the so-called theological debate that seems to have been generated by the member for Tangney. He stated that the ordinary, average punter will not put up with the additional costs. I think that is totally false. Consumers will, I believe, be prepared to pay increased costs on their power bills to see this issue tackled and tackled sooner rather than later.
If you look at the evidence, you see that between 1970 and 2004, 34 years, there was an 80 per cent growth in global CO emissions, and between 1990 and 2004, 14 years, there was a 20 per cent growth. We are talking about serious problems. As I stated in my earlier remarks: go to Beijing on any given day; do you still reckon that we do not have a problem that we need to address?
This report is timely, concise and scientifically sound. I would like to compliment the secretariat for their hard work. As the chair said, it has not been easy putting this together. I would like to thank the other members of the committee and especially the chair for his guidance and forbearance as he put this together. I would like to urge members in this House—and others—to grab a copy and have a read, because I can assure you that in the upcoming election campaign a hell of a lot of people out there will be talking about this issue. What better than to give them a copy of this report, Between a rock and a hard place: the science of geosequestration, because some of the answers—not all of them—are in here and we need to talk about this. Take the politics out of it. We have had some of the politics inserted today, but this is too big an issue to be a Labor or Liberal or Greens or Democrats issue only and for one of those parties to have all the answers. That is a load of rubbish. We all need to work together, politicians state and federal. Industry want to work with us. The scientists want to work with us. We should be doing it for the punters that we represent.
147
16:45:00
Jenkins, Harry, MP
HH4
Scullin
ALP
0
0
Mr JENKINS
—I have pleasure in rising in support of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation report entitled Between a rock and a hard place: the science of geosequestration. From the outset, I want to emphasise something that the whole committee appears to be agreed on—even when I look at the comments of the dissenting report—and that is that the report provides a very sound examination of the phenomenon of geosequestration and the uses that it can be put to and, therefore, how valuable it is to discussions on climate change.
However, I am very disappointed in the way in which members who are signatories to the dissenting report have handled this debate so far. We have had a contribution from only one of the signatories to the dissenting report; the other three do not appear to be joining in the debate. The principal signatory to the dissenting report has made his contribution and has now left the chamber. He is not entering into the discussion by listening to the views of others. It is important that a parliamentary committee report such as this engenders debate. It is not the debate that I have any problem with. Let us have the debate and not a series of set pieces that are put in a very flowery and definitive way.
Earlier this year I attended an international parliamentary union meeting in Nusa. The principal speaker at that conference on where we are at as a globe in relation to climate change was Dr John Zillman—a former president of the World Meteorological Organisation and head of the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia. He gave a very balanced outline of the work of the IPCC. He sought a debate which avoided overstatement of the science by greenhouse zealots and which had more informed use of the science by greenhouse sceptics. I believe that this report represents that middle ground.
If the dissenters from the report believe that there is insufficient evidence of anthropogenic global warming, I have a real problem. I am now not clear whether they support the sound basis of the report and its recommendations on geosequestration. The recommendations in the report reflect the committee’s terms of reference—that is, to look at the trigger points involved in the phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming and to look at how we, as policy makers, react to it and make decisions on it. We cannot come in here with our scientific hats on and say, ‘We’ll have a debate on the science.’ We are elected to the parliament to make good public policy decisions.
Over the past couple of decades, when I have had the opportunity in this parliament to talk about global warming, I have had to admit that, yes, I have a science background. It is a bachelor degree from the ANU. I was very lucky because it was a holistic course. It taught me to take the science and then aspects from different things, such as economic or social policy, and to put them together to come up with something that I believed was the response that should be made. That is what we have to do here.
When I supported the comments of Rupert Murdoch staying in the report, it was on the basis that these were comments that I had made in the parliament before. At earlier IPCCs there was a discussion within the scientific world about whether anthropogenic global warming was actually happening. But we cannot await the definite answer without doing the preliminary work. As each body of work is developed by those involved in the IPCC, there comes greater certainty. I have heard from people like Dr Zillman and, in Belize, Carlos Fuller—who made a presentation to a working group of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on the environment and parliament that I was involved in—that they can look back on their body of work and go back to reference points that they flagged in earlier work to see the progression. This gives them confidence in the predictions that they make.
A lot of these scientists are meteorologists. They are in the business of making predictions and they die and fall by these predictions. They cannot say, ‘We just plucked it out of the air.’ They were the ones who looked at climate change as a phenomenon way back and developed questions to be answered, and they continue to do that. But it is for us, as policymakers, to say that we cannot wait until we are certain; it will be too late. On the basis of the things that the committee has raised as part of its report, I think there is every reason to map out this course of action. Our problem is that we should not be in business unless we say that there is evidence of the climate change phenomenon occurring and that we are willing to put in place incentives and disincentives—a whole suite of things—to ensure that we get a result.
Zillman said to the IPU that we really need to see a match between mechanisms of carbon pricing and the development of new technology. He went on to say that we could consider that climate change was a direct response to market failure and that, if we look at it this way, we have to develop mechanisms that ensure that we have suitable interventions in the case of market failure. Geosequestration—carbon capture and storage—which prevents carbon going into the atmosphere and other places and causing climate change and global warming is very important.
Like all my colleagues from the committee, we are quite happy to have dissent and to have debate, but let us make sure that it is robust debate about the facts and not sloganeering and calling people zealots, sceptics and a whole host of things. By implication, it is a bit rich for the member for Tangney to call the people who signed the majority report ‘zealots’. There are a heap of them out there. These people are, as Zillman said, in the middle and not out on the extremes. They looking at the evidence that is produced and going forward.
As part of the debate about geosequestration—carbon capture and storage, CCS—we have to analyse the importance of coal-produced energy. There had to be a base decision. The decision of the committee was that Australia needs to go forward for quite some time on the basis of energy being produced by coal. Having made that decision, steps should then be taken to ameliorate the effect of the carbon produced and released—that is the whole point of developing technologies that are put in place for carbon capture and storage. All the questions about the transport of the carbon that is captured—whether that economically stands up on the basis of the carbon emissions that might be used in the storage—are complex questions, and we rely on the input of scientists on not only the climate change phenomenon but also the steps involved in all the technologies that we might use.
People came forward to share their knowledge with the committee. They were not waiting around for some decision in black and white; they came forward on the basis that action should be taken. The Insurance Council of Australia has a clear policy on this because it understands that climate change is happening and that we have to take suitable action to prevent and ameliorate the effects. That is the important thing. The people that we represent and the people that are least able might take the economic hit on this. I asked the member for Tangney, ‘If we sit back and do nothing, will it be the same people and worse that take the hit as a result of the outcome of climate change?’ That is why we have to be in on it. We have to get businesses, governments and the community on board and we need to take action on the basis that there is certainty on the climate change phenomenon. I commend the report to the House.
149
16:55:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
0
0
Ms LIVERMORE
—I want to take this opportunity today to confirm my longstanding support for the coal industry and the Labor Party’s support for clean coal technology, like geosequestration, that will strengthen the domestic industry against future challenges. Australia’s coal industry is an integral part of the Capricornia electorate, which includes many mines and the largest coking coal export facility in the world. Central Queensland is the economic engine room of Queensland and certainly one of the anchors of the national economy. In 2006 alone there were over 30,000 people directly employed in coal mining, not to mention the many thousands more people in towns across my electorate such as Sarina, Moranbah, Dysart and Clermont who also benefit indirectly from the industry. Australia’s 2006 coal exports were worth over $23 billion—a large proportion of that coming from within my electorate.
Reliable and affordable energy supplies are a key element of Australia’s security, prosperity and competitiveness. Energy policy in Australia will be a major feature of the upcoming federal election—something which will show the significant differences between the policies of Labor and the coalition. Labor has always concentrated on supporting the coal industry by driving the development of clean coal technology such as geosequestration, while John Howard has been planning a nuclear future. There are now significant energy choices for Australia: do we stand up for coal and help the industry thrive in a carbon restricted future or do we simply start building nuclear power plants all over our country?
The international community is rapidly moving to confront climate change, and the Howard government has for years failed to recognise this challenge. It has wasted more than a decade, which could have been spent preparing our economy for a transition to a carbon constrained environment. The Howard government’s attitude is stifling innovation and the development of new technologies which will mean secure jobs and more exports.
Labor has consistently argued for the introduction of an emissions trading scheme that enables the market to put a price on carbon and find the most efficient way of reducing emissions without damaging the important mining industries in my region. This trading scheme would help reach the target of a 60 per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2050. I would like to remind the House that this target of 60 per cent was found by the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change to be compatible with strong economic growth and not damaging to the industry. Labor’s emissions trading scheme is economically responsible. It would provide the right incentives to drive investment in low-emission technologies and renewable energy while keeping the total cost relatively low.
It is also very important that the emissions trading scheme is fair and ensures that those industries less capable of adapting to price changes are not disadvantaged. While my electorate is the coal capital of Queensland, there are other mining industries, such as magnesium, which are far less capable of absorbing the extra costs of carbon reduction. These other industries are also very important to the national economy and must be treated fairly in any trading scheme.
A Rudd Labor government would aim to start an emissions trading scheme by 2010, with the design to be finalised by the end of 2008. Labor recognise that this is an ambitious target and there is a lot of work to be done. However, we are committed to getting an emissions trading scheme off the ground and doing it right. The coal industry is facing specific challenges in Australia, and my electorate, being a coal-exporting heavyweight, is keenly interested in Labor’s policies. Our huge reserves of black coal are a massive economic asset for the nation. Black coal alone accounts for more than 12 per cent of our exports by value. However, the move to an increasingly carbon constrained international economy and the inaction of the Howard government to prepare the nation for the future threaten the prosperity of my electorate and represent utter negligence by the Prime Minister over the past 11 years.
It is also unfortunate but entirely predictable that, in the face of a complete lack of any vision for the future, Mr Howard and the federal member for Dawson are up to their old tricks: running a fear campaign on coalminers’ jobs. It has always been the way of the conservatives to strike fear into people and blame someone else for all their failings. However, like much of the world, Australia relies on fossil fuels for most of its energy, and Labor believes this will continue for decades to come. Australia’s economic and energy security interests demand that we protect the viability of our coal industry.
To reduce greenhouse gas emissions while placing Australian coal exports and jobs on a sure international footing, federal Labor has also launched the Clean Coal Initiative. This plan includes establishing a national Clean Coal Fund, worth $500 million, to provide Commonwealth support for the development and demonstration of clean coal technologies and to generate at least $1.5 billion in new investment while working in partnership with the private sector. Labor has also pledged to significantly reduce emissions entering the grid by 2020 and for near-zero-emission carbon capture and storage technologies to enter the grid by 2030, as well as to increase Commonwealth funding for the CSIRO by $25 million over four years. These are the sorts of proactive policies to protect our energy interests and our export potential that the Howard government should have been pursuing for years.
Carbon capture and storage technologies involve the pumping of CO, in a compressed liquid form, into suitable geological formations deep underground. The most likely sites for carbon storage are depleted oil or gas fields, deep saline aquifers and deep coal seams. As the report Between a rock and a hard place points out, the technology for pumping liquid CO into oil or gas fields is well known and proven. In fact, the first commercial-scale project dedicated to CO storage in a geological reservoir has been in successful operation in Norway since 1996. However, there are a number of other examples across the world operating.
As the report sets out, there are a number of projects currently underway in Australia to test the feasibility and the commercial viability of various methods of capturing the carbon emissions released by coal-fired power stations. One of these is the ZeroGen project at Stanwell near Rockhampton in my electorate. This project, which will utilise integrated gasification combined cycle technology, has received significant backing from the Queensland government. On the other hand, I note it has yet to receive any such support from the federal government, even though, according to this report, an application for funding under the government’s Low Emission Technology Development fund was lodged in March 2006. This is in contrast to most of the other projects referred to within the report, which have between them received hundreds of millions of dollars from that fund. I have to ask: what is taking the government so long? Where is its support for this important project?
As part of its response to climate change, Labor is also investigating carbon offsetting, whereby companies offset their carbon emissions by planting vegetation or rehabilitating mining land. It is because of my strong belief in the future of the coalmining industry that I am surprised the Howard Liberal government has not taken up any of these initiatives and even today does not support the Labor Party’s initiatives. But one must only look at Mr Howard’s move—
10000
Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Secker)—The member will refer to members of this House by their proper title.
83A
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
Ms LIVERMORE
—One must only look at the Prime Minister’s move towards nuclear energy and away from the coal industry to see the reasons why. The Howard government sees clean coal technology as a stopgap measure, something to tide the public over until the Prime Minister gets his 25 nuclear power stations built around Australia. Far from supporting the coal industry, the Howard government and its nuclear plans are the biggest threat to the coal industry. Despite that, the member for Dawson has kindly raised her hand saying that she wants a nuclear reactor in her electorate, much to the outrage of her constituents, many of whom are coalminers or work in associated industries.
I believe helping coal stay competitive is a far better alternative than throwing up your hand for a nuclear power station. The Howard government’s Switkowski report also found that nuclear power may only become economically viable in Australia if a carbon tax of up to $40 per tonne is levied on CO emissions. This would cripple at least one mining company in my electorate which employs over 350 people. The bottom line of the energy debate is that we start from a position of natural advantage. My state’s coal resources make us the envy of many nations. The policy distinctions between Labor and the government in relation to the coal industry remain stark, particularly on issues of leadership and what we see as a long-term future for the industry. I welcome the opportunity to take— (Time expired)
151
17:05:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
0
0
Mr GARRETT
—Between a rock and a hard place is an extremely apposite title for a report of this kind, given that it has a dissenting report which, frankly, strains credulity, even in a place where extreme views are sometimes heard—and, I should say, always tolerated. But in this day and age it is unacceptable that elected officials, let alone government members, try, through their dissenting remarks in a report of this kind, to rubbish climate change science. The dissenting report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation inquiry into geosequestration technology shows where the government really is on this issue. It shows the government’s true colours, because the Howard government remains divided on the issue of climate change.
We have four government members prepared to put their names to a dissenting report and take the opportunity to express their climate change scepticism. I will come to the recommendations of the report in a moment, but let us consider the sceptics’ basis for dissent. The members for Tangney, Lindsay, Hughes and Solomon state that those who believe humans are causing climate change are ‘fanatics’. Perhaps the most extraordinary claim by the dissenting MPs is that evidence of global warming on other planets, such as Mars and Jupiter, makes it unreasonable for humans to take pre-emptive action on earth. This claim alone, I think, qualifies itself as one of the most ludicrous assertions ever made on the issues of climate change science in this parliament. The real question is: what planet is the coalition on? While the MPs are happy to accept claims about global warming on far-flung planets—planets that Australians can never hope to visit, much less live on—they continue to deny the very real evidence we see of climate change in our own backyards, such as more intense drought and extreme weather events, and a plethora of reports and studies of observable data and peer-reviewed material which show, clearly, the connection between human activity, CO levels in the atmosphere and consequential global warming.
The truth is that 1,200 of the world’s leading climate scientists contributed to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007, and found that temperatures on earth rose in the 20th century and will rise at an even faster rate in the 21st century. Today’s events, and the actions taken by these members in releasing this dissenting report, put the government even further out of touch with the common-sense position that Australians now have on climate change, which is informed by climate scientists both internationally and in Australia, particularly those in the CSIRO who have already reported to government on this issue. It is simple and plain: climate change is happening and we need to act now. To suggest anything else is a perverse nonsense.
The question raised during the term of this Howard government is: how can a government full of climate change sceptics deliver climate change solutions? That is not to say that the four members who have authored this dissenting report are alone. Senator Minchin, the Minister for Finance and Administration, has expressed his scepticism; Senator Macfarlane, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, has expressed his scepticism; and the Prime Minister fudges in his remarks on the impacts and likely consequences of climate change. All the while, the world’s scientific community and world leaders are responding to the climate change scenarios that have been identified by the IPCC, and they are starting to put in place those policies which we need to get in place in order to address dangerous climate change.
The dissenting report heavily emphasises the need for scientific training, method and history; however, it does not cite a single up-to-date peer-reviewed reference in order to back itself up. What a shambolic and, frankly, intellectually dishonest exercise. Instead, the dissenting report makes extensive and selective references to other climate sceptics, old academic work and unpublished nonscientific tracts. Frankly, this parliament and the people of Australia deserve better.
Where are the published peer-reviewed journal articles that dispute the IPCC’s conclusions? Where are the cited references to the peer-reviewed material that is being produced—on an almost weekly basis—that continues to validate the conclusions that have been reached by the IPCC? They are nowhere. This week we had the chair of the IPCC visiting us here in Australia. He stated clearly that climate change is real, that it is an issue we have to address with some seriousness and that the international community needs to get on with it. Yet we have a dissenting report that is little more than a polemic against anthropogenic climate change science.
If Dr Jensen and his colleagues are convinced of their mission, and in particular if Dr Jensen is convinced of the views he expressed this morning on the AM radio program, he should—and I challenge him to do this—in a peer-reviewed journal, publish his theory of climate change and the evidence that leads him and his colleagues to conclude that anthropogenic climate change is disproved. Failure to take that step renders this dissenting report farcical.
Labor looks forward to reviewing the majority report in detail. I note the comments from the member for Kooyong, the member for Werriwa and others, but I need to make some observations on that report as well. Firstly, the report takes up a number of Labor’s policies aimed at developing carbon capture and storage. The report calls on the Howard government to contribute to work being done to find suitable geological carbon storage sites in New South Wales. I note that Labor has committed the necessary $20 million to support this project, but the Howard government has refused to commit any funds. The report also calls for funding to support one or more new large-scale demonstration projects to test and perfect the technology. Again, Labor has committed $40 million for such a project, with the potential for the funding of further projects, and again the Howard government has refused to commit any funds. The report calls on the government to develop a regulatory framework to govern long-term storage of carbon underground. Labor has committed to developing such a framework as part of its carbon mapping and infrastructure plan; yet, despite promising over a number of years to introduce the necessary legislation, the Howard government has failed to do so. Today’s report effectively endorses Labor’s $500 million National Clean Coal Initiative, which will promote clean coal technologies.
The committee recommends that legislation be developed to define ‘financial liability’ for the ongoing storage of carbon dioxide. Liability is an important issue when it comes to industrial by-products, but it is of some concern to note that the legislative model proposed by the committee ultimately places liability with the Commonwealth. The environmental and financial liabilities associated with looking after teratonnes of CO in perpetuity are enormous and at this stage unquantified. This issue will need much more research before legislation can be drafted.
The report also highlights the lack of the necessary skills in Australia to do the job, especially in the science and engineering sectors. As in other areas of important economic endeavour around the country, the lack of necessary skills in the workforce to take on those tasks and to meet those future challenges has been a key failing of the Howard government, especially in this instance when we need all the technological assistance we can get to tackle climate change. I do note in passing that Dr Jensen, one of the authors of the dissenting report, is one of the most aggressive and enthusiastic proponents of nuclear power and nuclear energy for Australia; yet the Switkowski report, which showed amongst other things that the production of nuclear energy would be an expensive proposition here in Australia, also highlighted the lack of available skills and technological capacities that this country has.
The challenge of climate change is real. In addition, the need for us to develop and expand clean coal technologies is very real—it is a great need—as is the need for us to develop and implement renewable energy. We need to have a suite of policies that not only deals with the way in which we will produce energy in the long term by reducing emissions but also shows that we understand the scale of the issues and the challenges we face and that we are resolved—and, indeed, have the capacity—to take them on, as a Rudd Labor government would do. But I have to say that a government full of climate change sceptics can never deliver climate change solutions, and the dissenting report by the members I have mentioned here is the strongest evidence of that we are ever likely to see or hear.
Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.
Economics, Finance and Public Administration Committee
154
Report
154
Debate resumed, on motion byMr Baird:
That the House take note of the report.
154
17:16:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
0
0
Ms GRIERSON
—The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration’s report Australian manufacturing: today and tomorrow is a very important report that looks at our manufacturing sector today and, as it says, at where we would like it to be post the current economic boom.
The report details the large reductions in protection, the challenges from China and the high exchange rate associated with the resources boom, which have all been experienced by the manufacturing industry. With regard to challenges from China, I would like to put on the record my appreciation for an excellent research report undertaken this year by a parliamentary intern in my office, Auneesh Kishore. Auneesh’s report entitled Australian manufacturing: challenges and opportunities from the rise of China also came to some of the conclusions that our committee report does, particularly the need for a culture of innovation in R&D and the need to address skills shortages.
The opportunity for Australia to compete with nations like China by investing in high-end, quality manufacturing is a real one, but we need specific investment, innovation and skills, just as there are opportunities for Australian manufacturers to be assisted by policy in setting up plants in China, aiding quality and supply control for manufactured goods already being imported into Australia.
The committee’s first recommendation seems quite basic: that the government develop a strategic Australian manufacturing policy, including regional strategies to supplement existing industry policy. Regional strategies would certainly assist in my electorate of Newcastle to give direction and certainty to regional businesses which have extended into knowledge based manufacturing following the closure of BHP in Newcastle.
I also note the report’s recommendation that the Australian Industry Productivity Centres initiative be finetuned, including ensuring that Australian regions are sufficiently resourced and that there is one centre in every large manufacturing region. Regrettably, the current government’s plan will establish five centres in five capital cities. I prefer the committee’s recommendation to spread these centres to regional Australia, and I would advocate one for Newcastle.
The committee makes several recommendations to improve what we were told is an underdeveloped venture capital market in Australia. With a strong venture capital market in place we could commercialise more of our innovative research breakthroughs—something that we historically have not been good at. On a recent study tour of the United States I saw firsthand how venture capital is helping to commercialise that country’s sustainable energy industries. So I strongly advocate the development of venture capital opportunities for investment in sustainable energy, particularly in my region of Newcastle.
I take this opportunity to congratulate a local consortium of Newcastle University, the Hunter Area Consultative Committee, Shelston IP and Forsyths for setting up the Hunter Founders Forum, with initial leadership from Neville Sawyer, to assist venture capital and service support for local businesses and initiatives.
Other recommendations in the report go to the importance of science education, with the finding that science education is experiencing a decline in terms of student take-up, quality of teaching and relevance of curricula. As well as the recommendations in the report, I would like to commend the Labor Party’s approach to HECS relief for maths and science students.
Skills exchanges and training partnerships between researchers, educational facilities and businesses were also highlighted as being of great importance. In my region, we collaborate extremely well in the manufacturing area. HunterNet, Australian Industry Group, University of Newcastle, CSIRO, HunterTech, Hunter Group Training, Hunter TAFE, local businesses and training providers have proven the worth of this, particularly with skills shortages and knowledge transfers. We have also made recommendations in our report on grant processes, the R&D tax concession and the establishment of a dedicated manufacturing advisory panel. Personally I would like to see the advisory panel also look at manufacturing capability in Australia to develop and maintain leading-edge technology.
The focus that this report brings to the future of our manufacturing sector is as important as it is timely. We are optimistic about the future of the industry. There are great challenges but there are also great opportunities. I commend to the House this report, which attempts to seriously show the way in seizing some of those opportunities.
I also take this opportunity to thank the committee secretariat once more for their hard work and dedication. I thank the chair and deputy chair for their leadership, and the other committee members for their contributions. We have now completed two inquiries looking into two very important sectors—manufacturing and services. I believe the results, if followed, will certainly lead to prosperity in this nation.
155
17:21:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
0
0
Dr EMERSON
—The genesis of this report, Australian manufacturing: today and tomorrow, was a discussion among committee members more than a year ago when I suggested that we should have a look at the future of Australian industry—manufacturing and service industries—beyond the resources boom. We did not believe that adopting a purely laissez-faire approach would be satisfactory because the adjustment that implied could be very painful. By that I mean that, if we stood back and allowed the mining boom to take its course, the very high value of the Australian dollar that would create, and indeed has created, would damage quite severely the competitiveness of manufacturing and service industries and, as the mining boom tapered off, the dollar would fall somewhat, thereby boosting the competitiveness of those same industries; meanwhile, a great deal of damage could be done to them.
As someone who comes from the market side of the debate in relation to economic and industry policy, I do not for a moment suggest that government should seek to insulate manufacturing and service industries from those market forces, but governments themselves can play a sensible role in ensuring that, for example, Australia does not lose valuable skills during this period of a high dollar associated with the mining boom such that we do not have a skills base that is suitable for manufacturing beyond the mining boom. It may be that market forces after several years would lead us to reacquiring that skills base, but why lose it in the first place?
The philosophical view that a number of us took was that we supported neither a totally laissez-faire approach to industry nor the old protectionist approach which was repudiated very effectively by the policies of the previous Labor Hawke and Keating governments, which did the necessary heavy lifting to reduce Australia’s trade barriers and open our manufacturing industry to international competition. We had faith in the capacity of our industries to adapt, and adapt they did. It is pleasing that even now, despite the very high dollar and other limitations that are faced by the manufacturing sector, in many respects it remains strong. That, I think, is a credit to the productivity-raising reform agenda initiated by the previous Labor government and continued in some places by the coalition. We formed the view, based on evidence and our own predispositions, that the age of protectionism is gone but that a new philosophical approach should apply to manufacturing beyond the mining boom. That is an approach of capacity building and removing unnecessary impediments to the growth of manufacturing.
We want to ensure that framework included correcting for genuine market failure. By ‘market failure’, I mean, for example, the creation of positive spillovers from particular activities, the most common examples of which are education and training and research and development. In both of those areas of endeavour, a private business cannot capture the full benefits of the activities that are associated with education and training and research and development, and therefore a legitimate role exists for governments to correct for that market failure and to support both education and training and research and development. That was the philosophical approach: building capacity and removing unnecessary impediments such as overbearing government regulations.
I turn now to a small number of recommendations that I consider especially important. The committee recommends at recommendation 2 that the government review the ongoing need for an industry action agenda approach. Whatever the merits of this approach, it appears that, at least in some industries, it might have run its course. That was the bipartisan view of the members of the committee.
We remain very concerned about overbearing regulation applied not only at the Commonwealth level but also at the state and local government levels. The committee recommended that there be greater harmonisation of state regulations without, for example, reducing or compromising in any way the safety standards of industry and the safety of workers employed in manufacturing. If we can get those compliance costs down, that will boost the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector and that will be very important as we move over time beyond the mining boom.
We recommended that the government increase the amount budgeted for the Export Market Development Grant scheme—and thank you to the coalition MPs for acknowledging and recognising that perhaps that is an area where the government could do better. We want to be able to allow the ‘carry forward’ of any unspent budgeted funding to be used in future years. We need to continue the reorientation of Australian manufacturing towards the export markets because that is where opportunities abound and where much of the job creation will occur in the future.
In the vexed area of support for research and development, as I had indicated, the committee believe that the government has a role in supporting research and development in manufacturing as well as in other sectors of the economy. We received a lot of evidence that, as an instrument in supporting research and development, the current R&D tax concession was not as effective as it could be. Our concern as a committee was that perhaps decisions are being made by industry as to the level of research and development that they want to do, and then the R&D tax concession is a little bonus or, if you like, an afterthought. What we need is R&D policies that actually drive research and development rather than the other way round, where R&D decisions are made independently of the tax concession and then this bonus turns up towards the end of the year.
We want to have a look at the eligibility rules, particularly the extent to which foreign owned companies that are conducting research and development in Australia are able to benefit from it. The reason that we consider that important is that there is very restricted eligibility for foreign owned companies where the intellectual property resides overseas. We want to have a look at the benefits of R&D activity coming to Australia and then creating further spin-offs for Australian industry, for Australian knowledge and for Australian researchers. All of that seems to offer great benefits. The R&D tax concession—except I think in relation to the premium R&D tax concession—is not available for companies where the intellectual property does not reside in Australia. That it is a controversial recommendation is acknowledged. But perhaps we need to think outside the square when we are dealing with the R&D tax concession, because we received a lot of evidence as to the ineffectiveness of that in bringing forward further research and development in Australia.
I would like to thank you, Deputy Speaker Secker; the chair of that committee, the member for Cook; my colleagues on the Labor side of that committee; and the other coalition members of the committee. As you well know, the entire inquiry was conducted in a spirit of bipartisanship and a shared concern for the future of manufacturing in Australia. We know that it faces very high challenges from skill shortages, from the high Australian dollar and from very tough export markets. Everyone on that committee concluded that manufacturing does have a bright future in Australia, but there is a role for government. We should support neither the return of protectionism nor a completely laissez-faire approach to industry policy in Australia. We can do better, and this report, if adopted, would allow an Australian government to do more to provide responsible support for the future manufacturing activities in this country. I, along with other members, commend the recommendations to the parliament.
Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.
Transport and Regional Services Committee
158
Report
158
Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Neville:
That the House take note of the report.
158
17:31:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
0
0
Mr RIPOLL
—It is an absolute pleasure to be speaking today on this wonderful report from the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services. The report is called The great freight task: is Australia’s transport network up to the challenge? You would have to conclude just from the title that the answer to that question is a resounding no. We are not up to the challenge as yet. But I am sure that if the government were to look closely at this report and take on the recommendations from our committee, then we would be well on our way to actually meeting this challenge in the future. It is an enormous challenge—all well documented in this very good quality report.
I would like to thank the members of the committee: the chair, Mr Paul Neville; the deputy chair, Mr Steve Gibbons; Sharon Bird; Barry Haase; Jill Hall; Dennis Jensen; Stewart McArthur; Kym Richardson; and Alby Schultz. I also thank the committee secretariat, who have done a wonderful job: Janet Holmes, Ian Dundas, Tas Luttrell, Samantha Mannette, Courtney Krouse, Jazmine De Roza and Marlene Dundas. I wanted to put their names on the record because they have worked very hard. It is a small but good thing to acknowledge the hard work they do. It is not just about the committee members; it is also about the committee secretariat, who do all the travelling and cobble together all the comments that we other people make in our deliberations and at our hearings.
This was an excellent report—in fact, it was an excellent inquiry—because it really does look at a contemporary challenge that we all face. There was a great spirit of bipartisanship in this report. This is a unanimous report of all the committee members, which is wonderful to see. It took on a very serious issue about the role of Australia’s regional arterial road and rail networks, the national freight transport task, the relationship between road and rail and their connectivity to ports and the policies required to make all that happen. I was very pleased to be part of what I think will be in future years a very significant document which outlines some very good recommendations.
This is a massive document for good reason; it is 350-odd pages long. There is a lot of work to be done and there was a lot of work done by the committee to ensure that we did cover off and check off on all of those things right across the country. I do not think we left a road unturned, a rail uninspected, a port unvisited or a recommendation brought by industry or by stakeholders unlooked at. So it is large for those reasons. The committee made 25 recommendations, all of which I think the government ought to closely examine and pay some attention to.
If I distil this report down to just a few a few themes, it might give people reading or listening to this statement some idea of what it is about. It is really about the federal government taking a real interest and playing a real role. I do not think there is any question about that. I do not say that in a political way; I am just saying that the federal government ought to take a real interest in all of the issues outlined here and, from that interest, play a role. This is also about the need for infrastructure being beyond that of a particular state, a particular council, a particular region or a particular port. The infrastructure need in this country is in the national interest and, therefore, should be approached from that perspective. This is not about pork-barrelling to give somebody an advantage in a particular seat. It is much bigger than that and ought to be treated that way.
This is also the story of the need for cooperation at the COAG level. I believe very strongly in this. What is recommended in here and what will make a difference in the infrastructure tasks in this country is cooperation at the COAG level. It is about including local governments and state governments. It is about federal government being involved at all three levels and including the private industry and other stakeholders. This must happen. It is also about the coordination of projects. Projects need to be coordinated in a holistic way, with the view that individual projects themselves impact on other projects, on other roads, on rail, on ports and on a whole range of interconnecting modal hubs.
Finally, it is about funding. I do not think there is any question that you cannot do all of the things I have just mentioned without committing dollars. There are dollars to be committed. In this report we stipulate a number of costs, but in the end those costs should be viewed as investments. They should be viewed as a benefit to the whole country and to whole regions, as jobs creators. This is not just about cost; it is about funding an investment. That is what all these recommendations are about.
I am quite pleased with the words that are contained in this report. It could have easily become a political document. It can be used in a political sense, but I do not think the document itself is political. The document is about infrastructure, roads and the freight task. It is about all those things that we all agree need to happen. The document can be used in any political way that people choose to make points about regions, about what is happening in particular areas and what has not been happening. For me this document is also about that.
I might go through a couple of the recommendations that I think are important. Recommendation 1 states:
The Committee recommends that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services require the Australian Transport Commission and the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics to undertake the establishment of a national transport database.
That is actually quite important. We cannot understand the full scope of a problem until we have had a good look at the problem, a bit of an audit. I say at this stage, in a political way, that Labor’s policy is to have a body called Infrastructure Australia, which would do what is recommended here in very much the same essence and spirit. I think that is part of the fix, part of the solution, and what we need in this country. I fully support that first recommendation and the following one, which backs it up.
There are some important notes about ports. The committee recommends that COAG undertake the establishment of an Australia-wide set of standards. Again, this is a good recommendation. I think most people reading this report would say that is just common sense. It is, and it ought to happen. There ought to be a great level of cooperation between governments to ensure that we can have a set of standards. My view has always been that, if you have six different standards, one of them will be better than the others and there will be one that will be at the bottom of that list that is not as good as the others. Therefore, we should draw a line up to the best standard and say: ‘This is where we can reach. This is where we should all aim.’ It is not about bringing anyone down to a standard; it is about bringing them up to a standard. I think that is very important.
There is a recommendation to set up a critical port infrastructure fund, which I agree with. I think we should go one step further and, through the Infrastructure Australia body, also set up an infrastructure fund to look at not only the critical task of what is in this report but at the much broader task of taking that funding, that directive, from being purely a discretionary fund, or a fund that comes about at election times, to being much more closely related to national interest and the needs there. There are a whole range of recommendations with that in mind.
In the area of rail, the report also looks at the particular techniques used in the Hunter Valley coal chain, which is an exemplary model. It recommends that we should look at those techniques much more closely and perhaps spin them off into other areas, which I think is a good recommendation. In the area of road infrastructure, the report recommends urgent consideration to assist state and local governments to fund upgrades of roads. I do not think anyone could argue with that seriously. We have come to the point in this country where we all need to look seriously at how we fund roads. When somebody drives on a road, they do not ask themselves, ‘Who funds this road?’; they just say, ‘This road needs fixing.’ Fixing the roads is what ought to happen, not disagreement about who is responsible for the funding. It should just happen.
There are a whole range of other recommendations that I think are good—about intermodal facilities; about 40-foot containers and what should be done there in terms of world trends and world’s-best standard; and about looking at the role of the three tiers of government, which I have already mentioned. I think that is critical to the quality of this report: it acknowledges that the three tiers of government must be involved. They need to have an equal partnership. I certainly understand the difference between the capacity of a local authority, the capacity of a state government and the capacity of the federal government to pay for something. But just imagine if all three got together in agreement, with cooperation, and actually looked at fixing some problems in the national interest. We would have a very different economy in this country, one that would leap ahead from where it is today. Finally, the report looks at some intelligent tracking technology and at cross-border issues. I have always had the view that responsibility does not end at an arbitrary line on a map, be it a state line or a local boundary line. We need cooperation; we need all three levels of government. I recommend this report. (Time expired)
160
17:41:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
1
0
Mr NEVILLE
—I seek leave to speak again without closing the debate.
Leave granted.
KV5
Neville, Paul, MP
Mr NEVILLE
—As the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services, I take great pleasure in this report, The great freight task: is Australia’s transport network up to the challenge? It has involved over two years work for the committee and, as the member for Oxley said, we put a big effort into it. We took 194 submissions, held 30 public hearings, did countless inspections and visited a lot of ports. We visited Mackay, Gladstone, Brisbane and Newcastle. We took evidence from Sydney and visited Wollongong and Port Kembla. We visited Melbourne twice. We visited Portland, Darwin and Geraldton. We did not actually visit Perth but we took evidence from Perth, Albany, Bunbury and Esperance. So it was very comprehensive. We also took evidence from ports in Tasmania and from Adelaide and so on.
So I think we can say with a fair degree of justification that this is a very thorough report. On page 342 there is a very interesting matrix that gives a profile of each of the ports—what their capacities are, what their failures are. It gives throughput, current and projected; depth, current and proposed; and the key infrastructure projects, road and rail, that need to be put in place to make each port work.
I suppose the main conclusion we came to was that all our ports have a need for funding. We felt that the magic figure—this figure just kept recurring—was about $70 million. Some would be a lot cheaper and others would be a lot dearer. For example, at the Port of Brisbane there is six kilometres of work to be done, and that will cost about $150 million. But, if you look across all the major ports of Australia—not the minor ones—you would have to say an average of about $70 million is required. Where that money comes from is an interesting question. We suggest that a new fund over and above AusLink be put in place. The idea of that would be to look at critical infrastructure projects. We feel that we should spend about $600 million a year on that for five years, and that would, if you like, be the catch-up.
As we went around Australia, we saw some things that are crying out to be done. For example, the connectivity of Mount Gambier and Penola to Portland seemed to us to be one of the seminal things that have been waiting to be done for some time. And the Maldon to Dombarton section of rail should be put in place behind Wollongong and Port Kembla, which would allow coal to be taken from the Hunter Valley to that port—and Port Kembla is an underutilised port. That would allow coal to be taken down in reasonably large quantities without going through the Sydney suburban traffic system. Also, the Port of Brisbane, which is expanding rapidly, has a road connection problem.
The one that stands out that we really have to look at is Melbourne. That might sound strange from me, coming from Queensland, but Melbourne is the hub, the biggest port and has the most containers. Melbourne radiates out to Adelaide and through Adelaide up to Darwin, over to Perth and up to Sydney and Brisbane. It is the pivotal port, and if you do not get that one right then you have to rethink the whole logistics of freight in this country. We felt that channel deepening there was absolutely essential. If Melbourne is going to take Panamax- and Cape-size vessels and even larger ones, then the channels have to be deepened. I know it is an environmental problem and I know it will cause some heartburn, but Melbourne has amazing facilities. Its wharfage is excellent and it can take cars, containers and bulk. It can do just about anything, but it has a lot of impediments—for example, it needs the channel deepening that I mentioned; Footscray Road needs grade separation for road and rail; there is the Westgate Bridge, but during peak hours an alternative river crossing is needed; the Monash Freeway that links the south-eastern metropolitan region to the port precincts is experiencing chronic congestion; high-productivity vehicles need to be able to use Dock Link Road to access the North Dynon Rail Terminal; and there needs to be a rail link to the Lascelles Terminal.
If you get Melbourne right, then you have the ability to do other things, like have the new inland north-south rail line from Melbourne to Brisbane, or from Melbourne to Toowoomba initially. The Queensland government has already approved the Gladstone to Toowoomba section of that line, and that will be largely self-sufficient as it will take between nine and 12 new coalmines on stream. There is a leap of faith involved in going from Melbourne to Brisbane or Melbourne to Toowoomba. The combination of those two lines would totally revolutionise inland traffic, taking it through the most productive parts of Australia. If it were done to a point where it could be double-stacked, then that would be amazing and it would put Australia on an international footing in rail. We can do it and we did it from Rockhampton to Brisbane. The Queensland government has done tilt rail. Trains can do 160 kilometres an hour, even on narrow-gauge line. So this can be done. Vince O’Rourke, the former head of QR—who, in my opinion, is the best railman in this country—says: ‘Why don’t we do one train line and do it well? Show ourselves and the world what we are capable of and, quite apart from that, create one major fantastic artery.’ As he said, we have been patching up for years, and it shows.
We had a look at the branch lines too. Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, as a Tasmanian, you would know what a tragedy it is, because you lost yours ahead of most other places. They are crumbling. We heard from a Mr Zsombor from Canada, who worked in Alberta and developed a model where branch lines could be sold to interest groups. It might be the shire council, a grain growers organisation, a local community group or even a group of farmers, and they would sell the line to them for its disposal value—its junking value, I suppose: what you would get for it if it were to close. They would sell it to them for that and give them some strategic seed funding. In Canada, they also have a pool of wagons—and we could look at how the Australian government could assist with that sort of thing. It is possible, by having local ownership, to retain those lines.
The other thing that stood out in this inquiry was that this nonsense at borders has to stop. Now that we are tackling the business of the Murray-Darling and trying to look beyond state borders as to how these systems work, we have to take that same approach to the border crossing of road and rail. This business of Queensland waiting for New South Wales and New South Wales waiting for Queensland and both of them waiting for the Commonwealth and then having little spats while the Tugan bypass languishes for four years has to stop. We say that that could be achieved by the judicious use of what we call interstate commissions. Each border would have a commission made up of engineers, local authorities and government representatives—not necessarily members of parliament but key people in the bureaucracy—and these cross-border events would be funded 50:25:25. I think it is something worth doing.
This was a great inquiry. I compliment my deputy, Steve Gibbons, and the other members of my committee, as well as the secretariat led by Janet Holmes and Tas Luttrell, and especially the researchers, who put in such a big effort. We predicted nine years ago that this was going to happen again, so we just hope that this time the government takes a more positive approach to this report.
162
17:51:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
0
Mr WINDSOR
—I congratulate the member for Hinkler and others on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services for their report entitled The great freight task: is Australia’s transport network up to the challenge? I have not had time to read the whole report, but, after looking at its recommendations and flicking through some of its other pages, I think it contains a lot of very good material.
It was obvious to me from the contribution by the member for Hinkler, the chair of the committee, and that of one of the opposition members, Sharon Bird, when she spoke in the main chamber earlier this afternoon, that there was a coming together of views on this issue. It is a unanimous report that engages the problem, as the member for Hinkler said, of trying to get across state boundaries by addressing some of the issues at the local, state and federal government levels. So I would concur with what the member for Hinkler has said. I just hope that this report, which many people have put a lot of effort into, does not end up gathering dust somewhere. As the opposition and the government are one on this issue, I would urge them both to keep on with it. Irrespective of who wins the next election, there are matters in this report that need to be addressed for the national good, and we should pursue them.
I am pleased to see that some of these issues have been addressed in an objective sense. That is very important because it gives the report much more credibility. In the Hunter area, there are various problems with the coal-loading facilities at the Newcastle port.
KV5
Neville, Paul, MP
Mr Neville
—The supply chain is a great idea.
009LP
Windsor, Antony, MP
Mr WINDSOR
—Yes. There are some very good recommendations in the report. Some of them cost a lot of money and some do not. The government and the parliament need to look at them. The Ardglen tunnel near Willow Tree, which becomes part of the New England electorate after the next election, is an issue: it is a bottleneck. However, it is probably not the worst of the bottlenecks on that line at the moment because it has loading facilities at one end. Some improvements need to be made in the Hunter because, as sure as night follows day, the development of the coal industry north of the Murrurundi Range and the Liverpool Range will require infrastructure into the future. I was talking to one of the coal industry people only the day before yesterday—they happen to be next door to us—on a range of issues and it came up again that the problem they have now is what they knew they were going to have four years ago. Obviously, they have to be in front of the game, and this report identifies some of the areas that need to be addressed.
For those who might not be familiar with that area, I mention the Ardglen Tunnel. In terms of inland rail—I refer now to the Ernst and Young report, although I am not sure what this document actually identifies—about 220 million tonnes of freight comes from various locations within the eastern part of Australia; of that, 110 million tonnes, or 50 per cent, comes from the Hunter north-west corridor, which is within 300 or 400 kilometres of Newcastle. Half of the total freight loading on our inland rail comes from that area.
With the development of the coal industry in the Gunnedah basin, coal production currently runs at about 15 million tonnes but will escalate very quickly to 25 to 40 million tonnes. Just to put that into perspective, about 4.5 million tonnes of coal is taken from Melbourne to Brisbane or Brisbane to Melbourne on the inland rail route, which is being discussed here with some gusto. Nine to 10 per cent of that total amount will come out of the Gunnedah-Boggabri basin area within the next decade, so obviously Newcastle becomes critical. Some people would suggest that much of it—even this report mentions it—could go out through Gladstone. Gladstone is going to have its own infrastructure problems. In addition, there is an assumption here that the coal industry will stay on a glide path for some time, although others might disagree with that assumption. However, the Ardglen Tunnel will become very important. Some $100 million to $300 million, which is a relatively low cost, could expedite the freight component out of the Boggabri-Gunnedah basin through to Newcastle, with the improved extra coal loader and a number of other things that have to occur there. I bring that to the notice of the parliament as being a very important piece of infrastructure into the future.
Inland rail options have been discussed in the Ernst and Young inquiry and the government has put out another $15 million to look at the western corridor et cetera. Obviously, being the member for New England, I can speak with some authority about the New England rail corridor. The corridor’s northern half is disused at the moment, but it is still there. Many people—particularly the Mayor of Glen Innes, Steve Toms, and the New England Local Government Group, headed up by Maria Woods—have raised that issue with me as the member. My view—and I am pleased to say the view of most New Englanders—is that the inland rail route should go where it does the most good for the nation. If that happens to be through the New England corridor, well and good. If it happens to be through Moree and somewhere else, well and good. However, I think the government needs to look at that issue and at the costs closely too.
I notice here that Everald Compton, whom I regard as a friend and a courageous Australian, has mentioned that something like $800 million is needed to get the rail upgraded from Melbourne to Toowoomba and another $2 billion is needed for Toowoomba to Brisbane. That indicates to me that there are some real problems there, and I know that there are some technical and topographical problems. One thing I would suggest to the committee and to the parliament—I notice that it is mentioned also in here—is that going from Warwick through Rathdowney across to the eastern coastline is a much cheaper option than going from Toowoomba to Brisbane. The New England Local Government Group, in conjunction with the Warwick group and particularly the Mayor of Glen Innes, Steve Toms, have identified that potential cost saving: that Rathdowney to Warwick alternative to the $2 billion option from Toowoomba to Brisbane. You could still establish a link for export bulk commodities from Warwick through to Toowoomba and then north to Gladstone.
All I suggest is that, if the government—including the potential new government—is serious about this, the infrastructure must be located where it will be the most cost-effective. We must look at all these options rather than at just the political ones that are out there now. A number of documents that identify various cost savings are floating around and need to be scrutinised very closely. I would encourage the member for Hinkler to pursue that issue.
In conclusion and on a fairly parochial basis—I am very up-front about the fact that I come from a railway town called Werris Creek; I do not want to be seen as attempting to pork-barrel my local community—I want to speak about a specific issue, particularly given the possible importance of Werris Creek to the inland rail network. If the Dubbo link through Werris Creek goes west out to Moree or north up through New England, Werris Creek will play a pivotal role in the majority of freight being transported south; that will probably be up to 40 million tonnes within the next 10 years. The member for Hinkler would be well aware of these issues.
The increase to 72 wagon trains—it is currently being trialled, and it is only a matter of time before we get to 72 or 80 wagons—heading for Newcastle will cause a major blockage at the southern railway crossing. It is occurring now with 40 wagon trains; it will get much worse with 72 wagon trains. In terms of infrastructure, the requirement to remove that obstacle should be part of the forward planning. You cannot have ambulances and those sorts of vehicles being held up for long periods because there are a lot of trains using that line. Almost all of them will be blocking that railway crossing unless some technological expertise can be used to solve the problem. I just mention that today. I think an overpass is required, but perhaps other options need to be looked at.
Debate (on motion by Mr Danby) adjourned.
164
18:02:00
Main Committee adjourned at 6.02 pm
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
165
Questions in Writing
Illegal Fishing
165
165
6035
165
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
0
Mr Bevis
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 14 June 2007:
In respect of the Minister’s announcement, made jointly on 8 May 2007 with the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, to allocate funds from the 2007-08 Budget to allow Customs to procure a dedicated vessel to be based at Ashmore Islands to ensure better protection against illegal foreign fishing:
-
what is the total number of berths on the vessel and how many people can it accommodate;
-
will the vessel carry weapons or any armaments; if so, how many and what type; and
-
how many hours of sea duty will the vessel undertake each year.
165
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
The Ashmore Islands Customs Vessel (AICV) will be a chartered vessel with full crew and logistic re-supply included in the charter arrangements. The AICV will operate as a command centre for Customs and Environment officers involved in maritime enforcement patrols, environmental management and marine science activities.
In response to question (b), the AICV will not be fitted with fixed armaments. The Customs enforcement officers will be equipped with standard Operational Safety Equipment, including a protective vest and side-arm.
In response to question (c), the AICV is required to be stationed at Ashmore Islands for approximately 330 days per year.
The Ashmore Islands Vessel procurement is still subject to a tendering process and a specific answer to the honourable member’s question (a) cannot be supplied at this time.