2007-09-19
41
1
10
REPS
0
0
2007-09-19
The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 9.00 am and read prayers.
AGED CARE AMENDMENT (SECURING THE FUTURE OF AGED CARE FOR AUSTRALIANS) BILL 2007
1
Bills
R2890
First Reading
1
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Pyne.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
1
1
09:01:00
Pyne, Chris, MP
9V5
Sturt
LP
Minister for Ageing
1
0
Mr PYNE
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Earlier this year the government announced a $1.6 billion package of reforms, known as Securing the Future of Aged Care for Australians, aimed at creating a fairer system to finance aged care, provide greater access to capital funding in high care, and continue to grow and develop care for people in their own homes.
I am very pleased today to introduce the Aged Care Amendment (Securing the Future of Aged Care for Australians) Bill 2007, which provides the legislative framework necessary to implement the financial aspects of these significant reforms.
Before I describe the major elements of the bill, I will provide some background about the reforms.
These reforms complete the government’s response to the 2004 report by Professor Warren Hogan on how to improve funding of our aged-care system. Professor Hogan’s report recognised that Australia’s population is changing and that as the number of elderly people increases, so does the need to support them. At the same time the proportion of people in the workforce is shrinking, reducing the potential for government to meet an ever-growing aged-care bill.
These population changes require a new and fairer system to finance aged care in Australia—to allow it to expand while also ensuring that older Australians can continue to experience quality, choice and affordability in aged care.
The bill before us amends the Aged Care Act 1997 to simplify the fees and charges paid by residents, as well as the supplements paid by government, by better targeting both the assets test that determines the level of accommodation fees required from residents and the aged-care income test.
For example, currently, self-funded retirees pay higher income-tested fees because nearly all of their income is counted under the income test. However, pension income is currently not counted under the income test. This disadvantages self-funded retirees compared to part-pensioners of similar means. The new income test treats all people in the same way and all income the same, irrespective of whether it is a pension or private income.
The new arrangements will also combine the current concessional resident supplement and pensioner supplement into a single, asset-tested accommodation supplement for supported residents. The maximum level of the new accommodation supplement will also be increased, through principles and determinations which will be made under the amended legislation. Self-funded retiree residents with few assets will become eligible for accommodation assistance from the Australian government for the first time.
Those who can afford it will be asked to contribute more towards their accommodation, while the level of government payments will increase for those who cannot meet the costs themselves. Importantly, the fee paid by existing residents will not be increased by this package. All residents in high care will be of equal value to the provider and, to ensure equity of access, the 40 per cent threshold for supported, assisted and concessional residents will be retained.
The proposed changes have been the subject of extensive consultation with the aged-care sector. The reforms will benefit older Australians, their families and carers, both those needing assistance at home and those requiring residential care.
The bill before us makes technical amendments to improve consistency and clarity within the legislation, to address unintended consequences of the operation of the legislation and to streamline the administration of the legislation. These changes complement the changes proposed as part of the Securing the Future of Aged Care for Australians package. It is opportune to make all of the changes at the same time in order to ensure the successful implementation of the reforms, to minimise confusion and uncertainty for approved providers and care recipients.
These reforms will, subject to the agreement of parliament, take effect from 20 March 2008. Prior to that time the government will be developing comprehensive principles and determinations which will be made under the act, and which will provide further detail about the reforms.
The Department of Health and Ageing will consult with the sector on the detail of those instruments. The department will also be issuing approved providers, aged-care recipients and their families with information about the changes and their impacts.
Overall, the combination of new government accommodation payments and new resident accommodation fees will see an additional $847 million over four years flowing to the sector, including $577.8 million in additional government payments. The majority of this funding is to support increased investment in aged-care homes to provide high-level care so that these places will be available when people need them.
These changes will provide additional funding for investment in aged-care accommodation, in particular high-level homes where additional funding will rise to over $300 million per year from 2011-12.
This government believes that the whole country will benefit from having an aged-care system that is secure into the future, that is well financed, and that is flexible enough to take account both of the increasing number of older people who will need care and of the shrinking workforce. This bill is an important step towards achieving this goal and I look forward to debate on the bill.
Debate (on motion by Dr Emerson) adjourned.
HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (MEDICARE DENTAL SERVICES) BILL 2007
2
Bills
R2845
Second Reading
2
Debate resumed from 18 September, on motion by Mr Abbott:
That this bill be now read a second time.
2
09:07:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
0
Mr ABBOTT
—in reply—In rising to sum up this debate, I thank all who have contributed and I will make a few observations on what has been said. Let me say at the outset how disappointed I am that members opposite have indicated that they are going to oppose the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007. Whatever flaws they may have identified in this bill, whatever problems there may have been with the scheme which this bill will radically transform, the fact is that under this bill $385 million will be spent on dental care for people with serious dental problems. Surely if this House is going to take dental care seriously the least it can do is support this bill. I think that members opposite have made a very serious mistake in declaring that they will oppose this bill and that they will fatally undermine their claims to be taking dental care seriously.
Let me address some of the issues which have been raised. Members opposite say that the scheme that this bill radically transforms was a failed scheme. Sure there were problems in the scheme. That is why this bill is necessary—to fix those problems—but the problems did not include the fact that you needed a referral from a doctor.
As it previously operated, the scheme did not cover treatment; it offered only consultations. It offered up to three dental consultations a year, to the cost of $220 or thereabouts. Sure that is a problem, because people who have bad teeth do not want a consultation to be told they have bad teeth; they want treatment, and that is precisely what this bill allows. Under this bill, people will have access to 450 separate dental items under Medicare. A whole range of treatments and a whole range of prevention measures will be facilitated by this bill. You can have fillings, you can have extractions, you can have root canal work, you can have dentures. The whole gamut of dental treatment will be available and that is why this bill is necessary. This bill will take a scheme that did have problems and make it work.
There is no real problem with the referral system. Under the enhanced primary care items, GPs put together 400,000 team care plans in the last financial year. So GPs do not have a problem with paperwork. Under these team care plans, one million allied health consultations were delivered. So allied health professionals do not have a problem with paperwork. There is no problem with the referral system, there is no problem with the paperwork system. The only problem with the scheme as it previously operated is that it did not cover treatment. That problem is being corrected by this bill and that is why it is so wrong for members opposite to oppose this bill.
Members opposite have their own scheme. Having told us for three years now that the government’s scheme was no good because it covered only consultations, they now have their own scheme—a smaller scheme which covers only consultations. As I said, if you have rotten teeth, there is no point going to the dentist for a consultation which tells you that you have rotten teeth. What you need is treatment and there is no treatment in Labor’s scheme. Labor’s scheme does not cost as much as the government’s scheme, it does not cover as much as the government’s scheme, and it does not last as long as the government’s scheme. Our scheme is ongoing. It is there forever. It is part of Medicare—not just this year, next year and the year after; it is there forever. Whereas Labor’s paltry, pathetic scheme is just for three years.
This government learns from its experience. This government is capable of learning from things which it could have done better. We put a very modest dental scheme in place back in 2004. It did not work very well. We have learned from that mistake, and this bill fixes it. Labor has not learned anything. Labor in 2007 wants to restore a scheme which Labor thought was best practice in 1994. Really and truly: like the Bourbons, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. They have not thought it through. It is typical of members opposite: they do not do the thinking, they do not do the hard work. The idea that something that was good enough in 1994 is still good enough in 2007 is just ridiculous. I commend this bill to the House.
Question put:
That this bill be now read a second time.
09:17:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker)
80
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.
Cadman, A.G.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Downer, A.J.G.
Draper, P.
Dutton, P.C.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A.
Gambaro, T.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Jensen, D.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, D.M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
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.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
56
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Beazley, K.C.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
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.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Consideration in Detail
4
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
4
09:23:00
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
0
0
Ms ROXON
—I would like to make clear to the parliament, and to the community, that the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007 is just another government pre-election stunt. This is a promise that can be compared to the election last time round. In the last election, it promised a program that was going to cost $15 million and has not even been able to spend $2 million. Now, in the budget just before the election, the government promises $384 million for a program that it knows it will not be able to spend—it could not even spend just over 10 per cent of the promise that it made last time.
DYH
Ferguson, Michael, MP
Mr Michael Ferguson interjecting—
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—The member for Bass should be careful because in Tasmania—the whole of Tasmania, not just his electorate of Bass—only 68 people got any benefit from the government scheme. If the member for Bass wants to go back to his electorate and explain why assisting 10 or 20 people in his electorate is better than assisting a million people under our program, that would be really interesting.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—You could do it in your seat as well, because in Queensland there were only 700-odd people. This is a program that has failed and perhaps each of you would like to explain to your electorate why a program over three years has assisted 7,000 people and that Labor is offering a program that is going to cover up to one million people. That would be difficult for you to explain. We will wait and see, but I think that the community has a clear choice here—Labor’s program or a program that covers a handful of people where the government overpromised last time, is overpromising again and is not going to be able to deliver. Most interestingly, in the government’s rebuttal of this item the Minister for Health and Ageing in summing up this bill said that there was no problem with the referral system, no problem with team care plans and no problem with doctors or dentists. That is just a sign that the government has stopped listening. There is a hideous number of problems with the referral process for doctors and dentists, and changing a system where there were three Medicare items into one where there are 450 Medicare items will be a red-tape nightmare. The government can stand up and pretend as much as it likes that this is going to improve things, but it is going to make it much more complex and any minister who pretends that going from three Medicare items to 450 items is going to simplify a process for the health professionals involved has certainly lost touch not just with his portfolio but with the entire community.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott interjecting—
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—The minister prides himself on wilfully misrepresenting people. I announced in my speech in the second reading debate that the full amount will be diverted to our dental programs. We made that perfectly clear yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition and I announced our first instalment of that program and we have made clear that that will fund up to a million consultations for those hundreds of thousands of people who are waiting for consultations and treatments.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott interjecting—
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—That again is a misrepresentation by the minister, who wants to just interject and chip in, as he always does. We have indicated that the funding will provide one million consultations. Those consultations can involve treatment. The money might be able to be used for other things. That is an indication of what it could cover. There are many people who will require more extensive treatment and will be able to get it, as they already do, through the public dental service. This will provide more resources for them to clear those waiting lists. It is simple to understand, Minister. You have an obsession with not working with the states, when they have the infrastructure there, where they are treating the patients in an ongoing way and where Labor’s commitment will enable them to be able to clear those lists and treat hundreds of thousands of people that are on waiting lists in each of our electorates around the country. The minister is being very foolish to mock this when he knows that it is such a political issue in so many seats. It is not a political issue just because we in the parliament care about it but because people want their teeth fixed, they need their teeth fixed and they deserve to have their teeth fixed—and this program is not going to deliver it. The program has helped only 7,000 people compared to one which can help up to one million people. It is a program which promised that it would spend $15 million but spent less than $2 million. Now we have another program where the government is going to spend $384 million when there is absolutely no hope and expectation that that is possible and when the eligibility criteria remain exactly the same as they have been for the last three years. That is why Labor opposes this bill. (Time expired)
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
6
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Minister for Health and Ageing)
09:28:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
INDIGENOUS EDUCATION (TARGETED ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT (CAPE YORK MEASURES) BILL 2007
6
Bills
R2861
Second Reading
6
Debate resumed from 16 August, on motion by Ms Julie Bishop:
That this bill be now read a second time.
6
09:29:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—Labor supports the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (Cape York Measures) Bill 2007 to amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000. It will provide an extra $2 million in 2008 for literacy initiatives in the Cape York region of Queensland. The $2 million is expected to fund the Making Up for Lost Time in Literacy accelerated literacy program, otherwise known as MULTILIT, which is operating in Cape York in Queensland.
It is also expected to fund the establishment of student education trusts to encourage families to save for education costs. These student education trusts are voluntary trusts, where families can make regular contributions to cover the costs of their child’s education—such as for uniforms, books or excursions. We support the bill for two reasons: firstly, because, even though it is very small it recognises a very important part of Labor’s policy commitment to close what can only be described as huge gaps in the literacy and numeracy outcomes of Indigenous children across Australia including in Cape York. Secondly, the two initiatives to be funded through this bill are other examples of the need to fund evidence based programs. Unfortunately, that is not always the case in the programs that this government funds, but these are good examples of evidence based programs getting the additional funding that they need. At this point, 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 provides bipartisan support for:
eliminating the 17 year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a generation so that every Indigenous child has the same educational and life opportunities as other Australian children;
Labor’s positive policy approach towards narrowing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous educational outcomes by:
-
providing universal preschool access for all Australian four-year olds, including Indigenous four year olds;
-
committing additional funding towards intensive literacy and numeracy programs across Australia;
-
developing new programs to tackle the gap in numeracy outcomes between Indigenous and other Australian children;
-
implementing the Australian Early development index for all Australian children starting school; and
-
introducing Individual learning Plans for all Indigenous children in Australia”.
I want to go back to May this year—the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum—when Kevin Rudd, the Leader of the Opposition, announced that Labor would commit to a key target in the area of education: to at least halve the difference in the rate of Indigenous students at years 3, 5 and 7 who failed to meet reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks. We intend to do this over the next 10 years.
The Leader of the Opposition also said that Labor’s policies will be driven by measurable goals and evidence based programs developed in partnership with Indigenous people. To support our Indigenous education commitments, we announced nearly $22 million over four years to expand intensive literacy and numeracy programs for Indigenous children in our schools. In particular, we said we want to see intensive literacy programs, such as the one we are debating today, MULTILIT accelerated literacy and the Yachad Accelerated Learning Project, all of which provide a heavily-structured approach to teaching literacy. Labor has gone further than indicating that we will support these intensive literacy programs. As part of our $22 million commitment, Labor will develop a new intensive numeracy program, and implement it, in the first instance, at a pilot stage. Unfortunately, the federal government has yet to sign up to this policy.
It is remarkable that there are no major equivalent programs in numeracy to those which we are debating today in literacy. There are many children struggling in literacy and this requires the intensive approach that is now in operation for literacy. The gap in education outcomes of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children is widest in numeracy, and getting wider over time. In year 3, 80.4 per cent of Indigenous children meet the numeracy benchmarks. By year 7 this falls to 48.8 per cent, according to the National report on schooling in Australia 2005. So, fewer than half of Indigenous children in year 7 were numerate at a basic level.
I find it particularly shocking that these figures demonstrate that the longer the children are at school the further they fall behind. Unfortunately the figures show that our schools are not delivering for these Indigenous children. No government serious about improving the lives of Indigenous children should be sitting on their hands when confronted with such a shocking figure, but unfortunately that is what we have seen, particularly in the numeracy area, over the last period of time. I call on the government to provide funding for literacy and to deliver concrete programs to improve numeracy skills so that these shocking figures for Indigenous children can be turned around.
There are four other major policy commitments that Labor have made to support intensive literacy and numeracy programs for Indigenous children. Unfortunately, the government has also failed to support any of the policies that Labor have put forward. Most importantly, Labor have pledged $450 million towards universal access to preschool for every single four-year-old in Australia, including every single Indigenous four-year-old. We are guided in this by two principles: firstly, that it is never too early to invest in a child’s learning but it can certainly sometimes be too late; and secondly, children must be allowed to be children and learn through play and fun activities.
On this side of the House we know that early learning is absolutely critical. We know this as parents but we also know it from the research by people like Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman, who has shown that the return on human capital is very high in the early years of life and diminishes rapidly thereafter. That is why, for the life of me, I cannot understand why this government continues to refuse to do anything about the 100,000 children in Australia, including many Indigenous four-year-olds, who do not get access to preschool education.
There is also research from the leading developmental researcher Jack Shonkoff, who argues that from birth to age five ‘children rapidly develop foundational capabilities on which subsequent development builds’. Yet, the Productivity Commission estimates that around half of all Indigenous children do not have access to preschool, and this government is doing absolutely nothing about it.
We also saw in the figures the OECD released overnight that Australia’s effort continues to receive the wooden spoon award. We are the worst in the developed world when it comes to delivering preschool education for four-year-old children. What a shocking indictment on this government, which has been here for 11 years. We are the worst in the world, even though there is so much evidence from other parts of the world that intensive early intervention programs in disadvantaged communities—for example, the very well-known Perry Preschool Project in the United States—can produce large social and economic benefits for individual children and for their communities. The research clearly shows that before children start school they need to be ready, willing and able to learn. That way, they will do so much better when they get to school.
Labor’s plan will make sure that every single Australian four-year-old child, including all of our four-year-old Indigenous children, has the right to 15 hours a week of early childhood education delivered by a properly qualified teacher for at least 40 weeks of the year. I find it extraordinary that the Howard government has ruled out matching Labor’s promise to provide this early learning and preschool education for all four-year-old children. On 25 July this year, the Minister for Family and Community Services was reported as saying that it was up to the states to provide preschool education. That is leadership for you. While the minister is out there playing the blame game and blaming somebody else, our children are missing out.
Most Indigenous children, unfortunately, are already behind when they get to school. The shocking figures that I have already quoted show that they fall further behind the longer they are at school. Labor has also announced that, if we are elected, we will roll out the Australian Early Development Index nationally, at a cost of $16.9 million over four years. This is a rigorous checklist across five developmental areas to determine a child’s needs when they start school so that both parents and teachers can home in on the areas that need to be addressed for each individual child. Once again, the minister is funding a small part of the Early Development Index but has failed to commit to a complete rollout nationally.
Labor has also announced that, as part of the rollout of the Early Development Index, we will fund the development of a specific index for Indigenous children to take into account the differing cultural and language features of the early child-rearing environments of Indigenous families. At the moment, MULTILIT, the literacy program that we are supporting here today, operates from year 2 onwards. In our view, it is very important that we have ways of assessing children’s needs prior to that.
Labor has also announced that, after the development checklist has been completed for each Indigenous child starting school, each child will have their very own individual learning plan. This will be updated twice a year for every year of schooling up to year 10. We have to turn around the yawning gaps in achievement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children. Labor will do that by funding intensive literacy and numeracy programs, by making sure that we have the developmental guidelines in place from the day that they start school and by also making sure that every single Indigenous child in Australia has an individual learning plan so that up until year 10 we are constantly assessing the child’s achievement and progress so that, if they start to fall behind, action can be taken by both teachers and parents to keep them up to the mark.
Every Indigenous child would have these learning plans, which would be developed by teachers in consultation with parents to make sure that they work for each individual. They will take into account the teacher’s professional judgements, the results of assessments—including the national literacy and numeracy tests—and the development index that I mentioned before. The plans would identify both the strengths and weaknesses of every child so that we can turn around their disadvantage. The plans will also target the basics and the need for intensive reading, writing, and numeracy programs so that children can advance through school more successfully.
Labor has also pledged $34.5 million over four years to provide professional development support to teachers to enable them to complete these learning plans. Parents will be able to access the plans so that they can be part of their children’s learning at school. Once the children’s learning needs have been identified, the funding and intervention programs that are needed can be targeted and implemented more effectively. This will benefit children. We have seen these initiatives working for Indigenous children in Cape York. The Queensland government is already implementing individual learning plans and working with the Cape York institute to provide intensive support and mentoring programs in Cape York and the Torres Strait. With respect and commitment from both teachers and parents, I am sure that we will succeed in delivering this program nationally to give Indigenous children the opportunities that they have not had before.
In June this year, the Leader of the Opposition endorsed and agreed to fund the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership’s welfare reform plan for four Cape York communities—Mossman Gorge, Aurukun, Coen and Hope Vale. This plan is expected to implement a range of initiatives to make family and welfare payments and housing conditional on school attendance and the proper care of children. As proposed by the Cape York institute, this would be done through four family responsibilities commissions, one in each of those communities. This local statutory body would ensure that welfare benefits go towards the benefit of children. We endorse the key elements of this plan. There must be an expectation in those communities that, first and foremost, children are safe; children are attending school; schools are provided for children to attend; adults do not behave in a way that puts their children at risk, either through alcohol or substance abuse, family violence or gambling; training is available; people do their best to seek work; and, tenants in public housing should comply with their tenancy obligations.
We all know that low school attendance, lack of safe housing, as well as horrific child abuse and neglect are all deeply connected to levels of welfare dependency. So we are particularly committed to intensive support for education in these Indigenous communities and to very tough measures to help break the cycle of welfare dependency, to get people into work and to turn the chances for these children around.
Returning to MULTILIT, I want to commend the program and look at the results it has achieved. It was originally established in 1996 at the Macquarie University Special Education Centre and has been on extensive research and trialling to teach low-progress readers effectively. Since then, it has grown significantly with outreach services provided through the Exodus Foundation and at tutorial centres in Gladstone, in Central Queensland, and in Coen on Cape York.
According to the year 2000 evaluation of MULTILIT, low-progress readers in years 3 to 6 attending a single primary school made mean gains of about 20 months in both reading accuracy and reading comprehension over two terms when experiencing an attenuated MULTILIT program for under two hours per day. It is very good to see that such progress can be made in primary school because, as I said before, we know from the latest National report on schooling in Australia that the number of Indigenous children who meet the reading benchmarks falls from 78 per cent in year 3 to just under 64 per cent in year 7.
I have also seen other successful remedial programs, particularly the accelerated literacy project and the Yachad Accelerated Learning Project. These programs are operating in many schools in remote and regional communities around Australia. The accelerated literacy project, otherwise known as the Scaffolding Literacy program, assists low-achieving students to catch up to the average level of the rest of their class by using age-appropriate books to develop their reading, writing, comprehension and spelling skills to a high level very quickly.
Analysis by Charles Darwin University shows that students undertaking accelerated literacy improve their reading ability at an average rate of 1.73 year levels per year—around 21 months progress in reading a year. Similarly, the Yachad Accelerated Learning Project aims to deliver improved literacy and numeracy outcomes for students in remote and rural locations in Australia through accelerated learning principles and techniques developed by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.
I also understand that the student education trusts that are in the bill before us today have been tested in Indigenous communities with success. According to the Department of Education, Science and Training, a recent trial in the community of Coen had an 80 per cent take-up. I have also seen firsthand just how successful the Family Income Management program has been on Cape York in helping families to save money for their children’s education and for household goods, food, bills and other basics. I certainly hope that the student education trusts can further build on the initiatives that are working well on Cape York.
It is critical that, across the parliament, we support initiatives based on evidence and demonstrated success. That is certainly the case with MULTILIT and the Family Income Management program. However, it is not always the case with other programs in this area. Unfortunately, the government has a habit of starting programs, giving them grants for a short period and then seeing them fold. What is really needed is constant long-term progress and support where there is evidence that a program is working.
There is no question that the terrible levels of Indigenous disadvantage are not going to be tackled with flash-in-the-pan initiatives or half-baked ideas. What would be helpful, in addition to the money that the government is putting on the table for MULTILIT today, is a baseline survey conducted at the start so that we would know where Cape York children were up to with their literacy. We should make sure that, as the program rolls out, we assess its impact so that, in future, we can judge whether or not it has been successful. We need to know what we are dealing with before we put in place or extend programs. We know that, in the case of MULTILIT, it has worked very effectively elsewhere; however, as a discipline, we should always do the baseline work on a program first and assess its effectiveness as we go along.
We know that education is critical to children’s life chances. We must take a hard-headed, evidence based approach so that we can assess the measurable goals and targets, if we are to have any hope of success. I support the bill that is before us today.
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded?
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
11
09:51:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
1
0
Mr TUCKEY
—Whilst much can be made of issues surrounding the education of Indigenous persons, the purpose of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (Cape York Measures) Bill 2007 is to amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to appropriate additional funding to facilitate the improvement of educational opportunities for Indigenous students in the communities of Coen, Hope Vale, Aurukun and Mossman Gorge in the Cape York region of Queensland. That must be endorsed. It is the Howard government finding additional money to hopefully improve the educational opportunities of a disadvantaged people.
Nevertheless, in answer to the question put by the member for Jagajaga—‘How are a very large number of Aboriginal children managing at the moment?’—they are not. The principal reason they are not is that they are not going to school at all. It took the efforts of a government school principal in the north of Western Australia, in recognition of this problem, to approach Centrelink, and to say, ‘There is only one solution to parents accepting their responsibilities to send their children to school, to give them that first start and get them through the door: you will have to threaten their welfare payments.’ And Centrelink agreed with that. It became an unofficial program. The statistics are there to be seen. The attendance of Aboriginal children in school went up exponentially in that community. Then the Western Australian state education department and the Labor minister found out about it and threatened the teacher with the sack for taking this very practical measure of getting kids to school.
We are told about Labor’s programs in this pious amendment—and we seem to get one attached to every bill—which says nothing because it intends nothing. That is Labor’s positive policy approach towards narrowing the gap. Labor is running the state education system in every state and territory of Australia. It is not positive, yet the message we get from this new positive initiative is that Australian taxpayers have to pay twice.
It is not the blame game; it is a defence of the rights of taxpayers to pay once. I personally have no objection to a takeover of the education system by the Australian government, if that means the taxpayer only pays once, but that is not what we are talking about in this place. We are talking about doubling up. It is about asking all the residents of Australia to pay for something that many of them are already paying twice for through their choice of private schools. The biggest indictment of state education providers is the considerable financial pain that a number of people put themselves through so that they do not have to send their children to a school run by state education unions. And, if anyone thinks that is exclusive to white people then they should check again, because it is a similar choice made by the Aboriginal elite—those who are active in the Aboriginal industry and who, in many cases, are getting a better salary than that available to members of this House. Why are they the Aboriginal elite? Typically, because they are also the stolen generation. Whether we approve or disapprove of that practice, the reality is that they were educated by highly dedicated nuns and other religious orders who believed they were doing the best for those people. Amongst them are those who will stand up and honestly say that their removal from a dysfunctional family was the reason that they could stand in the community, articulate and capable of taking employment in many areas.
We are talking here about this being a better program: more money is being provided, and you can double, treble or quadruple that money but if you do not get the kids through the front door it is no good having some survey system that tells you how they are doing at school; they are not at school. Some credit must be given to the government for trying to provide some formality to that approach, which put pressure on the parents of students to see that they attended school.
Nevertheless, another area of significant funding which this government has provided—and I thank the member for Canning for his interest in this matter in the early stages—is to the Clontarf scheme, run by Gerard Neesham, the one-time leading AFL coach. It is to be looked at as a magnificent alternative. It has what are called, I think, Clontarf institutes of sport, and they have now spread. What did Gerard Neesham do? He went down there virtually as a volunteer and said to the numerous Aboriginal kids of that district, ‘I will teach you how to play football. We will have a top-class youth football team, but there’s one rule: you will be registered as present in your classroom at nine o’clock in the morning and you will still be there at three o’clock in the afternoon or there will be no football.’
That had a twofold outcome. The first outcome was that we recognised the high level of natural skills existing in Indigenous people, particularly as to the rugby codes. They are good at it, and they are entitled to earn the good money which is available in professional sport today. But the other thing is the incentive. The initial incentive—the professional opportunities—probably featured very little in the minds of those children. They just wanted to play football. Consequently, Neesham gave us politicians a lead as to how these sorts of things can be achieved without compulsion.
This is a very difficult area. The intrusion of well-meaning people over more recent years, and more particularly this parliament since it obtained the right to be involved in 1967, has done little good. My wife and I became small businesspeople in the north-west town of Carnarvon in 1958, nine years before the referendum that brought the Australian parliament into the business of Aboriginal affairs. You might be interested to know that there were no unemployed Aboriginals in that town, notwithstanding that collectively they represented 30 per cent of the total population of that town. One reason was that they had all gone to school. Their parents had work and they were accepted in the community as being no different from anyone else. In addition, the hinterland was where very large numbers of these people lived and, whilst their employment could not be defined as permanent, they lived on pastoral properties and were paid for the work that was available and of course they were provided with food, medical assistance and other things of that nature.
The trade union movement thought that was a downright terrible situation and went out and said that if anybody were resident on a property and worked occasionally they were full-time employees. So they were all kicked off the properties. That was the commencement of the degeneration of these people, because out on the pastoral properties there was no grog—nor did they need it—and yet they had entitlements. When they had accumulated their wages—and there was nothing to spend them on out there—they came to town and had a party. I well remember—I was one of the hotel proprietors.
The reality was that their children typically stayed back on the property and were looked after by neighbours or relations or elderly people. The point I want to make further is that in that circumstance there was a mission—and that is almost a dirty word after silly people ran the campaign of the stolen generation. In reality it was a hostel and the kids from those pastoral areas came in and lived in ideal conditions and were bussed into the school every day. Nobody even thought that was unusual—they were the ‘mission kids’. During the school holidays they went back to the pastoral properties and joined their families. And it all worked. It had no help whatsoever from the Australian government. It was the expectation of those Aboriginal people that they had to have a job. They worked in my hotel, they worked for the main roads department and the council electricity undertaking. Some owned their own trucks and were in business on their own behalf.
So where are we now exactly 40 years after 1967 and what has been the achievement of the Australian parliament regarding these people? We handed responsibility over to a lot of people who knew nothing and we created an Aboriginal elite. I return to Carnarvon infrequently these days but all of the people that I knew as productive workers in the town, and their kids who went to school, now work in the Aboriginal industry. They produce nothing and they are self-sufficient. This parliament funded a $4 million or $5 million interpretive centre for them. The building has been constructed and on my latest advice—though it is from a little while ago—it has never been opened because the locals cannot agree on which family is going to get the administrative responsibility and the wages that go with it.
This is what we are talking about—an absolute failure of this parliament—and I will spread the blame across political parties in managing a problem that arguably did not exist, certainly not in the areas where I lived for 25 years. The other day we met with a group—and there were quite a few members of parliament there including some ladies from the opposition—and I said I was probably the only person in the room who had voted in the 1967 referendum. Not one of the ladies wanted to correct me, and I thought that was interesting—
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr Danby
—Which way did you vote?
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—for two good reasons: one, they did not vote and, two, they were not going to declare their age, and I do not blame them on that matter. But the fact is that I voted yes. I voted to give this parliament a responsibility. With hindsight I regret that decision because I think this parliament has made a mess of it in every possible regard and we are now being confronted with it.
The member for Jagajaga of course used the opportunity—considering this is a bill of fairly narrow moment, but important moment—to extend her views and make comments about the general education system. I would not like to make any predictions as to where it might go but in terms of the involvement of the Australian taxpayer—
Honourable members interjecting—
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—If my ‘shadow’ ministers want to chat while I am talking would they please go outside the room. Did you hear me, Bruce? If you want to talk, come up here, mate!
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member will ignore the interjections.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—This is the second time in two days. There is no courtesy coming from the desk. Put in that context, when one talks about education there is an ongoing misrepresentation about who pays the bill for education. If anybody studies any of the state governments’ budgets—be they Liberal or Labor, and they are all Labor at the moment—one will find by proper analysis that 50 per cent, give or take one or two per cent, of all expenditures of state governments are provided by the Australian taxpayer through the generosity of this parliament—half. We have a constant and ongoing argument that the Australian government—and not necessarily only this particular government—does not put in a fair share to state government schools. The evidence is that this parliament provides half.
I am fed up with advertisements showing little kids in a white car that is driving away from a school because it is a state school—outrageous stuff. I think that type of advertising is at the bottom of the pit. It is wrong, because this parliament has no money; we just administer the Australian people’s money. The inference is that they have to put their hands deeper into their pockets to prop up a failed system which, by their own evidence, many on low incomes choose to take their children away from—that is, state government education. We still call them state schools, yet we are told in this place that to refer to them as such is the blame game.
I am most in favour of doing the right thing by state schools and by the parents who choose to send their children to a state school. There is a simple solution that should be endorsed by all members of this House. It is a well-argued case involving vouchers. Fund the parents, not the school. There is the basis that in round figures it seems to cost something a little less than $10,000 per annum to educate a student in a state school; there is your base figure. Wouldn’t it be better to sort out this argument, get rid of those outrageous advertisements, withdraw all funding of state and private schools by direct grant—and that means 50 per cent of the operating costs of state education departments—send that money out by way of a voucher to parents who have children of school age and let them then take it to the school of their choice?
The member for Jagajaga tells us we have to have more oversight and more indexes so that the teacher and the student’s parents know better how the student is going, but one would think the teacher would have a good idea from day one. Why did teachers oppose public examinations? They knew that those examinations were a test of their teaching abilities. If at any socioeconomic level you have a class full of kids who all fail, there is some question about your teaching abilities. But who is going to be able to tell?
Of course, if every parent got a voucher, they would make up their minds. Be they Indigenous or otherwise, they would have a pretty good idea of where the best benefits came from and each and every parent would get equal resources. Of course, if they took their voucher to a state education institution, it would be up to the state government to fund the other half of the operation from its other revenues; and, of course, if they took it to a private school, it would be up to the parent to pay for the rest. But when one looks at some of the fees that are paid in Catholic and other religious schools, the $5,000 would get them nearly all the way. What is more, it would open up opportunities for targeting: you could increase that $5,000 to $6,000 in some socioeconomic or geographic circumstances and in others you could reduce it and make it $4,000. (Time expired)
15
10:11:00
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
0
Mr MELHAM
—The previous speaker talked about the 1967 referendum. I think it is worth while pointing out that in that referendum there was bipartisan support for a yes vote. He voted yes but says he now regrets the way he voted in that referendum. The honourable member does not need to regret the way he voted. It is not the passing of the referendum that has been the problem; it is the way that both sides of politics have engaged in Aboriginal affairs since that time that has been the problem.
I am a great believer in the ideals of that referendum, which were to give the national parliament a say in and a responsibility for Indigenous affairs. I do not think we should make any apology for that. The problem is that the areas of Aboriginal affairs and immigration have not been bipartisan for a lot of the time since then. That has resulted in some real problems for long-term programs and long-term directions in both immigration and Indigenous affairs. It becomes a problem when there is a change of direction upon the election of a new government and the new government dismantles the former government’s programs.
In relation to the last 11 years, there is no doubt that there has been a different direction. Frankly, it is a direction that I think predates the 1967 referendum and encompasses the philosophies that existed prior to the 1967 referendum. I think that is a bad thing. In effect, governments have fought Indigenous people every inch of the way in relation to a number of successes that they have had in a number of court cases in the High Court where the High Court recognised what I think were some fundamental principles. Indigenous people found themselves fighting against a government that wanted to wind back those rights instead of embracing them when, in effect, those rights did not threaten other individuals in our society. But the court cases were misrepresented and that created a lot of problems in communities.
The member for O’Connor attacks people who ran the campaign regarding the stolen generation. The truth is that the policies of governments of both political persuasions of the past, even though they were well-intentioned, caused great damage within communities. Children who were not being improperly handled by their parents were taken away merely because of their colour—because they were half-castes or whatever—or so that they could have their Aboriginality bred out of them. Imagine the ramifications of the government just plucking a child from the midst of a family in any other community in Australia—the Lebanese community or the Jewish community, for example. We need to acknowledge and accept that.
That goes a long way in terms of the intervention in Cape York and other parts of Australia with regard to Aboriginal people. The key theme has to be that you have to do it with the community. We have to bring on Aboriginal people in terms of education and literacy, making them role models within their communities. The way forward is teaching Aboriginal communities in remote areas the skills that can help them maintain their community, rather than relying on whitefellas coming into the community. The $400 million-plus being spent on the Northern Territory is quite remarkable and another $100 million was announced yesterday, yet the costs to administer the programs are $200 million. Why? Because, in the lead-up to an election, the government sailed in without much thought and without consulting with the Northern Territory and basically tried to wedge the opposition. I wish the government well in terms of their goals. I just think they are making it so much harder for themselves, and they will be judged in due course.
I have risen today to make some remarks about measures in the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (Cape York Measures) Bill 2007, which we are debating. A number of such measures have been introduced by the government over the past few years. Each has patched up a glaring problem in relation to Indigenous education issues, but for too long Indigenous people in this country have lived in what can only be described as Third World conditions. Despite the government’s dramatic intervention in the Northern Territory, Third World conditions exist in many Indigenous communities. Labor did support the intervention and many of the other piecemeal efforts to address the glaring poverty trap that many of our Aboriginal Australians find themselves in. We are only scratching the surface in relation to the multitude of appalling conditions that the Indigenous population lives in. Mortality rates, for example, indicate that 24 per cent of Aboriginal men live to the age of 65 and 35 per cent of Aboriginal women live until the age of 65. Can you imagine what would happen if those statistics related to any other section of our community? There would be outrage; we would not accept it. But this situation has prevailed for some time, and we have not got to the root cause of the problem.
Before I move to the substance of the bill, I would like to make some comments to put the bill into the context of a broader framework. Whilst the bill deals with a national issue, which as a parliament we have a responsibility to address, the need for such a bill emanates from over 200 years of ignoring the living and working conditions of Indigenous Australians. I want to use this speech as an opportunity to put on the record some letters I received recently from students in my electorate which caused me to reflect on our obligations as a parliament in an international context. We have a national context and an international context in which I think we are also obliged to act. Social, economic and education inequities exist in other countries of the world too.
Two weeks ago I received 10 letters from students of De la Salle College at Revesby Heights—may I say that my old alma mater is a wonderful teaching institution—and the note from the teacher which accompanied the letters explained that the year 8 students had been studying a topic called ‘global change’ and, as a result of research and discussion about the changing nature of the world, the students had become passionate about global inequity issues. With the support of their teacher, the students decided to promote further discussion of the matter with their local member of parliament. Further, the students requested that I raise the matter with my colleagues to promote awareness of the issue. Even though we are dealing with a national issue, I think it is appropriate that we can look at it in an international context. That gives us some consistency in viewing it through this prism.
The specific matter the students are concerned about is the use of sweatshops overseas and also the global businesses which utilise such sweatshops to produce manufactured goods in particular. I would like to read into the record some of the comments the students made. I believe it is important that as parliamentarians we listen to the views of members of the youngest generation and hear what they have to tell us. One student, Alan, succinctly put the thoughts of all the students when he said:
The multinational corporations hire the poor people to work for them and make their products when the workers conditions are nowhere near up to the standards of other countries like the UK, Australia or the US.
Daniel said:
... the people in these sweatshops are treated very unfairly because of the long hours they work and the very small amounts that they are being paid ...
Adam enclosed some photos of people, including a young boy, working in sweatshop conditions. He went on to say:
But the worst thing is ... it’s mostly children of my age and under, working for a bit of money to buy food for his or her family.
Cameron made a plea for justice when he said:
They don’t know the experience of working in different countries, like Australia, so they expect what they get paid are normal and satisfactory. That is just plainly cruel to the workers.
As the workers work long hours, “the Company” makes the profit. Companies think they can “use” their employees and don’t care what they do, only if they notice that they have empty wallets.
To let you know, the workers’ wallets are empty, too. They might not even be able to feed their families for a week, even with their jobs.
Jordan spoke of the comparison with First World countries and said:
While we sit back and live our consumer lifestyles, they toil for trans-national corporations. Should we just sit on the sidelines ill-informed about these injustices? No, we should rein in these companies, they should be held accountable for the injustices they have enforced, we should fight for these poor people.
Matt wrote about the video he and his classmates had seen on conditions in these sweatshops. He said:
... there are people in other countries making nearly all our clothes and accessories for less than $2 an hour and working for around 18 hours a day.
Jimmy talked about the cheap labour in some Asian countries and the poor rates of pay, and concluded:
... so please Mr Melham, stop this immediately to make tomorrow a better day for these workers.
Beni wrote about the high mark-ups the manufacturers receive in using this type of labour and said:
... these workers have a type of merchandise and when these merchandises are sold they are sold up to very high prices and these workers only get 3 to 4 dollars an hour and this does not work out.
Raminda asked me whether people are classified as slaves. He said:
Well that is what people in the foreign countries are being treated like! They have no choice and no LIFE!!! They have to work, to feed their families BUT the main issue is that they are only at the age of 16+, they are only children!
We should put a stop to this! Children feeding their families!? At the age of 16! That is not right!
And, finally, Joshua said:
It is unfair that there are people working in these sweatshops for long hours and getting paid little money per hour. They should get paid a fair amount like we do in Australia.
And so they should. From these students, who on average would be about 14 years old, we have been told of conditions that are totally unacceptable in any country. As we have a moral obligation to deal with the issues of poverty, disease, education and living conditions of our Indigenous people, so we have a responsibility to take action about sweatshop conditions overseas.
John Donne famously said:
No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
Never were those 16th century words as true as they are today in this global age. We are all part of a whole. The diminishing of the life of another person diminishes all of us and diminishes Australia. We have been reminded by a class of 14-year-old students of that fact.
That is why I do not apologise for parliament’s intervention in relation to domestic issues with Indigenous people. I think it is required to assist them to allow true equality to permeate our society. True equality requires differential treatment. That is why I find it offensive that governments tend to intervene in relation to native title to back companies and to back everyone other than Indigenous people whose rights are being trampled on. We should be allowing Indigenous people to better themselves through partnerships with the mining companies to create employment, to create education and to assist in providing infrastructure and health in local communities. We should be engaging with and assisting Indigenous people in relation to other skills that they have to ensure that their literacy levels are improved and increased. You do that by working with the community. That way you raise their standards.
If we did not have infrastructure and assistance in parts of suburban Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane and other places, there would be outrage. People cannot do it themselves. In regional Australia, it is hard enough as it is. We accept giving assistance to farmers, because we recognise that in terms of infrastructure and the difficulties of living in regional Australia people cannot do it on their own. It is a policy decision to assist our fellow Australians.
I understand that this particular intervention by the government is welcomed by the community in Cape York. It is welcomed and we should not apologise for it. Both sides of the House should be supporting it because it is about helping our fellow citizens. But too often we see the scratching of an underbelly that is a dark side within our society, because there is a political advantage to it.
I will never forgive the Prime Minister for his 7.30 Report interview—not when he was announcing that he was going to hand over the leadership sometime after the next election, but during the middle of a debate in response to the Wik High Court decision—when he reached for a map underneath the desk and raised a brown-stained map to make out to the Australian population that a large percentage of Australia was subject to native title claim and that their backyards were not safe. I will never forget that. It was beneath the Prime Minister. It was inappropriate; it was an abuse of his office. Prime ministers, in particular, in relation to Indigenous affairs need to support their Indigenous affairs spokesmen and women. Being the Aboriginal affairs spokesman in government or opposition is not easy, because there is not a lot of bravery on either side of the political divide when it comes to Indigenous affairs. Indigenous affairs spokesmen need the support of their leader in relation to policies such as this.
I note that this Prime Minister is very supportive of his Indigenous Affairs spokesman. For some of the policies that they are implementing, I think it is an important thing that the Prime Minister is there with his Indigenous Affairs spokesperson. I think the Indigenous Affairs spokesman has a lot to learn in relation to this area; he brings his army mentality to it. He needs to be a little bit more sensitive to the culture and to the elders within the community—but that is another matter for another day. He has managed to secure a bucketload of money for this area, which is deserved, but over time the government will be judged on the success of these programs and how appropriate they are. My caution is that a lot of them lack proper consultation with the community.
In researching for this speech, I remembered the work undertaken by the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union in the matter of sweatshops overseas. I refer specifically to the ‘FairWear’ and the ‘No Sweat Shop’ campaigns. Both these organisations are involved in activities which encourage manufacturers to take an ethical approach to manufacturing and to be responsible for staying informed about the production of their garments. The ‘No Sweat Shop’ campaign allows manufacturers to use labels on their goods which indicate that the item was produced by people being paid, as a minimum, award wage rates. It is important to remember that, within Australia, there are textile workers who do not earn even the most basic wage. These are often those who are classified as outworkers.
For over two centuries, Aboriginal Australians have been treated as second-class citizens. It is not well known that in 1946 an estimated 600 Aboriginal stockmen throughout the north of Western Australia went on strike. They refused to work until they had been guaranteed a minimum wage of thirty shillings a week. Some had previously been receiving food and clothing but no pay; others had been paid up to twelve shillings a week. The strike continued for a year. In the end the Aborigines won their demands. It was a landmark for Indigenous rights in this country.
We have all heard of the 1966 Wave Hill strike. Aboriginal stockmen went on strike at the Northern Territory Wave Hill station. Led by Gurindji man Vincent Lingiari, they walked off the job and set up a camp at a place called Wattie Creek. The dispute over wages and conditions turned into a demand for land rights. It dragged on for years before eventually being resolved by the Whitlam government.
Since European settlement, our Indigenous people have lived and worked in what are effectively Third World conditions. Today we are debating the merits of some specific measures for the children of Cape York and the Indigenous students in the communities of Coen, Hope Vale, Aurukun and Mossman Gorge. In previous speeches relating to the introduction of specific measures to assist education in Aboriginal communities, I have referred to the fact that, in trying to resolve these matters, it is important to work with the local communities. I trust that, in this case, it is actually happening. There have been successful trials.
What I have learned over my years of involvement with Indigenous communities is that, at its most fundamental, we must work with the communities in a respectful way. We must not charge in with well-intentioned policies and impose ‘white fella’ solutions. We must make a long-term commitment to the education of Indigenous young people. I know that there are no easy answers. No government—Labor or coalition—has ever found the magic solution to these profoundly difficult matters. There are specific measures we are considering today: the embedding of the MULTILIT—Making up for Lost Time in Literacy—teaching methodology in classrooms and tutorial centres and the implementation of special education trusts. The latter are individual trust accounts to enable families to save to support their children’s education costs. Both are no doubt worth while but in reality represent only a drop in the bucket of what is needed. Nonetheless, Labor will be supporting the bill, as it is yet another small step in the right direction.
As a society, we have finally accepted our responsibility to redress some of the damage inflicted on our own Third World conditions. The sign of a truly mature society is to take the next step—recognition of the appalling sweatshop conditions experienced by workers throughout the world and, having recognised that situation, then to do something about it. I am very proud of the students from De La Salle College at Revesby. They have taken the initiative, as 14-year-olds, to assist their brothers and sisters in other countries. They are looking beyond their own immediate environment to be proactive on an issue they did not create but which they want to solve. I suggest the students check out the websites for the ‘Fairwear’ and ‘No Sweat Shop’ campaigns. These sites provide some practical measures to take the next step in a most commendable effort. I commend the bill before the House.
20
10:31:00
Jull, David, MP
MH4
Fadden
LP
1
0
Mr JULL
—I would like to declare that this is my final speech—although I may have to make a speech in tabling a report tomorrow. This is also the 371st speech I have made since 1981. If you go back to the beginning of my career in 1975, I suppose you could add 100 on to that—so we are probably getting very close to the 500th speech I have made in my 30 years in this place. I was not going to make a final speech. I thought it might be more appropriate just to ride off into the sunset and let others judge my career and what I may or may not have achieved. But I have been convinced that I should speak today, and I looked at maybe getting a text on which to base my speech. I thought an appropriate one was the 129th psalm, which opens with: ‘Many a time have they fought against me. Yea, many a time have they fought against me from my youth up, but they have not prevailed against me.’ I think that is a fairly appropriate opening for this final speech, because the thing that I appreciate more than anything is that I am leaving this place in my own time—they did not get me.
It has been a wonderful career, and I hope that I will be recognised over the years as making some contributions. From my own point of view, I think the highlight of it has been my association with the electorate. I have been very fortunate to represent a huge part of southern Queensland. When I first stood in 1974, my electorate ran from the north of Moreton Island to Springwood and west to Sunnybank, an area of something like 642 square miles with a population of 125,000 voters. It was also one of the fastest-growing areas of Australia and included not only the Wynnum Manly district and great areas of metropolitan Brisbane but also the Redland shire—which at that stage had a population of about 25,000 people and now enjoys a population of about 180,000 people—and parts of Logan City, which then, I think, had about 30,000 people and now has a population of more than 200,000 people. Over the years, by means of various distributions, that electorate has gone further south, to the point where I now represent the northern end of the Gold Coast, which in itself is still the second fastest-growing area of Australia, with growth rates of 14 per cent.
In that respect, my job in this place was to be an advocate for those very fast developing areas and to become involved in areas like local government, particularly in education, to make sure that the infrastructure and the facilities were available to the people who were flooding in to the south-east corner of Queensland. As somebody said at a farewell function recently, one of my epitaphs will be the number of plates on school buildings which I opened. That is probably true. One of the most satisfying things has been my involvement in local schools to see that the best possible infrastructure and the best possible education could be achieved. I think of some of the great schools that I have represented—for example, the new Moreton Bay College and John Paul College, which are two of the finest private schools in Queensland. I think of my association with MacGregor high school, which produced the honourable member for Moreton, and, in more recent times, Springwood High School. These are great institutions. It gives you a great deal of confidence when you visit them to see what they have done.
There has been tremendous Commonwealth investment in my electorate in areas such as roads—and the demand for that infrastructure is going to be more and more as the years go on and the population continues to increase. It really has been a challenge to work out what the attitude should be in our approach to local government. There have been moves and suggestions that local government should become part of the Constitution. I do not know whether or not that would work, but there has to be a much greater relationship between this place, the government of the Commonwealth, and local government. It is a plain fact of life that, with the inefficiencies of the system we have at the moment where the state governments are involved, it does not always work and is not necessarily to the betterment of the people in those areas.
I was originally a radio journalist. I was thrown into the coverage of the Queensland state parliament at the ripe old age of 19. It was that period in the early sixties when radio had decided that they were really being threatened by television and they were going to take them on. Macquarie Broadcasting Services set up about 57 stations. They all had news representatives and there were key stations in every state. And, frankly, they took on the ABC. I am not quite sure whether or not the writing or the accuracy were always quite as good but, in terms of the speed in delivering the news, we used to beat the ABC hands down. The news editor walked in to the station one day and said, ‘We need a state parliamentary roundsman.’ Obviously no-one put their hand up, so he looked at me—a cadet at 19 years of age—and said, ‘You’re it.’ For a number of years I had the experience of covering the state parliament and the state government of the day under Premier GFR Nicklin. I guess that is what really opened my eyes to politics and what it was all about. I made a decision then that one day I would enter parliament, because you had to be on the inside to change things. I then went to television but still had that association with state coverage.
Government members interjecting—
MH4
Jull, David, MP
Mr JULL
—The days of being a teenage idol! I thought I had my life all worked out, and I thought my mid-40s would probably be a good time to go into television. Then we had the advent of the Whitlam government and I was a bit upset about some of the things that were happening. I joined the Liberal Party and somehow found myself as a candidate in 1974. And that was the end of it, because I had the bug, I had the calling, and I came to this place in 1975.
A media background is one of the best bits of training you could possibly have for this place. I always acknowledge what I learned at that time and the things that I could apply to my work in here, in areas such as committees. Journalists should have inquiring minds and a process of getting information out. I am not sure of the attitude to some of the committee work that I have done, but I hope that that process has been in there to a great extent, because it was good training.
I have probably made only one really major mistake in my committee work over the years, when I was on the committee that examined broadcasting procedure. We went through the process in the early 1980s, when we knew we were coming to this House, as to whether or not the proceedings of this House should be telecast. We saw tapes from around the world. The Canadian parliament had seen a vast improvement in the behaviour of its members since it started telecasting. We saw tapes from the United States and that seemed to work very well. Britain had just started, I think, and that was a little bit of a mess. The decision was made, unanimously, I think, to proceed with the telecasting of parliament. When I say it was a mistake, I think people should have access to everything that happens in this place, but the reality is that the quality of the coverage and the journalism that come out of this place have suffered severely. There are two inputs into the coverage of this place, apart from the handout press releases—and you do get lazy journalists who will just run a release as it is written. There is the side door in the morning, where everybody gets bailed up and that gives them their news until midday; then you have question time and then you never see another journalist in the gallery again. That is, I think, one of the great pities of it. Some of the great debates and some of the great discussions that happen in this place do not receive the coverage these days that they probably deserve. And AAP sit up there, as they have for years and years, and faithfully report every word.
I do think it is a pity that we do not have some of the great reporting that we had 30 years ago when I first came into this place. I am not sure what you do about it, because the whole nature of the coverage of political events in Australia is changing so fast. You wonder just how many people under 30 bother about reading newspapers these days. A lot of them do not even get their news from television sources. Whereas if you go back 20 years about 92 per cent of the population got their primary news coverage from the six o’clock news and they did read newspapers. That is gone, and I think that is one of the tragedies of this place.
There are a couple of other things that we have seen over the years. I know I have mentioned this publicly before: I loved the old house. It had the most magnificent debating chamber, and our lives in some respects were better in the old house. While we did not have space to move and we seemed to be thrown in on top of each other, there was much more interaction between the members. If I can be critical at this late stage, could I say that the design mistake in this place was putting in a separate ministerial wing. If you want to go and see a minister you have got to pack a cut lunch and a thermos of Milo, and probably make an appointment to go around there to see them. Whereas in the old house there was likely to be a ministerial office next door to your office. If you could not get to see the minister in those days, you would probably run into him in the gents toilets anyway, and you could bail him up on great issues of the day. I also think that the camaraderie that existed between both sides of the House, because we were mixed up and so close, was much closer in those days.
As I look back over the years, I note some of my good mates in this place came from both sides of the House—and they still do. Some very close friendships developed in that old house because we were thrust in together. But I would never knock the facilities in this place. The equipment that we have to work with now is absolutely marvellous and we should make the most of that, but it is a different parliament from the one that was there before. One of the great privileges of serving in this place is the fact that we have access to what must be one of the best parliamentary libraries in the world. I pay great tribute to the people who provide that service for us. They certainly do a magnificent job and have helped me so much over the years.
It is a funny place. My mind goes back to matters of great moment and great tensions in this House. I mentioned in my comments on the passing of Sir Jim Killen that the first speech I heard in this place was on Tuesday, 17 February 1976, just after the dismissal of the Whitlam government. Then opposition leader Gough Whitlam got up and gave an amazing speech and, about halfway through, Prime Minister Fraser beckoned to Jim Killen to come over. It was obvious that while Mr Fraser was listed as being the next speaker, he would ask Killen to do that speech. Without a note, Killen got up and did a devastating rebuttal of the arguments of Mr Whitlam. At the end of that time, Mr Whitlam walked out one side door with smoke coming out his ears; Killen walked out the other side with smoke coming out his ears. Legend has it that Mr Killen went around to the bar, ordered a bottle of champagne, got two glasses, scribbled a note and asked the attendant to take it around to Gough’s office—‘Gough, can we still be mates?’—and they sat there and had a very pleasant evening together.
There were great dramas like that. Things that people probably do not realise we have to wrestle with are some of the great moral issues. It is not easy to deal with things like abortion and everybody takes full responsibility for themselves on those issues. One of the most difficult issues that I ever had to face was the first Iraq war during the period of the Hawke government. It was the first time that I had to make a decision agreeing to commit Australians to war. While from memory I think it was a unanimous vote, it was not easy and one got that sense of responsibility.
I have been privileged to serve on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for more than 20 years. I never cease to be amazed at the quality of the work that is done by the Australian defence forces. With a number of other members in this place, I have seen them operate in places like Bougainville, which had a civil war for 10 years. Something like 16,000 people were massacred in that civil war. We went up there as a peacekeeping operation. Our young men and women were there without an armament—they were unarmed. I remember the members of the committee speaking at the end of the tour. We spoke to the women, who really ran the place, and they commented to us that they were very appreciative of all that Australia had done. They were very appreciative because we had included women within our forces and they found it much easier to speak and negotiate with women. We spoke to the men and they were also very appreciative, and one reason they were appreciative was that we had been there and had not raped their women. The work that was done was quite tremendous. The other place we visited was East Timor. A joint foreign affairs and defence delegation went there in the December after the problems and after we had settled them down. We saw the respect the people held for the Australian troops and heard the thanks from the locals for settling a dreadful situation. It was similar in the Solomon Islands.
One of the great privileges I had was four or five years ago when members of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade flew to Kuwait. My good mate Steve Gibbons, the member for Bendigo, was with us. We were on HMAS Melbourne watching them patrol the Gulf. We flew up to Kyrgyzstan and saw the refuelling work that was being done by the RAAF and we heard from the French and others that they really preferred to be refuelled by the RAAF, rather than by some of the others, because our people were so professional. We then went to Bagram Air Base—what a godforsaken place it was. It was 46 degrees and blowing a gale. It was as hot as Hades and there was dust everywhere. The place was surrounded by landmines and there in the middle of it were the Australian troops—the SAS. I am not sure if I am supposed to speak about this, but those fellows had earned themselves a most tremendous reputation. They were wonderful folk. They very proudly took us around to their accommodation, which was in an old hangar. The beds were all lined up—I do not know how many there were—and in the middle of them was a bed with a clothes line above it. Hanging from the clothes line was a black bra and black G-string. I thought that sense of humour could only happen with the Australians. It was one of the things that will always stick in my mind: here in the middle of this godforsaken place was this washing hanging on the line. But it says a lot, and the contribution of our troops has been fantastic.
When Clyde Cameron retired from this House, Mr Speaker Snedden granted him unlimited time. He spoke for about 48 minutes in one of the best speeches I have ever heard. I am not going to ask for an extension. I just say in conclusion that the time I have spent working on committees here has been most satisfying. I have had a marvellous career. I am going to miss the place. There are aspects of the work that I am not going to miss, but some aspects of the work here are going to be hard to replace with other things. I thank everyone for the support that they have given me. I also commend the Clerk and thank him and his team for the support they have given us over the years. I congratulate them for the work they do in developing other parliaments. That is terribly important. You can see what is happening around the Pacific. It is marvellous work that they are doing. There are too many people to thank—the car drivers and the caterers. We are looked after so well in this place and it has been a great privilege for me to be able to serve in this parliament for more than 30 years.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
10000
Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DJC Kerr)—I thank the House for its acclamation for the member for Fadden. I note the Speaker took the chair for the member’s last speech. I am certain it is the view of all members that the honourable member deserves a very long and healthy retirement, and we wish him well.
24
10:51:00
Snowdon, Warren, MP
IJ4
Lingiari
ALP
0
0
Mr SNOWDON
—As I am the first person to stand up after the member for Fadden, I want to thank him for his contribution to this place. I say that even though he sits on the other side and we throw things at one another, metaphorically speaking, in terms of that side against us. I have been an observer of and a participant with the member for Fadden since I became a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, about which he spoke just a moment ago. I was on that trip to Bagram with the honourable member and I have to say that his observations were 100 per cent correct. More importantly, I think that, when a member gives their last speech in this place after such a distinguished career, whether or not you share their partisan views is fundamentally irrelevant. What is relevant is that we acknowledge the contribution they have made to the community in which they live and the community which they represent and, most importantly, how they behave in this place and the contribution that they make here. I say to the member for Fadden that he will leave this place knowing he has many friends on both sides of the chamber, knowing that he has made a contribution and has earned the respect and admiration of many among us and knowing that he leaves this place with our best wishes.
I say to the member for Fadden: you and I, along with others, have been participants in the committee system in this place over many years, and your observations about the committee system and the way in which people participate in the committees are something which we all need to reflect upon, even when we are involved in the partisan barbs that cross this chamber. There is no doubt at all that on these committees we have the capacity to work profitably and constructively together despite our different views. I think I am right in saying to the member that, in the time that I have been on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, there have been few occasions—I cannot recall one precisely—when there has been a dissenting report to one of our committee reports. That in itself is a commendation of the productive nature of, and the productive way in which we engage on, those committees. To the member for Fadden, I say thank you for your friendship whilst you have been here. I know that we will be friends long after you have gone.
My other purpose in rising today is to speak on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (Cape York Measures) Bill 2007, which has already been addressed by others, including the member for Jagajaga, the member for O’Connor and my friend the member for Banks, Mr Melham. I want to hark back to the contribution of the member for O’Connor. I want to do that, not because I particularly want to pick a fight with him—although I should not pick fights with anybody and I would not. I do have points of disagreement with many, and on this occasion I have a few points of disagreement with him. I do not want to spend my time needlessly repudiating his observations. Mr Melham made a very appropriate contribution in responding to the member for O’Connor’s comments about the 1967 referendum. I want to make a couple of observations about his comments about the stolen generation. From his comments, the member for O’Connor would have you believe that members of the stolen generation were taken away because it was in their best interests. Frankly, that is an insult to those members of the stolen generation who were stolen from their parents for no good reason other than that they were Aboriginal kids from mixed partnerships.
I know a story about this. Not so long ago, within the last two years, I met a person who had been taken away from his family in Katherine in the Northern Territory when he was a small boy. The day he was taken away, a person whom this House will know, Patrick Dodson, was taken by a girl into the long grass and told to lie down. He was told to lie down because the troops—or, in this case, the police—were out after kids. Patrick observed this young boy being taken by the police, not because he came from a bad home but because he was a young Aboriginal kid from a mixed relationship. He was taken away. He would have been no older than eight or nine, if that. Patrick was not taken away at that point because he was hidden. I say to the member for O’Connor: you might argue, as you have done, that, for many of the Aboriginal people who were taken away, it was in their best interests, but I absolutely refute that 100 per cent.
I ask him to read a book—I assume he does occasionally—not the form guide. The book that I would ask him to read is a book produced by the Institute for Aboriginal Development Press in Alice Springs, co-authored by Gerard Waterford and Alec Kruger and calledAlone on the Soaks: the life and times of Alec Kruger. I would ask him to read this, because it is the life story of Alec Kruger. Alec Kruger was a member of the stolen generation and was taken when he was five or six. Alec was effectively handed over to a pastoralist and became dependent upon the pastoralist, and the pastoralist treated that person almost as a slave. Under no circumstances could you argue that it was beneficial, that it was in his best interests.
So I would say to the member for O’Connor: whilst you make these absurd generalisations, reflect upon them, because there is no doubt in my mind that the business of taking kids away from their families was appalling, insulting, demeaning and racist. There are no other words for it. It has not been in the heart of the Prime Minister to be able to apologise to the stolen generation on behalf of this nation, but I am pleased to say that the Leader of the Opposition has made it very clear that, if Labor is successful at the next election, he will apologise on behalf of the nation to the stolen generation. I say to him: good on you; well done; it is about time.
That is all I want to say about the stolen generation, but I say to all members of this House and anyone who might be listening to this debate that if you can get hold of this book by Gerard Waterford and Alec Kruger called Alone on the Soaks: the life and times of Alec Kruger, read it, because it will do your heart good but make you cry. It will give you an insight into the experiences of these members of the stolen generation and put to rest the absurdity of the argument which has been put by the member for O’Connor.
I thought the member for Jagajaga summed up the purposes of this legislation very aptly, but it is well to remind ourselves what this bill is about. It will appropriate additional funding under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to support the expansion of the Making Up for Lost Time in Literacy—MULTILIT—teaching methodology and the establishment of student education trusts for Indigenous students in the communities of Coen, Hope Vale, Aurukun and Mossman Gorge in the Cape York region of Queensland. I commend the legislation and I say to the government that I am happy to support it, not because I agree with everything the government does—I damn well don’t!—but I because, when it comes to putting money into providing opportunities for young Indigenous Australians, wherever they might be, if that can be done in a way which ensures effective and better outcomes for their education then it is well and good and should be supported. In this case I am happy to do so.
I would not want it to be thought that for some reason Making Up for Lost Time in Literacy was something other than just another program which has been successful. There are numerous literacy programs operating in Indigenous communities in various parts of Australia which get support, deserve support and are successful. This particular program, as we have been told, was first developed by Professor Kevin Wheldall and Dr Robyn Beaman of the Macquarie University Special Education Centre. I commend them for their initiative but I want to make sure that we do not leave this place without understanding that the other programs, some of which were mentioned by the member for Jagajaga—the accelerated literacy program that operates throughout the Northern Territory and other places and the Yachad Aboriginal Accelerated Learning Project—are also quite successful and deserving of support. Again I acknowledge that the government have not been reticent in supporting those proposals either. I acknowledge their support.
I want to talk for a moment about the accelerated literacy program in the Northern Territory. By 2008, 100 schools in the Northern Territory will be operating the accelerated literacy program and 90 per cent of those schools will be in remote areas—that is, schools in communities which have been targeted by the Commonwealth government’s intervention in the Northern Territory. The program will support in excess of 10,000 students in accelerated literacy by 2008. Over 700 teachers will have been trained in the program, 370 of whom will be in a position to coordinate programs in schools and train others. The progress of this scheme is being monitored jointly by the Charles Darwin University and the Australian Council for Educational Research. It is a program which provides a systematic and stepped approach to the learning of literacy and works in conjunction with other programs which might operate in schools.
I want to talk about some of those programs in a moment—specifically, bilingual education. I want to speak about bilingual education because we do not hear it mentioned much in this place from anyone other than me. I have been talking about it since I first came into this place—as far back as 1987. I am proud to say that my support for bilingual education has not subsided. I think we need to get back into the debate the construction of a discussion about the merits of bilingual education operating in conjunction with these other programs.
There are a number of reasons to support bilingual education. I have an article in front of me from the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 November 2006, headed ‘Aboriginal literacy project is good news in any language’. It refers to the Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation and the results of a pilot project about helping Aboriginal kids in the Northern Territory read and write in their own language. It should come as no surprise that the cofounder of the foundation, Mary-Ruth Mendel, a speech language pathologist, described first language literacy as the missing link in efforts to improve social and economic outcomes in Indigenous communities.
I mention that because it has come to be seen by many that literacy and numeracy in the first language is not important and that we have to have these kids succeed in year 1, year 3, year 5 and year 7 in these MAP testing arrangements. If they fail at years 1 and 3, then, somehow or other, we have failed them. We need to look at the success or otherwise of bilingual education and the way in which bilingual education is stepped. What happens in bilingual education is that, when a child starts school, they might get 90 per cent of their lessons in their own language. Each year, it changes so that the proportions are eventually reversed. What people have discovered is that by year 5 those children who have been undergoing intensive bilingual education in their schools from appropriately trained teachers perform very well on these universal tests. We should not presume that because kids in bilingual schools may not achieve the same level of results on MAP testing at years 1 and 3—or whatever years you choose to pick—somehow or other they are failing in literacy. These tests are all in English, not in their first language.
The other point to be made here is that teaching kids in their language is not only just about language: it is about them, their community, their family affiliations and their culture—that whole range of things which intermingle to make up the person. It is important that we have a strong endorsement of bilingual education as well as these other literacy programs. It is very important also that whoever is teaching whatever program—it does not matter what it is—has knowledge of the culture of the country in which they are working. I am talking about countries in a generic sense, meaning Aboriginal nations across Australia. They identify land as part of their country and can talk about their country and all that happens on that country. It is important that the teachers who are trying to impart knowledge in those communities understand the relationships which come with those obligations about country. If they do not have that understanding, they are going to find it very difficult to appreciate the learning difficulties that might be in these communities.
On that basis, I want to refer the House to another book, one by Richard Trudgen called Why Warriors Lie Down and Die. I would ask members of the parliament, and indeed those others who might be fortunate enough—or unfortunate enough in one sense—to be listening to this debate, if they ever get the opportunity, to read this book. Like the one that I spoke about earlier by Gerard Waterford, Alone On the Soaks, if you get the opportunity to read Why Warriors Lie Down and Die you will immediately get an understanding of the importance of culture and language for Indigenous communities across this country. If you as a person get that appreciation and knowledge of language and culture, it will make it a lot easier for you to be able to impart knowledge to those communities. You will see yourself in a different light and you will see those communities in a different light. You will see individuals in those communities in a different light and that will make it easier for you to impart knowledge and produce and develop different approaches to pedagogy, which will produce results we can all be proud of.
The other point that I want to raise very briefly is that the one element of this which we must contemplate and which is not addressed in this legislation is the whole question of Indigenous poverty. Until we address Indigenous poverty we will not improve educational outcomes. I was going to make some observations about Wadeye, which was on national television last night. It has the highest incidence of rheumatic heart disease in Australia. Thirty-four people live in two-bedroom houses, as we were informed last night. Under those circumstances, it will not matter what educational system we have because the kids will just not learn.
28
11:11:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues
1
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—In summing up the debate on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (Cape York Measures) Bill 2007, I thank all members who participated in this debate for their contribution. The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (Cape York Measures) Bill 2007 will appropriate funding of $2 million for the 2008 program year to improve education opportunities for Indigenous students in the Cape York region. The funding will be used by the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership to embed the Making Up Lost Time In Literacy—MULTILIT—accelerated literacy program and to work with parents and guardians to establish student education trusts in the Cape York communities of Coen, Hope Vale, Aurukun and Mossman Gorge. These initiatives represent a key component of the broader welfare reform agenda to tackle disadvantage in Cape York communities. I acknowledge the presence of the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs in the House.
The bill will provide additional education support for up to 800 Indigenous students and their families in Cape York who may require intensive literacy support or additional assistance to save for the costs of education. The MULTILIT component of this measure will enable the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership to address what it describes as the Cape York literacy crisis. Strong literacy skills are a critical factor in school completion and in longer term success. Under this measure, those Indigenous students with the greatest literacy need will have access to the accelerated literacy program, MULTILIT, in their classroom and through a MULTILIT tutorial centre in their community.
The Cape York institute also identifies that poor literacy outcomes are exacerbated by the fact that upon entering the school system many Indigenous children fail to make literacy gains and in some cases slip increasingly further behind. The Cape York institute estimates that by the time Indigenous students are in year 2 some 60 to 80 per cent already require additional support compared with 10 to 25 per cent of non-Indigenous Cape York children. The intensive MULTILIT approach has already produced positive outcomes in Cape York. A trial of MULTILIT conducted in the community of Coen in 2005 saw participating students experience improvements in their reading, with a 43 per cent increase in the number of words that they could read correctly per minute and average comparative monthly gains of 4.3 months for reading comprehension, 13.6 months in reading accuracy and 15.9 months in spelling.
In looking at a range of best practice early literacy engagement strategies, the Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage: key indicators 2007 report identified the establishment of MULTILIT in the Cape York community of Coen as an example of an initiative that worked to improve the educational outcomes experienced by Indigenous students. The intensive support provided through MULTILIT will be complemented by the establishment of student education trusts. Through the establishment of these trusts, low-income families will be provided with the right support to better use their income to ensure that their child is school-ready and to have the support to meet education related expenses. This may include school expenses such as fees, uniforms, textbooks and excursion fees, as well as home based expenses such as reading books and learning aids.
This measure reflects that, while some Indigenous parents in Cape York already contribute financially to their child’s education, the high number of schoolchildren who start school without the required uniform or equipment and with minimal learning support in their home indicates that many do not. The roll-out of the student education trusts into the communities of Coen, Hope Vale, Aurukun and Mossman Gorge will enable parents, guardians and extended family members to make regular financial contributions to meet their child’s ongoing education related expenses from birth to graduation. The trust accounts will establish normalised financial expectations in relation to a child’s education and, in turn, will increase the perceived value of and commitment to education. This initiative is an important part of the Cape York institute strategy to increase the demand for education in Cape York.
Education trust accounts were successfully trialled in the Cape York community of Coen in 2005 and are now a permanent component of educational reform in Coen being driven by the Cape York institute. The trial in Coen in 2005 achieved an outstanding 80 per cent take-up in the first two months and successes from the trusts trial included that 70 per cent of primary schoolchildren had their school uniforms purchased and were ready to start school on time, 80 per cent of primary schoolchildren had on average two books purchased through the school book club and children participated in sporting and education excursions, subsidised by savings from their student education trust.
MULTILIT and student education trusts will have a positive impact on the education outcomes of Indigenous young people and their families in the Cape York region. They will enable the provision of educational assistance to Indigenous students with the greatest need and will improve the financial capacity of individuals and families to contribute to their child’s education.
While I am pleased that the opposition supports the measures that are opening up educational opportunities for young Indigenous people in Cape York, the government will not be supporting the amendment as proposed and moved by the member for Jagajaga. Her amendment is just about catch-up. The fact is that spending on Indigenous specific programs has gone up by almost 50 per cent in real terms over the past decade. All of the Australian government’s policies over the past 10 years have been directed towards reducing the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous processes; however, as the Prime Minister has said, it is a long process. The government will continue with practical measures to improve health, education and employment.
In relation to preschooling for Indigenous children, in July 2006 all ministers for education endorsed the Australian Directions in Indigenous Education 2005-2008 paper. Preschooling for Indigenous children is already a key direction for all jurisdictions. We are already providing significant supplementary funding for Indigenous preschool initiatives. In 2006, for example, I announced $5 million in funding under the Parent School Partnerships Initiative, which is specifically targeted at preschool for Indigenous children.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, the Commonwealth does not own or run schools. Each of the five bilateral agreements that have been signed with state and territory leaders has specific education priorities such as early childhood education, school retention rates, improving literacy and numeracy, and improving vocational training and employment opportunities.
In relation to the provision of intensive support, the Australian government already has underway a series of accelerated literacy pilots that set out to extend and systemise proven methodologies and build teacher capacity in over 150 schools. Over $19.3 million has been invested in taking successful methodologies and approaches, such as accelerated literacy and the MULTILIT program, to the next level. For example, the accelerated literacy program is training 700 teachers in 100 schools in the Northern Territory in the successful methodology, which is improving the literacy outcomes of up to 10,000 students, including those in remote schools. This approach is being replicated in 15 Western Australian Aboriginal independent community schools, in six Catholic schools in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, in 12 schools in the Aboriginal lands district in South Australia and at Shalom Christian College in Queensland.
The Australian Early Development Index is one of the many prevention and early intervention initiatives supported by the Australian government. The AEDI is a community based population measure of the health and development of children undertaken at the beginning of the first school year. The Australian government will re-run the Australian Early Development Index in up to 61 current AEDI communities, implement it in a further 14 disadvantaged communities and develop and trial an Indigenous index. The development of an Indigenous AEDI will enable us to more accurately assess the early development needs of Indigenous children and take into account cultural and language differences.
Just prior to coming into the House, I was meeting with the chairs of the Indigenous education consultative bodies here in Parliament House. They have been providing me with a snapshot of what is happening in their jurisdictions in terms of strategies and initiatives that are working for young Indigenous people. A number of them referred specifically to individual learning plans. Back in July 2006, all ministers for education endorsed the Australian Directions in Indigenous Education paper, as I said. They have committed specifically to delivering personalised learning plans for all Indigenous students that include targets against key learning outcomes, incorporate family involvement strategies and provide professional learning for teachers to enable them to adopt approaches that result in high levels of academic expectation and achievement by Indigenous students.
The measures in the bill are all part of the Australian government’s support for welfare reform in Cape York. They reflect the recommendations made by the Cape York institute and the Australian government’s continuing commitment to ensuring that Indigenous students, wherever they live, have access to educational opportunities.
10000
Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DJC Kerr)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga 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.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
31
Ms JULIE BISHOP
(Curtin
—Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues)
11:22:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENT (2007 MEASURES NO. 2) BILL 2007
31
Bills
R2863
Second Reading
31
Debate resumed from 16 August, on motion by Dr Stone:
That this bill be now read a second time.
31
11:23:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
0
Ms GILLARD
—Here we are again debating another Howard government welfare bill, the Social Security Amendment (2007 Measures No. 2) Bill 2007. This is the third welfare bill this year. In the public domain the Howard government claims it has reformed welfare in Australia, but the Hansard of this place, including today’s Hansard, will show that here we are with yet another bill and another piece of piecemeal reform. This is in a week when we have seen on the front page of a newspaper another cooked-up scheme being recommended by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Mr Joe Hockey. We expect that this thought bubble will have served its purpose—that is, to get a newspaper story. It will now be forgotten, as these things tend to be with Howard government ministers, who do not have a plan for Australia’s future and who are desperately scrabbling around to try to get their names in newspapers in the run-up to the election.
The simple fact is that, when it comes to social security policy, the Howard government has got it wrong. It has got it wrong for 11 long years and it still cannot figure out how to get it right. That is because, time after time, the Howard government goes for a short-term fix, rather than a long-term plan, for this nation’s future. As a result, we still have low participation rates, compared with our competitors. We still have two million Australians who are officially unemployed, working part time but wanting more work than they can get or wanting to work but not showing up in the monthly unemployment figures. It is a staggering statistic but one which many Australians would feel intuitively as they move around in their daily lives. Many Australians would certainly know people who are working part time and wanting more work than they currently have but have not been able to get it. People would be aware of Australians who do not show up in the monthly unemployment figures but who want to work, as well as those who are officially unemployed. Also, as a result of the Howard government’s failure to plan for Australia’s long-term future—
2K6
Brough, Mal, MP
Mr Brough interjecting—
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—
10000
Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DJC Kerr)—Order! I do have five minutes left in the chair in this parliament to break my duck. Under the relevant standing order—
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—
2K6
Brough, Mal, MP
Mr Brough
—Mr Deputy Speaker—a union thug reflecting on the chair!
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I ask both the minister and the shadow minister at the table to refrain from interjecting and permit the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to continue with her most remarkable address.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your remaining few minutes in the chair and what I understand to be the last few minutes in this parliament. I am sure in those few minutes you will show great leadership and balance in the chair and, because you are a patient man, you will not worry about the interjections from the minister at the table or from his friend on the back bench. That is testament to your patience rather than their conduct.
As I was saying, as a result of the Howard government’s failure to plan for Australia’s long-term future, we have a skills crisis in Australia, and I think the minister at the table would find it hard to deny that. We see businesses desperate for skilled workers. That, of course, is a direct result of the Howard government’s failure to plan ahead and its failure to train the available jobless Australians for available jobs. Labor has a different approach. Labor believes that people who can work should work and that those who genuinely cannot work should be cared for. We believe that work is a foundation of social inclusion. Everyone benefits when more people can participate in the social and economic mainstream. Labor’s approach to workforce participation is to identify the reasons why some people are not participating as much as they could or would like to and to deliver practical solutions.
For instance, take the plan announced by Labor leader Kevin Rudd at the weekend to create Skills Australia. Skills Australia will play a central role to ensure that we lock in a full employment economy and that we develop a highly skilled and innovative workforce for the future—things which, presumably, the minister is opposed to. It will assess evidence from commissioned research and industry stakeholders to inform Australia’s workforce development needs. Skills Australia will provide government with recommendations about the future skills needs of the country. It will identify future skills shortages so that they can be addressed before they negatively impact on economic activity. It will identify persistent skills shortages so that current capacity blockages can be overcome. It will identify barriers that prevent skills formation in areas where persistent skills shortages exist and it will identify industries where retraining and upskilling of workers may be required to prevent unemployment, underemployment and skills obsolescence.
In making its recommendations to government, Skills Australia will have regard to the objective of achieving full employment, the international competitiveness of the Australian economy, the promotion of innovation through skills acquisition, the provision of a sufficient number of appropriately qualified workers for industries of critical national importance and the role of state and regional economies in contributing to the success of the broader Australian economy.
All of this work has been neglected by the Howard government and, as a result, a survey of more than 760 producers conducted by the Australian Industry Group, a survey reported under the title of Australia’s skills gap costly, wasteful and widespread, found that one in two businesses were experiencing difficulties in obtaining skilled labour. It is hardly a record for a government to be proud of after 11 years when Australian producers are saying to it that its lack of attention to Australia’s skills gap has left them with a problem which is costly, wasteful and widespread.
The Monash University-ACER Centre for the Economics of Education and Training has estimated that more than four million additional people will need to acquire qualifications from 2006 to 2016. This includes more than two million new entrants and 1.78 million existing workers. Of these, 61.4 per cent will need a vocational education and training qualification and 38.6 per cent a higher education qualification. The simple reality is that businesses are desperate for skilled staff and people only get a job if they have the skills an employer needs and wants.
Yet again, with this bill another opportunity passes to help jobless Australians gain skills, and beyond this bill the Howard government has no plan to match current and future needs for skilled workers with people who could be working. All of a sudden, remarkably, we are supposed to believe that after 11 years the Howard government, including the Treasurer, have a vision for engaging in our community those who are not active participants in the labour market or our community. It is quite remarkable that after 11 years as Treasurer the Treasurer is now inviting us to believe that he has a vision for this country. If the man had a vision for this country then surely that would have showed at the commencement of his period as Treasurer and he would have been pursuing that vision. Instead, we see the Treasurer desperately scrabbling around trying to look like he has got half an idea about something, just as we saw yesterday the government’s backbenchers, in their party room meeting, desperately scrabbling around trying to look like the government had half an idea about something. It is not clear whether they found any of those answers but they spent more than two hours looking for half an idea and not one idea has yet emerged about the future from the Howard government.
2K6
Brough, Mal, MP
Mr Brough
—Have another committee, Julia. That’s something you are good at. Have a review.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—The minister at the table, who obviously does not have any ideas about the future, is consequently just carping and is just as negative as the Howard government has become. It has no ideas about the future—
2K6
Brough, Mal, MP
Mr Brough
—It’s hard to take you seriously!
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. AM Somlyay)—Order! The minister will cease interjecting.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—just as this minister has no idea about the future. The Treasurer has no idea about the future and he is pretending that he has just discovered social inclusion. He is obviously looking for something to pad out newspaper interviews but he has no idea about what the content of a social inclusion policy might look like. This is Howard government members in the run-up to the election: always desperate to get their names in the newspaper, they just forget the content. After 11 years the Treasurer now says that he wants to ensure that Australia’s prosperity is shared in ways that re-engage those who are at risk of exclusion or already excluded from our society and our economy.
Clearly the minister at the table does not understand what social inclusion is. But in not understanding what social inclusion is, he might want to explain why his colleague the Treasurer now uses these words about social inclusion when they ring hollow from a man who has presided over a prosperous economy for more than a decade yet has still allowed disadvantage to become more entrenched and more complex. Given that the minister is in a joking mood, he might want to joke about these statistics. The Brotherhood of St Laurence, for instance, has identified 21 federal electorates with a simultaneous high incidence of single-parent families, low family incomes and high unemployment rates, and it has found that these are the electorates with higher birth rates.
2K6
Brough, Mal, MP
Mr Brough interjecting—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—The minister of course is calling out about these statistics. They are not my statistics; they are the statistics of the Brotherhood of St Laurence and I think that they say something meaningful to us and to this country about pockets of entrenched disadvantage. Because these communities have the highest birth rates, more than 37,000 babies at risk of serious disadvantage were born into just those 21 electorates last year alone. This is something that requires a response. It means that much of the next generation is being born into communities least able to help them escape a life of disadvantage.
Catholic Social Services has found in its most recent report on the distribution of disadvantage in Australia that just 1.7 per cent of postcodes and communities across the country account for more than seven times their share of the major factors that cause intergenerational poverty including: low income, limited computer and internet access, early school leaving, physical and mental disabilities, long-term unemployment, prison admissions and confirmed child maltreatment. The same report estimated that one-third of all communities in my home state of Victoria suffer from low social cohesion. Once again, these are not my conclusions but the conclusions of Catholic Social Services. They describe such communities as ones where there are inadequate levels of community trust and resources, and that lack of trust and resources make it more difficult for individuals and families to overcome the individual and family problems that lead to poverty.
A report released by ACOSS in recent weeks reminds us that we have a sizeable proportion of our community living in poverty. Using the OECD poverty line standard of 50 per cent of median income, the 2004 data tells us that 9.9 per cent of Australians are below the poverty line. If the European Union standard of 60 per cent of median income is used, then that figure doubles to 19.8 per cent of our community.
The Howard government likes to spruik its record, but it needs to take ownership of these statistics as well because they tell us something about those people in contemporary Australia who are doing it tough, who have not been touched by the years of economic prosperity—and we are into our 16th year of economic growth—and for whom more has to be done. It takes more than patting yourself on the back about your record to deliver a vision to address entrenched disadvantage in our communities. Sadly, the contents of the bill before the House today demonstrate that the actual record of the Howard government in dealing with the challenges of inclusion and engagement is not one to be proud of, so it is not surprising that this bill includes the usual random assortment of measures.
I should emphasise that there is one measure here that we strongly support: exempting relatives from participation requirements if they are the primary caregivers of children. On the basis of this measure, we will be supporting the bill. We consider this exemption is long overdue. The child must be directed to live with the person under a parenting order made under the Family Law Act 1975, a state child order or an overseas child order that has been registered under the Family Law Act and the person must be complying with that order. When those relatives are single principal carers, the bill also ensures that access to the highest available rate of payment, the parenting payment single, is available. Relatives who have taken responsibility for the care of children are obviously providing invaluable support to their family and their community and, in turn, we as a nation must support them.
It is worth noting, however, that some community advocates have argued that eligibility for these exemptions should be extended further to include other circumstances where a relative of a child may become a principal carer without court orders being made. Indeed, the approach in this bill contradicts the government’s move towards parenting plans and family relationship centres as alternatives to family courts. It would be worth hearing from the minister how she justifies the narrowness of this exemption and its apparent clash with other aspects of government policy. Nevertheless, this step is quite unlike most of the Howard government’s so-called Welfare to Work agenda, which actually makes it harder for Australians who are struggling to achieve financial independence. Unfortunately, other aspects of the bill continue in that vein.
The Howard government seems intent on making life harder for people with a disability. One measure removes medical officers from the assessment of a person’s capacity to work. This dramatic change was one of the reasons Labor initiated a Senate inquiry into this bill. The Mental Health Council of Australia submitted to the inquiry that taking medical officers out of the assessment ‘could have damaging unintended consequences for the person with mental illness’. The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations was similarly concerned with the implications of this bill, saying that even under existing arrangements:
People whose impairments are not visible have been inappropriately assessed by people with poor knowledge or appreciation of the impact of their condition on their capacity to work, the supports they need to work and the range of work that they can realistically undertake.
Given this current predicament, disability advocates are concerned about the impact of removing the limited remaining role of medical officers from this process. This change—obviously advocated by the Howard government because it is in this bill—seems an inexplicable one.
Labor believes there is a role for medical opinion in the job capacity assessment process. Consequently, when we reach the consideration in detail stage we will move substantive amendments to delete the items from the bill which remove medical officers from the assessment of impairment. When we get to that stage, I think it will be important for government members to understand that, if they vote against those amendments, they will be voting to remove these medical officers from the assessment of capacity to work. What could justify doing that?
The bill also reinforces the role of the job capacity assessment in another way. It replaces the guidelines for making these work capacity assessments, those made by the secretary, with guidelines set out in a legislative instrument by the minister. The secretary will be required to comply with these guidelines, as will the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
While Labor acknowledge and understand the concern that some in the disability community have about what the guidelines will prescribe, we do support the increased ability of parliament to scrutinise the guidelines as a legislative instrument. However, these guidelines have not been released and Labor will watch very closely to ensure that they do not make life harder for people with a disability. Consequently, at the end of my contribution I will be moving a second reading amendment to that effect.
This bill, like all the Welfare to Work bills put forward by this government, does not address this nation’s participation challenges. Clearly, the Howard government do not actually understand the scale of the participation challenge; they simply hope the mining boom will continue forever. Of course, we know that at some time in the future—and may it be a long time away—there will be a time beyond the resources boom for which we should be planning and investing now. Australia needs a long-term approach to workforce participation and welfare reform that tackles the reasons why some people are not working and delivers practical solutions.
As I have indicated, Labor will support this bill, principally because Labor does support exemptions from participation requirements for relatives who care for children, but Labor will move an in-detail amendment dealing with the medical officers issue to which I have referred. Labor will also seek, through the second reading amendment I will now move, for the government to tell the Australian people in a clear way how it is going to deal with the new guidelines of which this bill is the threshold part. With those words, 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:
-
notes the additional parliamentary scrutiny of Legislative Instruments in place of administrative guidelines;
-
calls on the Government to listen to the concerns of the disability community regarding the quality and fairness of their Job Capacity Assessment system; and
-
calls on the Government to consult with stakeholders, to ensure that these new guidelines do not make life harder for people with a disability and that they have fair and reasonable opportunity to appeal decisions relating to job capacity assessments”.
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. AM Somlyay)—Is the amendment seconded?
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson
—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
36
11:46:00
Randall, Don, MP
PK6
Canning
LP
1
0
Mr RANDALL
—I am very pleased to speak on the Social Security Amendment (2007 Measures No. 2) Bill 2007 because, like the member opposite, we are very determined to ensure fairness and equity as a result of this bill, particularly for grandparents and relatives who care for children.
Before I get to that section of the bill, it is obvious that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made a number of sweeping statements which have to be addressed. I need to bring them to the attention of the House because if you allow these things to go unchallenged people might actually believe them. I suspect that the more the opposition make these statements the more they tend to believe them. The member opposite refers to the fact that Australia has a skills crisis. Yes, there is a shortage of skills in this country, not because this government has not made provision—in fact, it has made strong provision for this sector over the years—but because we have an absolute boom in the economy. This economy is growing at a rate which has never been seen before, and we are sucking up skilled workers like we have never seen before. I am pleased to say that just the other day I was able to introduce into the House the bipartisan report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration entitled Temporary visas ... permanent benefits: ensuring the effectiveness, fairness and integrity of the temporary business visa program. The report helps to address the current skills shortage because of the huge demand for skilled workers in many sectors across Australia.
We know that several years ago, under the Prime Minister’s direction, the federal government took measures with regard to the Australian technical colleges, which are operating very well. I have one of the campuses in my electorate; the other part of the campus is in the seat of Hasluck. I visited the college recently and I noted each one of the young year 11 men and women there were delighted to be involved in skills training at that level. This is in contrast to the situation under the state governments, which have underfunded the TAFE sector—and, in fact, have taken funding out of it—and have done their best to drive down the vocational education aspect of skills training.
Do not take any notice of what Labor say; judge Labor not on what they say but on what they do. We recall the famous Bill Hunter ads years ago when Labor were in government, ‘job ready, here we come’. They cost a fortune—talk about political advertising! But these people did not come through apprenticeships; they came through short-term, temporary skill training centres. As I have said in this place before, they did a three-month brickie course and came out as a brickie—that sort of thing. As a result, these people were underskilled when they were put into the workforce.
When we first came to this parliament as the government, there were just over 100,000 apprenticeships in this country; now there are close to 500,000. This government has nurtured apprenticeships in this country like never before, and that is our way of upskilling this country. So when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition prattles on about this sort of stuff, we know she is ideologically bent because she is not telling the truth on this issue, because this government has a proud record on upskilling the workforce.
In some respects the opposition are trying to talk down the economy. They would like to see the boom in the mining sector, which is very strong in this country, cease, because that would suit their political purposes. Can I give you a tip? The fact is that even the most pessimistic commentator says that the boom in Western Australia will go on for at least seven years.
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is on relevance. This legislation refers to changes to the Social Security Act.
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. AM Somlyay)—There is no point of order. The member’s speech is relevant.
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr RANDALL
—Talk about upskilling and intelligence quotients—which are on display for everyone to see as a result of that point of order! The fact is that this is about participation in the workforce, which we are talking about, and a skilled workforce, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition banged on about for some time. I would have thought it is very relevant to this issue.
The opposition spokesman also talked about the 21 electorates that the Brotherhood of St Laurence have identified as having high levels of child poverty. Child poverty in Australia is a relative term. When I was a schoolteacher many years ago, I taught in one of the lower socioeconomic areas of Perth. It was a really tough area—a deprived, poor area. But these kids lived in good housing and, whether or not their parents had a job, they were well fed and well educated.
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This has absolutely no relevance to the legislation we are debating here today.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—There is no point of order.
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr RANDALL
—There you go again, Mr Deputy Speaker: the IQ comes to the top again! Do we recall former Prime Minister Bob Hawke saying, ‘No child will live in poverty in this country by 1990’? Unable to deliver; unable to talk about it. This is the issue the previous speaker of the opposition was talking about, so I think it is quite relevant that I address it.
We have a proud record not only in upskilling the workforce in Australia and getting workforce participation but also in making sure that all Australians benefit. The fact is that the workforce participation rate in this country has never been higher. We have an unemployment level of 4.2 per cent—in Western Australia it has been down to 2.7 per cent but 4.2 per cent is the national figure in this country. The participation rate is unbelievable; it has never been higher. You only have to see this in, for example, the work for the dole programs. They are battling to fill these programs because there are very few people available. They all have jobs.
As we know, the best thing you can do for a worker is to give them a job. Tony Blair said that, and I am sure that sensible members of the opposition, like the member for Batman, would agree: the best thing you can do for a worker is to give him a job. Once you give them a job, they can do things like pay for themselves and get a mortgage. It is great for self-esteem and it breaks that cycle of welfare dependency and the welfare mentality. The best thing you can do is get them off welfare and into a job.
I will give you an example. Just the other day I was at my son’s football game. One of the ladies there was required to attend for 15 hours. I was trying to suggest a job to her. When I saw her the next week, I said, ‘I see you didn’t turn up for that job.’ She said, ‘I was able to get one down the road—and guess what? They want me to do it full time now.’ She went from 15 hours to a full-time job within a week or so because she got into a job. If you get into a job, there is a good chance of getting a job that will give you full-time employment and get you out of that cycle of welfare dependency. That is what we are really aiming for.
The measures in this bill will extend participation exemptions to principal carers who are relatives but not parents of the children. This is an extension of the Welfare to Work reforms which enable principal carers to receive an automatic exemption from participation requirements if they meet the laws and regulations of their state or territory to provide foster care and if they are actively providing foster care in that jurisdiction.
As the minister at the table, Mr Brough, would know, and as you may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, I raised this issue in the party room a couple of years ago. At the time, I had a little trouble getting the relevant minister on the page on this. I am very pleased to say that Joe Hockey, the current Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, was a very big supporter of mine. He wrote a letter supporting my position to the minister, and the now Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mr Brough, also supported that position in terms of grandparents as carers, which was the focus of the original proposal.
To give you the background: I want to make it clear to this parliament that I am not the only person who has been strongly advocating this as a measure but I can assure you that I have been determined to see this and I have helped to drive this through our party room and with our ministers in this government. It really came to my attention when one of my constituents, Mrs Margaret Saunders, came to me and told me her story. I want to tell the story to the parliament again because it really is very relevant to this bill about workforce participation and grandparents and other relatives as carers. This should be called the Margaret Saunders amendment bill, as far as I am concerned, because she was determined to get some action on this point. She lives in Pinjarra and she is a single grandparent. She had her grandchildren on her doorstep because her daughter is a chronic drug user and unable to care for her children properly. The daughter’s partner and father of the children is in the same position.
Poor Margaret was working full time in Pinjarra. Centrelink did not have the relevant permission at that stage or the understanding of where the government was coming from, and it told her that, to care for her grandchildren, she had to leave her job and that, before she could get any entitlements, she had to get rid of all of her holiday entitlements and those sorts of things. It was a devastating blow for this poor lady to take on the full-time care of the young children, who were certainly under the age of 16. They require to be run to sporting events; they require lunches; they require all the care that a good parent will give. Do you really think this lady wanted to give up her life, which she was enjoying, playing bowls and doing all the things that seniors do in their retirement? People live so that they can retire to a certain quality of life. Margaret had this hoisted upon her. I am sure that if you were to talk to Margaret today she would say, ‘I’m happy to do this because these are my grandchildren but, believe me, I would prefer that it hadn’t happened.’ She would prefer that it hadn’t happened because, firstly, she did not want her daughter to be in that position and, secondly, she would have liked to have had a life of her own.
The problem was that she was told she would have to go and register for work. By registering for work, she was going to find it difficult to act in the role of a parent for these two children, who needed her so desperately. So she came to me. I give the Prime Minister a tick here because, when it was brought to the party room, he said to the minister involved, ‘Let’s make sure that this is addressed.’ This is why we are in this place today; we are addressing this issue and it is very important that we do. This legislation gives effect to participation requirements that are in place for the benefit of such a person as Margaret. Earlier legislation has been brought to this place allowing, once the grandparent has been established as the principal carer, for the parenting payments to flow. I will read some of that into Hansard shortly.
This amendment bill will ensure that the principal carers who are relatives but not parents of the children can access exemptions from the activity test or participation requirements in these circumstances, which is only fair. I understand that there are something like 50,000 people around Australia in this position. Some of the notes say 22,000 but I suspect that there are people who have not even registered—so there may be a lot more. This issue came home to me nearly two years ago when I was watching a morning program on Channel 9. A group of grandparents came on that program to explain their circumstances and what they had to do to care for their grandchildren. Minister Brough rang Channel 9 to address this issue because there was a misstatement of their entitlements. As a result, we were able to make sure that people understood that this government was addressing the issue.
In July 2007 Centrelink policy guidelines were clarified to make it easier for grandparents to gain access to principal carer status if they were the main carer of their grandchildren. Centrelink carries out the assessments, but there is a bit of misstatement going on. In fact, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was incorrect when she said that they had to have a court order to have this entitlement flow on to them. A court order is not required, although it was previously. One of the reasons that a court order is not required now is that the states were so slow—through the department of community development or whatever the relevant term is in each state—in assigning the children legally to their grandparents.
You can understand why there are sometimes difficulties. For example, in Margaret Saunders’ case, the father of the children, as much as he did not want to care for them, wanted the money—he wanted the family payments, probably to feed his drug habit. He wanted access to the family entitlements but he did not want to care for his children. Obviously that sort of messy situation has to be clarified. A court order is preferred but, because the states were so slow in delivering many of these court orders so that grandparents could have permanent care of their grandchildren, Centrelink—through these amendments—will now make the determination. Centrelink will make the determination by drawing on a range of information about the living and care arrangements of the child so that the grandparent can be the principal carer of the child. Of course, Centrelink would take a court order as a favourable piece of evidence.
This bill provides an automatic exemption for up to 12 months, and this is a renewable exemption. So it is easily rolled over if they can establish that the conditions remain. Grandparents receiving activity tested income support payments who are not principal carers but who are providing care on an informal basis also have the opportunity to receive an exemption for up to 13 weeks if it can be established that they are caring for their grandchildren and it affects their ability to work or to search for work. I highly endorse this amendment bill, and I know that there would be nobody in this House who would not do the same.
In Western Australia there are a number of organisations—for example, Grandcare, grandparent support groups and referral services, and Grandpower for Grandkids—that deal with these issues. They provide a lot of information to grandparents. Of course, there are foster homes and foster carers get family entitlements such as the family tax benefit and other benefits if they foster children, but why wouldn’t you have a blood relative care for the children? Why wouldn’t you have someone who actually has an emotional bond and a connection with the child rather than putting the child in a strange house? No matter how well meaning those foster carers are, it is never going to be the same as having another family member care for the child. We should give family members the same entitlements that foster carers receive for looking after children who are in desperate need. Not all of these children have parents who are drug dependent; there are, of course, other reasons that they are in need of care—for example, their mum and dad might have been killed in a car crash. This bill relates not only to grandparents but also to blood relatives who can establish that they are entitled to receive the same benefits.
This is great legislation. The opposition said that it was high time, but we never heard them mention it before. But I am really pleased that they are supporting it, because right across Australia there are many grandparents who should be entitled to not only the family tax benefits but also other benefits. There is now a benefit called the Grandparent Child Care Benefit, which covers the full cost of approved child care for up to 50 hours per week. And, believe it or not, grandparents can even get maternity payment to help with the cost of a new baby if the child is with them within 13 weeks of birth. Grandparents are also entitled to the maternity immunisation allowance so that the child can be immunised. There is also a carer’s allowance for children with physical, intellectual and psychiatric disabilities. Carer’s payments may be payable in addition to the carer’s allowance if they are caring for a profoundly disabled child.
So all the entitlements that parents can receive—healthcare cards, parenting payments et cetera—will be available to the grandparents of Australia. It is an outstanding piece of legislation. It saves people having to register if they are performing the role of a parent. I totally endorse this bill, as I am sure the rest of the House will. It is good legislation and we need to get it through this parliament before we conclude. (Time expired)
41
12:06:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
0
0
Ms HALL
—I was interested to hear that, towards the end of his contribution, the member for Canning actually came to the point of the legislation and did show that he had a little understanding of what it is all about. But it did not shock me in any shape or form when he attacked me and this side of the House, because he is a member whose main contribution to this parliament has been to sling insults across the chamber. He is a person who is consumed with nastiness as opposed to actually debating legislation.
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. AM Somlyay)—Order! I bring the honourable member for Shortland back to the bill.
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms HALL
—I am just picking up on a few of the comments made by the previous speaker. With any luck we will not see him in the next parliament.
Part of the legislation that we have before us today—Social Security Amendment (2007 Measures No. 2) Bill 2007—is very good. I support wholeheartedly the part relating to the carers of children who are blood relatives. It exempts relatives other than parents who are caring for children from participation requirements in certain circumstances. It tightens the assessment on work capacity for people with disabilities by replacing existing administrative guidelines with ministerial guidelines contained in legislative instruments, and it transfers responsibility for the assessment of medical impairment from medical officers to job capacity assessors. That is something I am not quite so supportive of. I worked with people with disabilities for many years, helping them to access the workforce. If I were still doing that job, I would be put in the position of being a job capacity assessor. I see some problems with that, and I believe that we really need to have medical officers involved in that assessment process. I will touch on that a little more as my contribution continues.
The bill extends participation exemptions to principal carers who receive income support and relatives who are not the parents. I think this is long overdue. I am sure that members of the government have been approached by grandparents. The grandparents group here in the ACT recently released a book setting out some of the problems that grandparents have in caring for their grandchildren. I think that anything that makes it easier for grandparents to care for their grandchildren should be embraced by the whole of the parliament. It is a phenomenon that is happening more and more in our society these days. In my own family, my mother-in-law had to care for the four children of one of her daughters as they grew up. The parents died and she embraced the responsibility of rearing the four children. I know how hard and difficult that can be, and legislation that supports that is good legislation. Anything that improves the lives of people who are trying to contribute to our society in any way should be supported. These measures provide greater support and they remove requirements from families who are already struggling.
The area of this legislation that I am not so pleased with relates to the role of the job capacity assessors. Job capacity assessors should be part of the process of assessing whether or not a person is eligible for a disability support pension. Sometimes they can add information that can help in that determination. In the past, I have been in a position where I have made vocational assessments—I have assessed a person’s cognitive ability to undertake employment and I have worked with occupational therapists who would also fit into that job capacity assessment role. I know that that information is valuable. But I do not think that I, an occupational therapist or a physiotherapist—or maybe somebody who has no formal qualifications but has been appointed as a job capacity assessor—would have the expertise to determine whether somebody who is suffering from an advanced form of cancer, a heart condition or any number of conditions is able to undertake work. I did not have that expertise and I do not think that they would have it.
Our office was contacted by a person who had advanced breast cancer and a very, very short life expectancy. She had been knocked back from receiving a disability support pension. It was only after a lot of work with the doctors that we were able to get together the kind of information that Centrelink needed to be able to make that determination. On the other hand, a job capacity assessor could very easily make an error. They would not have the expertise to determine whether someone with that type of cancer could find employment. The person may look normal and may be able to complete requirements. I could give them a cognitive assessment, an occupational therapist could give them a functional capacity assessment and the person may be able to pass those assessments. Based on those assessments the report could be forwarded to Centrelink saying, ‘This person should not receive a disability support pension.’ I think that it is flawed. I think that the government really should look at that very carefully. I have not been a fan of the changes to the Welfare to Work legislation. I am very, very supportive of a person being able to enter the workforce and I am supportive of the government creating every opportunity for a person to get a job.
As somebody who has worked in that area, I find that the legislation can, in some ways, hinder people moving forward. It is a very punitive approach and does not empower a person to go forward. Too much time is spent meeting the requirements and not enough time is spent getting the training and the support that a person needs. Some of the changes have led to pretty horrific outcomes. The son of one constituent who came to see me suffered from an intellectual disability. The doctor supported the mother being on a carer’s payment, but Centrelink felt that the young person was not disabled enough. The mother was forced to go out to work or she would have no income. The young person also suffered from epilepsy and had a fetish with water. This young person filled the sink in the bathroom with water and then had a fit. He fell forward into the washbasin and subsequently died. I see these sorts of problems being exacerbated. We should be legislating to see that such things do not happen. I strongly argue that, whilst job capacity assessors play a very important role and add an extra dimension to assessments for disability support pensions, they should not replace medical practitioners.
I also strongly argue that the welfare reform that we have is not real welfare reform. It simply moves a person from one welfare payment to another and puts in place a whole lot of hoops that a person has to jump through, rather than doing what is essential if you want somebody with a disability, or a single parent, to move into the workforce—that is, to provide the training and the assistance they need to move forward. Welfare reform should not be about putting people on lower payments; it should be about training them for the future so that they can contribute to our nation, make a real commitment and be part of our workforce and society in a very meaningful way. These changes have not done this. They have made the system a lot more complex. They have created a lot of angst for people like the young man who came to my office the other week and who has received a disability support pension for many years. Once again, he suffers from an intellectual disability. He went to the bank on pension day to withdraw his money to pay his rent and buy his food. When he got to the bank there was no money in his account. When he got home there was a letter in his letterbox from Centrelink saying that his disability support pension had been stopped. His mother rang Centrelink and they discovered that he should have attended an appointment two weeks earlier. Unfortunately, Centrelink had forgotten to send the letter to tell him that he needed to be at that appointment. The mother was told that it was still his fault and that he should have been at that appointment even though he did not know about it. Of course, his pension was reinstated, but the situation created an enormous amount of anxiety for this young man.
We should not have a system that punishes people who are doing the right thing. We as a nation should be providing support. We have moved down the track and are in that position at the moment. I know that members on the other side of the House would be hearing very similar complaints from constituents as I am hearing. As I have said all the way through this debate, I am absolutely passionate about people with disabilities being able to enter the workforce—for them to have a job. Over the years I have argued with employers to give a person with a disability a chance. But the changes that have been made by this government will not help those people; these changes have created fear and anxiety. Those Australians who are struggling need our support. Instead, we are blaming the victim.
I strongly support this legislation in providing support for carers. We should be not only supporting relatives who care for children but also doing everything in our power to make their lives easier. It is a good change. It is legislation that improves the quality of life not only of the carers but of the children. The carers will be able to care for them, give them more than they could have and remove stress and strain from the families. The government has gone down the right track. I implore the government to go back and look at its decision to change the way disability support pensions are assessed. It is flawed, it will create a lot of anxiety, mistakes will be made and it will lead to administrative costs. If the government were to really look at this properly, it would change the legislation.
43
12:22:00
Prosser, Geoff, MP
RI4
Forrest
LP
1
0
Mr PROSSER
—Today will be the last time I will get the opportunity to address this House. I entered parliament in 1987, in Old Parliament House. I listened to the address of my colleague David Jull, the member for Fadden, when he spoke in fond terms of his memories of Old Parliament House. I felt that I was very privileged to come into Old Parliament House. The camaraderie and the closeness meant that you got to know everyone better. Even the food was better there. We had a lot of mates and it was a very different place.
I recall in those days that there were no computers. There was not even a fax machine. Obviously, coming from business, I got a fax machine and had it sent over. I said to one of the attendants: ‘Can you get me a double-adaptor plug? I want to plug in my fax machine.’ The retort was: ‘Good heavens! You can’t have another phone line.’ I said, ‘I don’t need another phone line.’ In the end, I said, ‘I’ll fix this up.’ Nowadays, we get mobile phones, computers, faxes, photocopiers and goodness knows what else, but in those days we did not have a fax machine in our offices. I considered a fax machine essential to keep me in contact with my office and my electorate.
When I first came in, the whip, Ewen Cameron, sat me alongside the late Roger Shipton. Roger taught me about parliament. I was very fortunate to sit alongside a person who understood the proceedings of this House. Roger would always tell me what was going on, and he would explain the play that was coming up for the day. If I wanted to know why a particular person did something, Roger would explain it. Today I can see when a motion is coming up—a censure motion against the government, or whatever—because I understand, and I would not have done so had it not been for Roger Shipton.
A great friend of mine, Charlie Martella, convinced me to get into this place. Charlie has been a friend all the way through. He convinced me to get into this place—and he tried his damnedest to keep me in this place just recently!—and it was he who said I should run. Indeed, when I did run, I got in in very controversial circumstances. I stood for preselection against a sitting member—before it was fashionable, I might add—in Manjumup in March 1987. There were 94 people on the preselection committee, and I was fortunate enough to be preselected. Subsequently I realised that there was a lot of pain and angst for a lot of people in my party and in my division, and I worked very hard to make sure that I lived up to their expectations. And for those who did not think they had any expectations of me, I worked harder to prove that I was a worthy candidate and a worthy member. I have had a fantastic electorate in Forrest, which used to go all the way down to Albany. Because of the huge growth in the south-west, I lost Albany, Denmark and Boyup Brook. That was a shame, because I like those areas particularly.
On the leaders I have had since I have been in this place: John Howard was the Leader of the Opposition. When we came up here to new Parliament House, there was a challenge by Andrew Peacock and Peacock became the leader. We then moved on to John Hewson, Alexander Downer and back to John Howard, our Prime Minister. I was fortunate enough to go onto the front bench fairly early in my career. I served as shadow minister for small business, housing and customs. In those days we had a housing shadow portfolio, so at least the Liberal Party in those days recognised the importance of housing.
After the 1993 election, I was made the shadow minister for manufacturing and service industries and in the lead-up to the 1996 election I was the shadow minister for finance. I was fortunate enough in government to be the Minister for Small Business, Consumer Affairs and Customs, and I feel privileged to have been appointed a minister. I want to particularly thank my brother Steve. He is not only my brother but my best friend. I could never, ever have entered parliament if it were not for the fact that my brother took over and ran not only my business but also our joint business, Citigate Properties. That is pretty rare. I could not have walked away. I was locked in.
What interested me in federal politics? It was Malcolm Fraser. I was in the building and construction industry when he was elected. The building unions in those days—right up until quite recently, I might add—were out of control. The BLF would come along and claim the site. They were nothing short of thugs. It was a rough-and-tumble game. I felt that Fraser had a mandate to do something, and that he had not done so. It really gave me a focus: that, if I had a view and an opportunity came up, I should get in and try to make a difference. I think I have been given that opportunity and I think I have made a difference.
I want to acknowledge the burden on families of federal members of parliament, particularly those from Western Australia. My wife has raised our three children, who were all young when I got into politics. I was an absentee father for most of the time. It was tough on Sundays in particular. The kids would be out the back swimming and we would be having a barbecue but, at about two o’clock, I would look at my watch and think, ‘I’ve got to go in, shower, pack, get in the car and get to Perth’—in those days, there were no direct flights—‘and get to Canberra.’ When I got into the ministry, the one who resented it most was my youngest son, Michael. I can clearly recall the day when the Prime Minister rang up and I was not home. My wife left a note: ‘The Prime Minister wants you to give him a call. Here’s his number; he is at Kirribilli.’ I went down to my office at home and rang the Prime Minister. As I came back, my son said, ‘What did John Howard want?’ I said, ‘That’s for me to know.’ He said, ‘You’re not going back to Canberra.’ He felt so much angst about my going back to Canberra and said, ‘I’m going to ring the Prime Minister and tell him that you’re not coming back to Canberra.’ I jokingly said, ‘Yeah, Michael, you ring the Prime Minister.’ Unbeknown to me, I left the Prime Minister’s Kirribilli phone number in my office. My youngest son wandered down, picked up the phone, rang the Prime Minister and was about to tell him ‘what for’ when I realised where he had gone. I almost had a shorter ministerial career than I eventually had anyway. I guess we joke about it now—at the time Michael would have been seven. I did not realise—some of us do not—the impact of being away so much from a very young family. I chuckle that my youngest son was about to tell the Prime Minister where to shove it, because he did not want his dad to go back to Canberra.
I would also like to thank my then chief of staff, Peter Johnson, who worked for me during the ministry days. Peter now has a very large law practice in Bali. I would like to thank the Liberal Party for giving me the opportunity and the honour to enter federal politics and to play a part in this great institution.
What were the most exciting parts? The most exciting part of my political career was, without a doubt, Fightback. Fightback was what I got into politics for. It set the scene for the economic reform we enjoy today. Fightback proposed the GST. I remind everyone that if Fightback had got up your fuel today would be 38c a litre cheaper than it is, because Fightback was going to scrap excise. Fightback also proposed the scrapping of payroll tax. Payroll tax is not a federal tax but the whole Fightback package was to try and make Australia more competitive and more productive. Sure it was visionary, and sure we lost, but I feel so proud that I was part of that team. It was probably a stupid thing to do from opposition, but we dared to be different and we set the scene for what has been achieved since. I still think that Fightback was a great package and I think it would have made us better off than we are today—and we are very well off through the economic reforms that this government has introduced.
The most satisfying thing for me was to be the minister for customs; there is no doubt about that. Customs are a great bunch of people. They have a huge challenge and all Australians should be satisfied with the role that Customs play in protecting Australia’s borders from not only dutiable imports but drugs and a whole range of other things. I was very lucky when I became the minister. The customs patrol fleet was designed when we only had territorial responsibility out to 12 nautical miles. Now it is out to 200 nautical miles and I thought, ‘Well, the fleet is no good.’ At a time when we were trying to get the budget back into shape, I proposed eight new patrol boats and actually got them. I have been forever thankful to the people in the economic portfolios who supported me in that area, John Fahey and Peter Costello, when everyone else was pretty ticked off that I got $50 million in a package to get eight new customs patrol boats.
I would like to acknowledge the CEO of Customs in those days, Lionel Woodward, and Tom Anderson, who was my DLO. Tom was a very good and dear friend, and is still a friend today. I would also like to acknowledge John Drury, Mick Roche, John Jeffrey and Les Jones. I entered parliament to make a difference. I think that I have been lucky to play a part in a team that has made a difference. We have played a part in change. As the shadow minister for finance it was particularly challenging to do the repayment schedule to see what $98 billion would do to the interest repayments as they were freed up and what date we would become debt free. I had a young staffer seconded from Finance, and I asked him to do the repayment schedule. He did not have a program or a computer to do it on so I simply pulled the figures out and did the repayment schedule, to his great amazement. He asked how I had worked it out. I said, ‘Mate, if you’ve got as many big loans as I have you would know that this is the same but it has a whole lot more noughts on the end.’
Government member interjecting—
RI4
Prosser, Geoff, MP
Mr PROSSER
—As my colleague just said, there are more zeros on the end. I was so passionate about that because getting rid of that debt freed up $8.6 billion just in interest, not in servicing the loan. What we have achieved is having that money go towards other things, whether they be health, education, lower taxes, defence or whatever. When we first came to office, defence spending was only about $11 billion; today it is nearly $20 billion. We have been able to achieve those sorts of things through running a better budget.
When I announced to my colleagues that I was not renominating, one person in my electorate said, ‘Thank God! We’ve had 20 years of an economic rationalist, thank God he’s gone.’ That might be the case. I take credit for it, but I make the point that you can have anything you want in the world as long as you pay for it. The government can only deliver the things that the Australian people want if the government can pay for it. We can achieve better health care, better education, better outcomes, better aged care, a suitable defence force and a whole range of other things, if we run a strong economy. That is what we have been about and that is why I have been so pleased and privileged.
My colleague David Jull mentioned the role of committees. I have been quite lucky to have been a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and I chair the Standing Committee on Industry and Resources. I remember, particularly, the trip to Kuwait, Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan. It was hot! I never thought you could survive in temperatures of some 46 or 48 degrees. We got in a Black Hawk to go over some of Saddam’s old junkyard. I think the temperature was about 48 degrees in the cabin. We flew into Bishkek where, as my colleague mentioned, the RAAF aircraft were refuelling. It is true that the other forces preferred the Australian Air Force to refuel because, as they claimed, they were more reliable and better pilots and a whole range of other things.
We then went into Bagram and Afghanistan. I cannot use the words I am thinking of right now to describe what a terrible place it was. It was just terrible! In visiting the quarters of our SAS troops we found out what a hell of a bunch of guys they are. On a computer they were watching AFL—the Dockers playing another team. I forget which team it was—probably one of those Victorian teams that do not really matter. The SAS teams are out of Western Australia, and what characters those guys are! The Americans were in awe of our guys, because they were not up themselves; they were there to do a job. They got on with the locals because they talked to the locals, not down to them. You could not come away from a place like that without feeling unbelievably proud of the men and women who serve in our defence forces, and particularly the SAS.
My campaign committee has supported me all the way through. The late Mike Eastman had always been my campaign chairman. Unfortunately, a few years ago he passed away as a result of cancer. I thank Peter Nowland, my brother Steve, Charlie and a number of others. I have been very lucky that I have been able to run a very tight campaign without any interference from Perth. I do not think that you would ever get away from that nowadays. In those days, Peter Wells was our state director. I had a lot of time for Peter. Unfortunately, he passed away a few years ago. I was fortunate enough to also be elected to be the parliament’s representative to the UN in 1999 during the millennium changeover. That was a great experience.
What was impressed upon me was the great respect that Australia is held in around the world. When I address schools in my electorate, I say to them: ‘When you leave school, you might go backpacking around the world. You’ll probably sew an Australian flag onto your lapel.’ I explain to them that it is then incumbent upon them to behave. I say, ‘If you want to go and get blotto, sew an American flag on your lapel, not an Australian one.’ Just on that point, I was on a delegation with a colleague and one of the locals got a bit annoyed with us and asked where we were from. I said to my colleague, ‘Tell him we’re American, because most people get upset with the Americans and most people like the Australians and we’ve got to uphold the good name of Australia.’ I have tried to impress on the school students whom I address that this country is well respected. We are known for our hard work and for getting up and doing the right thing. It is incumbent upon them not to sully that reputation. I hope that I have impressed that upon them.
As I said, I have been unbelievably lucky to represent an electorate like Forrest. It is one of the faster growing areas of Australia. It is very pretty. I remember when John Moore, who was then the tourism minister, came down. I am sure that Moore only wanted to go to Margaret River because of the fine wine—much better wine than the wine from those other places. Moore said, ‘Prosser, I didn’t expect that sort of electorate.’ I said, ‘What did you think it would be?’ He said, ‘I didn’t expect the golden beaches; I didn’t expect it to be green; I didn’t expect the forest.’ He went on and on. I said, ‘What did you expect?’ He said, ‘Red dust, because Western Australia promotes red dust.’ It is a very special part of the world. There are some very special people there. I have been lucky to be the member for Forrest. That does not come to many people. Not many people get the opportunity to become a federal member, to serve in this parliament. I consider that I have been extremely lucky. It has been a great privilege and a great honour.
I want to thank everyone whom I have been associated with. I have made some great friends in this place. I do not think that I have made that many enemies, but I have made a lot of friends. There is not as much fun in this parliament as there was in the old parliament. I miss that a bit. You need the fun times to keep you sane during the boring times. I cherish the friendships. I cherish the people whom I have become close friends with. I am looking at one person whom I am a bit annoyed with, Russell Broadbent. He kept coming and going so much that in the end I said, ‘I’m so bored with Broadbent not deciding whether or not he wants to remain a member of this House that it’s probably time that I called it quits.’ You have to decide when it is time to move on. I chose my time to move on. Western Australia is in boom times at present. What is happening in Western Australia is exciting. I am still a registered builder, although I do not know whether I could build anything decent nowadays. I want to get back to business. I find it exciting. I am never going to retire, because business involvement is too much fun. I hope that I am going to be very busy. I need to be put back under the pump again; I have not been put under the pump for a long time. To all of you, thank you for your friendship. To my preselectors and my electors, thank you for the opportunity and the honour of serving in this place. Thank you.
48
12:42:00
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
Minister for Workforce Participation
1
0
Dr STONE
—I stand to sum up the second reading debate on the Social Security Amendment (2007 Measures No. 2) Bill 2007. We have heard some extraordinary contributions from the opposition in relation to this bill. I have to wonder if it is because they did not read the words in front of them or deliberately chose to misunderstand them. Perhaps they think there is an election coming on and so this was an opportunity to present some misinformation. One of the statements made by the member for Lalor was that the Howard government does not understand the extent of the workforce participation challenge in this country. When you stop laughing, after hearing that statement, you have to get serious about presenting exactly what has happened since 1996.
We have a skills shortage and the lowest unemployment rate to be generated in 33 years. At the same time, like a lot of other developed nations, we have a rapidly ageing population. It was our Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, who was one of the first in any developed nation to deliver an intergenerational report which identified in very exact terms the shorter and longer term impacts of this ageing population and what this government needed to do to address the impacts. Our Welfare to Work policies are now being emulated around the world. I refer to the UK and to France. Most recently, Chile has become interested in how we are managing to deal with the workforce participation challenges of a booming economy with the demographics of an ageing population, where smaller generations are coming on to replace those who are retiring. Quite simply, we have at the moment in Australia too many jobs chasing too few people. I need to stress that we have the highest participation rates on record in Australia at over 65 per cent.
Under Labor, I am afraid, unemployment was between 8½ and 11 per cent and, at its peak, one million people were unemployed. You had a lot of despair, you did not get much workforce participation growth and certainly you had no plans for the future. The John Howard government, as I said, has tackled the not unknown worldwide problem of an ageing population and a booming economy’s demand for ever more skilled labour. At the same time, it has dealt with some of the most disadvantaged Australians—people who have known long-term unemployment—by changing the rules of access to welfare and by directing a lot more training and upskilling into this sector of people who have often had to leave school too early. And the government has had extraordinary results.
Let me refer to the skilling. Over the last four years we have had over half a million people complete apprenticeships. That compares to just 31,000 under the Keating government’s last year in office. There have been 40,000 work skills vouchers taken up since February to train mature-age people who have never finished school or have no technical qualifications. These skills vouchers have been in great demand because there is an expectation and an understanding that for a person to really compete in our economy in the future they will need skills beyond very early school leaving. Our government, unlike previous Labor governments, is providing those opportunities. The skilling and upskilling opportunities reflect a 25-fold increase in funding for technical and vocational training by the Howard government over the last 10 years. This brings total funding to $25 billion. It was only $1 billion in 1996. The member for Lalor needs to cast her eyes over the statistics before she tries to trot out some very dodgy information.
When John Howard came into office in 1996, the government inherited a moribund and inefficient government employment sector—the old CES or Commonwealth Employment Services. We had people in despair. They were long-term unemployed. They had been churned through endless TAFE certificates. They had no work experience. They had no one-on-one support. There was no sense of a mutual obligation. Mutual obligation gives people a sense of self-respect and, indeed, it gives the community something back, too, for their taxpayer support in helping people who are not able to provide for themselves because of their unemployment. The Howard government also recognised the ageing population and so, as it moved the economy into its boom mode—after having paid off Labor’s $90 billion-plus debt—it was able to say goodbye to Labor’s Working Nation and introduce Welfare to Work reforms.
Let me give another small, simple statistic for those who are not familiar with the extraordinary improvement in the number of people who have been placed in work since the John Howard government came into office. Almost 45 per cent of the most disadvantaged, long-term unemployed job seekers who received employment support under Job Network got a job after three months. This compares with only 25 per cent of job seekers being helped under the old Labor Working Nation.
The cost per job placement is also important, because we always demand value for money while, at the same time, we demand the delivery of real outcomes for Australia’s most disadvantaged. The average cost per employment outcome has fallen to around $4,000 under our Welfare to Work reforms. I am afraid that, under Working Nation, we were looking at $12,800. So we have dropped the cost of helping people get into long-term sustainable jobs to about a third of what Labor was paying for a much smaller outcome in terms of the number of people getting into real jobs.
Labor has failed utterly to present to Australians their policies and plans to increase workforce participation. We are still waiting. You can imagine that in my office, I, as the minister, keep a look-out for the policies and plans on Labor’s websites. I read the utterances of the shadow spokesperson, Senator Penny Wong. I look for some policy. I look for perhaps some endorsement of our Welfare to Work reforms, because that is what Labor tend to do. They say: ‘That’s working. We’ll have a bit of that too.’ While we have seen Labor’s support for Welfare to Work in some utterances and some small print, all we have got from them again and again since 1996 is opposition in the House and in the Senate when we have moved motions proposing these absolutely revolutionary ways of helping the unemployed into work. Labor oppose every legislative move, despite their having no alternative policy for dealing with an ageing population or building workforce participation.
One way that Labor would not have to work so hard is if they ever get back into office and we would then see the end of a booming economy. I guess Labor expect that the economy will collapse. There would not then be the demand for workers, with soaring inflation and a wages break-out and with labour unions demanding centralised wage fixing and pattern bargaining, and so on. Perhaps that is Labor’s plan. However, the unemployed of Australia deserve much better than that, and it is what the John Howard government has delivered.
I must admit Labor has presented a discussion paper, but it is very long on platitudes and rhetoric and has no alternative approaches. The discussion paper advocates returning to the failed Working Nation policy, whereby, as I said before, job seekers were simply recycled endlessly through TAFE certificates. The unemployed then had some of Australia’s longest resumes in terms of certificates undertaken but no work experience and no individual support to get them in front of an employer who would then employ them.
What does Labor’s discussion paper actually call for? It calls for an increase in welfare payments, reduced Jobsearch requirements for the unemployed, mandated longer periods of welfare dependency and an end to Work for the Dole. When Work for the Dole was introduced, it surprised some people. They said, ‘How can you expect the unemployed to leave their homes and go and do something for their community?’ It might have surprised the Labor Party but it did not surprise the community, who thought it was an excellent idea. It has also not surprised the long-term unemployed who, through Work for the Dole, have gained work, as well as their self-esteem, and their sense of social isolation has come to an end. They, too, are able to get work because they are employable through the Work for the Dole experience.
The member for Lalor displayed her policy ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of this bill by claiming that it takes medical officers out of the decision making in relation to work capacity assessment, and Labor are going to move amendments reflecting that misunderstanding. This bill in fact strengthens the role of medical evidence. Job capacity assessors are required to take into account all medical evidence in making a decision about a person’s work capacity. Self-evidently, that is of critical importance. These changes do not remove medical evidence requirements or downplay the importance of that evidence. Instead, the bill requires that, where medical evidence was not provided, say, to the job capacity assessor but was in fact provided later on during, say, an appeal—for example, to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal—then the same medical evidence is resubmitted to the job capacity assessor so that they can form a view with the full information—or with more information than they had originally—to decide the work capacity of that individual. The job capacity assessor then resubmits their assessment and the review or the tribunal appeal moves forward.
So I suggest to the member for Lalor that she takes a little bit more care when reading bills or she gets some better advice. Labor, as I say, have failed to present a policy to get job seekers with a disability into a job. I find it quite extraordinary that they misunderstand our policy which, self-evidently, through the statistical information—you can look at it any time—shows that we have been much more successful in helping some of Australia’s most disabled and disadvantaged people into real jobs in the open market.
The shadow spokesperson said way back in June that Labor would present their national strategy for disability employment. I am afraid, as with their welfare to work plan, we have not heard anything since June—just screaming silence. There has been no policy for workforce participation and no policy for job seekers with a disability but there has been a misunderstanding of what the government are presenting in this bill, which further enhances the capacity of some of our most disadvantaged people to get on with having the right welfare support or indeed the right job opportunities.
These legislative amendments also recognise the role that grandparents and other relatives have when they take on the critical and significant responsibilities of caring for a child. We are extending access to automatic exemptions from job seeker requirements and other participation requirements already in place for some principal carers. In addition, some principal carers will have access to a higher rate of payment by caring for a child who they are not in fact related to. This reflects the change in society and in family structures where often we see grandparents, in particular grandmothers, now being responsible for their grandchildren and in every way being the substitute parent. We want to acknowledge and support those grandparents in the important work that they do.
The amendments also streamline the administration of transfers between one income support payment and another. Restrictions will operate on the time frame in which a payments transfer can be made, and transfers to the closed payment of mature age and partner allowance will no longer be possible. As I have already said, the bill provides new guidelines regarding the review of income support in relation to partial capacity to work, current or continuing inability to work, impairment ratings and incapacity exemptions from the activity test. The guidelines will require that reviewers access expert assessments of work capacity, including all medical information that is available, when determining appeals of income support decisions. The rights and needs of the person are fully protected and understood. We in the Howard government care for individuals. That is why we are strengthening this legislation. The review processes under the social security law include Centrelink authorised review officers, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
This bill provides even further support for people assisted under the government’s Welfare to Work reforms. These reforms are helping people with the right supports and incentives to make the transition from welfare to work. In most instances, if you have a capacity to work, a paid job is better than a life on welfare because, unfortunately, a life on welfare often means an intergenerational cycle of unemployment. Sometimes we see up to a third generation of Australians where there has not been work in the household because under the Labor regime, only 10 years ago, there was no understanding and support to help move parents in particular into real work.
One of the most successful elements of the government’s Welfare to Work reforms has been changing the rules where previously a parent on a pension—and the vast majority of parents on pensions are single mothers—was able to stay on welfare until the youngest child turned 16. By then, the parent, particularly the woman, felt she was unemployable. Her employment skills were rusty. Perhaps she had no IT skills or experience or perhaps she had literacy and numeracy issues, because many parents on welfare have low formal school attainment levels.
We changed that regulation. We now help those parents on pensions, when their youngest child turns six, into at least part-time work of 15 hours a week. This has changed parents’ lives across the nation. In particular, we have women saying to us, ‘Our kids are proud; our kids go to school and talk about the job which I have. Our kids are proud when I put on my uniform or when I start up my new car. The kids are having a holiday for the first time.’ This is what it means to have a Liberal government. We care about the individual’s independence and their ability to make choices and be free of the dependency that locks them into a poorer life experience.
In the past Labor was happy with the regime where, if you were a person with a disability and you could not work full time in an open employment situation, you went on a disability support pension. In most cases, you stayed on that until you went onto the old age pension. The government has now said, ‘If you have at least a half-time capacity to work in an open employment situation we will help you to get a job.’ Across Australia we are seeing people with disabilities saying, ‘I’m now back in the workforce. I can hold my head high. I had a mental health issue; I’m being supported and assisted in getting through that because of a supportive workplace.’
On the other side we have employers saying to us, ‘The John Howard government has given us a solution to our workforce shortages. You are giving us people whom you have been prepared to train into a job.’ The government provides pre-employment training for specific tasks and jobs to be done. Also, people across Australia are saying, ‘Thank goodness; at last a government is addressing the Indigenous unemployment issues in all parts of Australia, but particularly in Northern and Central Australia.’ Under Labor we had unemployment of the second, third and sometimes the fourth generations. It might have suited Labor’s own purposes to have a dependent population, but it does not meet the John Howard-led Australian government’s long-term plan to deal with workforce shortages, the ageing population and our booming economy—and its demand for skilled people—and to give every Australian a fair go.
It is a matter of national importance that 600,000 children are currently growing up in jobless households. Unfortunately, these children were in jobless households and, under the Labor Party’s so-called ‘Working Nation’, they were left there for a very long period of time. We are assisting those 600,000 children by helping their parents into jobs. They are no longer likely to also be unemployed. Teenagers whose parents are on welfare are five times more likely to be unemployed themselves. If you are working aged, able bodied and on welfare in Australia, we have good news for you: the Liberal philosophy and policy of this coalition government is to help you into a job.
I was somewhat depressed to hear the opposition lamenting our Welfare to Work reforms, I presume simply as a matter of form. If you are on the opposition benches, what you do I suppose is think you need to oppose. I invite the opposition to help celebrate every day when a long-term unemployed person finds work in Australia, to support our Welfare to Work packages and to support this bill. It offers real opportunity for the disabled and for grandparents who are looking after children. It gives them recognition of the important work that they do. I commend the bill to the House.
10000
Corcoran, Ann (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms Corcoran)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved 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.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Consideration in Detail
53
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
53
13:02:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
0
Ms GILLARD
—I move:
Schedule 1, items 37-46, page 8 (line 30) to page 9 (line 21), omit the items.
I rise to move the in detail amendment which I foreshadowed during my speech on the second reading. It deals with an issue that the Minister for Workforce Participation, who is at the table, clearly does not understand. We have just seen another very clear example of hubris under the Howard government. Apparently the sun only shines because of the Howard government. People only smile because of the Howard government. Children only enjoy their childhood because of the Howard government. But, when you strip away all of the arrogance that this government now drips as it cheerfully misuses taxpayers’ money for its party political propaganda, what you find is a contribution from the minister that was all about the past and all about Labor’s policies with not one word about the future. The minister managed to tie all of that to a misunderstanding of the meaning and intent of the bill that she has brought to the House. One wonders, when one has arrogance tied with incompetence, where we really are.
For the purpose of explaining this to the minister, because she clearly does not understand it: this bill removes the phrase ‘medical officer’ from the relevant sections of the Social Security Act relating to the assessment of work capacity for disability support pension applicants, replacing it with the word ‘assessor’.
EM6
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
Dr Stone
—Medical assessor.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Replacing it with the word ‘assessor’. The minister at the table just said ‘medical assessor’. It replaces it with the word ‘assessor’. The assessments that are being referred to are known as ‘job capacity assessments’. One element of those is the assessment against the impairment tables. We know that an applicant must get a minimum of 20 points to be assessed as eligible for the disability support pension; however, an applicant can get more than 20 points and still not be granted the pension because the job capacity assessment finds they are still theoretically capable of at least 15 hours of work.
The effect of what the bill before the House does is to roll together the impairment table process into the general job capacity assessment process, to have them all conducted by the job capacity assessor. The problem with this—and clearly the minister does not understand this—is that making a decision about disability against impairment tables is a task that requires the exercise of medical knowledge and medical judgement. We do note that there can still be input or advice from a medical officer, such as treating doctors, but of course the bill, by deleting the phrase ‘medical officer’, moves that determination to a determination made by an assessor—that is, it has taken the impairment table determination, rolled it in with the rest of the job capacity assessment and made that the province of the job capacity assessor. If there is any further confusion about this by the minister, she might like to reflect on the words of the National Welfare Rights Network, which points out:
The impairment tables are replete with complex and detailed references to multifarious medical conditions. Points under the impairment tables are given according to the actual impairment caused by an identified medical condition. They are not given according to their likely impact in the workplace. It therefore makes sense that a person’s rating be assessed by a medical officer.
Those are not my words but the words of the National Welfare Rights Network. It is a simple point, and it ought to be conceded, that making a judgement against the impairment tables requires the exercise of a degree of medical knowledge and skill. It consequently should be done by a medical officer. Of course, that is only going to form one element of the assessment. The rest of the assessment needs to be done by an assessor. That is understood. But the minister, in proceeding with the bill in its current form, is deleting the role of the medical officer by deleting the use of the words ‘medical officer’ and replacing them with the word ‘assessor’. So it would do everybody a favour, particularly the Australian people, if the minister conceded the point and accepted the amendment. (Time expired)
54
13:07:00
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
Minister for Workforce Participation
1
0
Dr STONE
—As I said in my earlier remarks, there seems to be a clear misunderstanding of what this is all about. The Social Security Amendment (2007 Measures No. 2) Bill 2007—that is, the original bill and not the amendment that is now being discussed—removes outdated references to ‘medical officers’ in schedule 1B of the Social Security Act 1991 and replaces them with ‘assessors’. These changes reflect the broad range of health professionals who now determine impairment ratings against the impairment tables. The changes do not prohibit the involvement of medical officers and do not reduce the importance of medical information when assigning impairment ratings—quite the contrary. The job capacity assessors have to take on board all information including treating doctors’ reports and any other available medical evidence or any other information that is relevant to the person’s situation. They must do that when determining impairment ratings. In addition, job capacity assessment providers can refer people for specialist medical assessments if they do not think there is enough information there. The government will pay for these specialist assessments.
We are absolutely determined that we will have the full information in order to make the right decision. When someone has a very serious incapacity, why would we set them up to fail? When someone presents with a very serious condition—whether it is a mental health condition or a physical or intellectual incapacity—why on earth would we refuse medical evidence or eliminate the possibility of medical information coming forward? That is just absolutely absurd and it is not the case.
These guidelines are the legislative basis for the JCA process for reviews under the social security law. They deal with the situation—and this is what it is all about—where additional medical evidence that was not originally presented to the JCA is then presented to tribunals or authorised review officers. This is not unheard of and, although it is not frequent, it happens enough for us to be concerned. Sometimes an individual who has been to the JCA does not agree with the outcome so they go to the tribunal or to an authorised review officer, as is their right—and we are pleased that they do. If at that next stage they produce new information—perhaps from a medical officer—we will now require that the new information be sent back to the JCA so that they also can consider it. The tribunal or authorised review officer will then reconsider the revised report from the JCA—we presume that with the new information there has been a revision of the original assessment. This is all about protecting the individual’s rights and making sure that they are accurately and properly assessed so that they get the very best support from the Australian government.
In addition, if the tribunals or authorised review officers disagree with a report of a JCA, the guidelines then require them to seek a second review of the claim by a different JCA. The second review will go back to the tribunal or authorised review officer for consideration before they make their decision. We are bending over backwards to give some of our most disadvantaged Australians every right and opportunity possible to have their cases properly heard. The decision of the tribunal remains independent. The original bill therefore strengthens the process and gives maximum support to persons with disabilities who are seeking support. I commend the original bill to the House.
55
13:11:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
0
Ms GILLARD
—Clearly we still do not have an understanding of this essential point and I am not sure why it is proving so difficult for the Minister for Workforce Participation. I refer the minister to the evidence that the Mental Health Council of Australia submitted to the inquiry into the Social Security Amendment (2007 Measures No. 2) Bill 2007 by the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee. They said that taking the term ‘medical officer’ out of this legislation—and consequently the role of the medical officer out of the assessment—could have ‘damaging unintended consequences for the person with mental illness’. Then there were the words of the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, who were also concerned with the implications of this bill. They said that even under existing arrangements:
... people whose impairments are not visible have been inappropriately assessed by people with poor knowledge or appreciation of the impact of their condition on their capacity to work, the supports they need to work and the range of work that they can realistically undertake.
Given this predicament, disability advocates are concerned about the impact of removing the limited remaining role of medical officers from the process.
As usual we get from the Howard government this degree of arrogance that suggests that they are the only people who are right and it is impossible for anybody else on the planet to be right. When the minister rises to the dispatch box and refutes these suggestions, she might think that it is cheap politics to throw insults at the opposition. But she should understand that she is not insulting us; she is insulting the professionals who run the Mental Health Council of Australia. She is inviting this House to believe that the people who dedicate their lives to trying to improve the condition in our society of people with mental illnesses—psychiatrists, psychologists, academics, family members of people with mental illness and people who have insights that ought to be listened to and thought about such as the dedicated people I enjoyed meeting from the Mental Health Council of Australia—are idiotic and simply do not understand that their views are not worth listening to and that maybe they are trouble makers. She is saying that these are people of no account or no wisdom. We say to the minister that these people are of account and wisdom and she should think about that before she gets up with a glib and insulting response to the Australians who involve themselves in the Mental Health Council of Australia and the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations.
Can I say to the minister that I no longer know what it is that she is arguing, and I suspect that she does not know either. If she is arguing that, despite this legislative change, there has been absolutely no change to the involvement of medical officers in the assessment process, then why make the change? If it makes no difference in substance, if in the big, wide world where reality exists these words in the bill mean nothing, if they mean that nothing will change and that a medical officer will still be able to do everything that a medical officer has done in the past, then why amend the bill?
The minister is shaking her head; she does not get that concept. Why amend the bill if there is not going to be any change? If there is to be no change, you might as well leave the legislation the way it is now—that is, you might as well accept Labor’s amendment. If the purpose of changing these words in the bill is of no account, is of no consequence, then this is a completely redundant piece of legislation-making and you might as well leave it out by accepting Labor’s amendment. Or is the minister arguing—because she does not know; she has argued both positions even though they are completely inconsistent—that there is a change but that it is possible for any errors made as a result of this change to be fixed in the appeals process? If the minister is arguing that, wouldn’t it be better for government policy to try to aim to get these things right the first time, rather than saying, ‘If something goes wrong, when it goes wrong, after it’s gone wrong, we can have an appeal process, and we can do that and this in the course of the appeal process’? Wouldn’t you aim to get it right the first time?
I do not know what the minister at the table is arguing; she does not know. But we do know that people who have dedicated their lives to assisting others, assisting people with mental illnesses and disability, think that this is a foolish change. We are inviting the minister to think that they are Australians who should be respected and to think about their views. Their views are reflected in Labor’s amendment, and, consequently, she should think about accepting it. (Time expired)
56
13:16:00
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
Minister for Workforce Participation
1
0
Dr STONE
—Talk about getting desperate. I repeat: the member for Lalor clearly needs better advice. She suggests that the Mental Health Council and other welfare advocates are opposing this bill. No, you read the transcripts and you talk to these parties—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—That is not what I said.
EM6
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
Dr STONE
—I am sorry; you claimed that mental health advocates are opposed to this bill.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard interjecting—
EM6
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
Dr STONE
—No, they do not. If you read the transcripts and in fact speak to these advocates you will find that what they said, which we totally agree with, is that medical evidence should be key to a person’s job capacity assessment, depending on their condition. That is why this bill strengthens the medical information access issues. I understand that the member for Lalor is busy because she has an election that she is rushing around trying to campaign for! But this bill ensures that all layers of the assessment process have the same information. Do you get it? It is not about withholding medical information; it is about whether the job capacity assessor also has medical information that might have been submitted at a later stage—for example, when the individual decides to appeal a decision.
I understand that the member for Lalor has been involved in a lot of law cases before. Surely it is absolutely natural justice that the person who is seeking to have the very best outcome for their condition is comforted by the knowledge that all stages of the process have the same information to consider. That is what this is about. I know for a fact that the Mental Health Council, which I have worked very closely with, is one of the very close allies of the Howard government in producing some of our best mental health outcomes—for example, the Mental Health First Aid Kit—
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard interjecting—
EM6
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
Dr STONE
—Yes, the member for Lalor sniggers. She would not know about any of that work, I know. This is about making sure that when people with a disability present additional information, often medical information, it is made available at other stages of the process where that information may not originally have been presented. It is that simple. I strongly suggest that you do not support the amendment of the opposition, and that we move quickly to support the Social Security Amendment (2007 Measures No. 2) Bill 2007, as presented.
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
57
Dr STONE
(Murray
—Minister for Workforce Participation)
13:19:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2007
57
Bills
R2879
Second Reading
57
Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Abbott:
That this bill be now read a second time.
57
13:20:00
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
0
0
Ms ROXON
—I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. The bill proposes to rectify some unintended consequences of two sets of major health sector reforms implemented by the government earlier this year—that is, the private health insurance reforms, which commenced on 1 April 2007, and the pharmaceutical benefits scheme reforms, the first tranche of which came into effect on 1 August 2007.
Labor supported the original legislation in these two areas, with some amendments, and will support this bill. Can I say at the outset that I am disappointed that we have to revisit and correct aspects of these reforms so quickly. Perhaps the government should be spending a little less time worrying just about their re-election and a tad more time governing the country while they are still in control of the reins. It is disappointing to us to have to be here when very detailed, complex legislative packages have already been through the parliament and through a Senate process.
It may be that the government might actually understand that some of our arguments for having proper consultation periods with initial sets of legislation and allowing for Senate processes might have detected these problems earlier. I am sure that it is very frustrating for the department to have to encourage the Minister for Health and Ageing to come back here and rush through another set of changes after we have been through such a complex process already. So I put on the record that, although we are happy enough to support these changes, we think it is a real indication that the government are not concentrating on the business of governing any longer, that they have become so focused on an election that has not even been called that they do not seem able to take care to get the detail right in their legislation. These two legislative packages were important, they were complex changes and we dealt with both of them in a fairly rushed environment, if I recollect correctly. The fact that we are revisiting them again so soon after their respective commencements points to poor management of detail by the minister when implementing major changes to the health sector.
I have to emphasise as well that, despite the fact that these amendments relate to a package of changes that have been in place since 1 August and 1 April, the first we learnt of this legislation was Wednesday. The bill was introduced by the minister on Thursday and here we are debating it today in the House. I understand that it is listed for debate in the Senate tomorrow. To top all of this off, to add to our litany of complaints about the day-to-day management of legislation going through this House, we were informed last night that there are further amendments to the bill that we will be debating today as well.
I think this smacks, as I say, of a minister and a government who really have stopped paying attention to the detail of governing. They seem to think that legislation is something that should just happily go through this place. Somehow or other the departments and bureaucrats will make it all happen and will be left to tidy up any mess, and the minister should have no accountability for not being able to introduce major legislative reform without us having to be back here within months of that legislation passing the first time. But we have become used to expecting that as the way that the minister operates.
Given that the minister’s favourite phrase at the moment is something similar to that, it may be worth his staff and the departmental officials who are here reminding the minister that you cannot be a serious health minister if you do not have a health policy and you cannot be a manager of government business if you cannot actually manage government business. This bill today is a perfect example of a minister who has stopped being a health minister, who has not got across the detail, who cannot manage government business and who is wasting the time of the House by requiring us to be back here again because he did not take the time to get the detail right to start with.
I am worried, because legislation is something that should be core work for government. It is detailed work and I do not pretend that this package is not difficult. Probably anybody in the sector would have thought that over a period of years there would be times that we would be revisiting the changes as things were tweaked and problems were picked up in the implementation, but to be doing this so soon after their introduction I think is a sign that the minister did not take the care and attention that was needed in first introducing these bills and did not allow for the processes to run for sufficient time—for example, in the Senate committee. Perhaps industry would have raised these issues earlier.
We know that the minister has officially said that he will not deal with these sorts of issues. He has said that he is not going to concentrate on anything that does not involve the election. He is on the public record as saying that and, as I say, it does leave the poor staff in the department, who are no doubt working hard to make this legislation effective, to pick up the pieces around him.
Let us turn to the detail of the bill before us. Schedule 1 proposes amendments to the private health insurance reforms which commenced on 1 April 2007—my birthday, in fact. What a day for those changes to come into effect!
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey interjecting—
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—I should not have said that, Wilson, should I? These amendments relate most particularly to the arrangements affecting overseas visitors such as tourists, 457 visa holders or overseas students.
To recap, the reforms enacted earlier this year—the Private Health Insurance Bill 2006 and six related bills—introduced a range of reforms to the private health insurance arrangements that included allowing for private health insurers to offer a wider range of products, standardised information about health insurance products, changes to Lifetime Health Cover, changes to prudential arrangements and changes to the role of the regulator—the Private Health Insurance Administration Council. Under the new arrangements, emphasis shifted from the regulation of health funds to the regulation of health insurance products. In addition, various transitional arrangements were introduced.
The reforms included changes that meant that from 1 July 2008 overseas visitors’ health cover would become a general insurance product that could be offered by general insurers and private health funds. Under the new arrangements, overseas visitors’ health cover would not be subjected to the complying health insurance product arrangements established by PHIAC and would not be subject to the community rating arrangements which require insurers to offer products without discrimination on the basis of age, profile, medical history or other risk factors.
This created an inequity between general insurers and private health insurers. While general insurers are not subject to the requirement of the community-rating arrangements and can therefore operate in a risk-rating environment where they can charge higher premiums or refuse cover altogether based on a person’s risk profile, private health insurers who are offering complying health insurance products were bound under PHIAC to community-rating requirements. This potentially placed an unfair burden on the private health funds because private health funds were required to accept risks that their competitors in this particular market—the general insurers—could refuse.
Correcting this potential inequity appears to be the reasoning behind most of the schedule 1 amendments. According to the health minister’s second reading speech:
The act currently provides that all the operational rules of a private health insurer are subject to improper discrimination requirements. However, it was only intended that these requirements apply to the core business of private health insurers—that is, complying health insurance products. The bill will provide that the improper discrimination requirements only apply to complying health insurance products.
A second set of amendments concerns the regulatory environment for overseas visitors’ health cover. The government’s intention under the original reform package was to make the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, or APRA, the regulator for all overseas visitors’ health cover from 1 July 2008 as a general insurance product. According to the health minister’s second reading speech, however, the government has now decided that from July 2008 overseas visitors’ cover offered by private health insurers will be regulated as a health related business by PHIAC, while cover provided by the general insurers will be regulated as a general insurance business by APRA. The explanatory memorandum provides no information about this regulatory change. The only explanation offered by the minister in his second reading speech is that the decision was made after consultation with APRA and PHIAC and that:
This parallel approach will remove the potential for regulatory overlap and minimise the compliance burdens on health insurers who now offer the service, while not preventing potential new providers from entering the market.
The amendments will remove the requirement that health funds who offer overseas visitors’ health cover during the transition period from 1 April 2007 to 30 June 2008 must offer it as a complying health insurance product. In essence, this means that insurers can offer products to travellers that do not provide the full or same cover as that offered to residents. It also means that health insurers and general insurers will be treated consistently in providing these products to travellers. Penalties for not offering this as a complying health insurance product will also be removed, retrospective to 1 April 2007. We understand from the Australian Health Insurance Association that the private health insurance industry is generally in favour of these amendments and in fact has been trying to have a number of the minor issues fixed in this fashion. So, as I indicated at the beginning, we will support these amendments.
Turning to schedule 2, these amendments concern the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme reforms which came into effect on 1 August 2007. To recap for the House, in May 2007 a bill amending the pharmaceutical provisions of the National Health Act was introduced into the House of Representatives. Subsequently, the bill was passed by the Senate and came into effect on 1 August 2007. The legislation introduced significant structural changes to the pricing of medicines subsidised under the PBS and was the subject of a Senate committee inquiry.
The amendments in this bill propose to clarify and correct provisions in the recent reform package that affect the pharmaceutical benefits around pharmacists: firstly, supplying substituted brands of prescribed medicines; secondly, supplying repeats of medicines; and, thirdly, supplying medicines early. Prior to the implementation of the new legislation in August 2007, pharmacists could substitute an equivalent brand under the early supply arrangements. However, the reforms introduced in August inadvertently narrowed the definition under the early supply provision so that pharmacists could no longer substitute different brands. This bill proposes allowing the substitution of different brands under the early supply arrangements, provided the brands are described as equivalent in the schedule. In essence, the changes here ensure that pharmacists can continue to substitute in the way they did prior to the changes, as well as in the new ways that will be encouraged by the major reforms of earlier this year.
Let me deal briefly with those three different categories. In relation to substitution arrangements, under brand substitution arrangements pharmacists are allowed to substitute to the lowest priced approved bioequivalent generic product with the permission of the patient and provided the prescriber has not directed otherwise on the prescription. The government subsidises only to the lowest priced drug in the defined subgroup and consumers pay any difference in price in addition to the usual copayment. This bill clarifies that a prescriber does not need to specify the exact brand of medicine when writing the prescription. A prescription will be valid even if the brand is not specified, although a listed drug and its dosage or form must be specified. The bill further proposes restricting substitution arrangements to only those medicines specified in the schedule so that pharmacy prepared medicines do not qualify as substitutes.
In respect of repeats, the bill proposes applying permissible repeat prescription arrangements to schedule equivalent medicines. Under PBS arrangements, a prescription can specify a number of repeats so that the patient does not need to return to their doctor to obtain a new prescription every time they complete a course of medicine. The maximum number of repeats for a subsidised medicine is specified in the schedule. The proposed amendments prevent the number of permissible repeats being exceeded by prescribing more than one schedule equivalent medicine in a prescription.
Finally, on the early supply provisions, under the PBS arrangements, when a patient has a repeat prescription for a PBS medicine they normally cannot obtain repeat scripts until 20 days after the supply of the original prescription. This is designed to prevent stockpiling of medicines. However, in special circumstances, the patient can obtain a script early or immediately under the immediate supply provisions of the PBS—for example, if the original medication is lost or damaged. These early supply prescriptions do not count towards the PBS safety net.
We understand that industry groups have been consulted on these amendments concerning the PBS reform, and, while the Generic Medicines Industry Association have expressed their support for the amendments, we understand that Medicines Australia has questioned the need for these reforms. We also understand that Medicines Australia has flagged some additional recommendations regarding the need for the minister to seek Therapeutic Goods Administration advice before something is declared bioequivalent. I would welcome clarification from the minister or departmental officials about where this stands.
I fear that this issue flags that we might be back before the parliament again for yet another set of changes on these issues. The minister may not have been here for the start of my speech, where I indicated our support for these changes and our understanding that we are dealing with complex reforms. But to be so quickly back before the parliament on two major reform packages that the government has been very proud of and to be having to fix up work that the minister did not pay sufficient attention to the first time around indicates that the minister has taken his eye off the ball in terms of his ordinary duties as health minister and become far too focused just on electioneering. Minister, the community expects you to continue to do your duty as the health minister. Perhaps take a little more care in passing legislation through this House in the first place and allow sufficient time for it to go through Senate committees and for adequate consultation with industry and consumer groups so that major changes like this are passed in the best possible format and we are not repeatedly here before the House month after month making minor changes that could have been dealt with earlier. We would ask that the minister and his office continue to keep us properly briefed if another set of changes is about to be proposed. I flag my concerns that the additional amendments on top of these two that have brought us back to the House today were flagged to us just last night. I know we will be addressing them separately, but we are certainly not in a position to be able to indicate any enthusiastic support or strident opposition for yet another change that was just dropped on our table minutes before we had to debate it.
61
13:35:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
1
0
Mr TUCKEY
—I find it quite interesting that someone legally trained like the member for Gellibrand needs to take advice on the proposed government amendments in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. I am not legally trained and it seems to me that they deal with disclosure of interest in a very proper way. It may have been an omission in the original legislation, but they simply say that, if you have a pecuniary interest and you are a member of the commission involved in making a decision, you have to go out of the room. This is a longstanding issue that arose in local government over years—whether the declaration of a pecuniary interest was sufficient and you could stay there and keep a beady eye on those who voted one way or another or whether you had to leave the room. It appears that that legislation is primarily for that purpose, and it would seem rather strange that that could not be deduced from the very simple words of the government amendment.
As the member for Gellibrand has advised the House, I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat those matters. We are looking primarily at amendments to some very worthwhile legislation that needed some finetuning. It is all right for the member for Gellibrand to blame the minister and further imply that he spends most of his time servicing the parliament in terms of the political interests of this party and the people of Australia, but the people who put this documentation together on our behalf are the parliamentary draftsmen and I think it is bit unfair to criticise them for overlooking a matter that, once an act goes into service, is identified by certain interest groups. Governments and parliaments typically respond to that. This is a piece of legislation that is correcting a too tight definition—just sticking with pharmacies for a minute—of pharmacists’ right to provide alternative drugs of the same manufacture, competency or efficacy. That seems to me to be very sensible.
Secondly, the other proposal is to provide effective and well-regulated private health insurance to visitors to this country. Around the world Australians are always told: ‘Don’t leave the shores of Australia without private health insurance because of the problems you can experience in other countries,’ and we don’t. But what does a nation like Australia do if a backpacker or an elderly tourist comes here and finds themselves needing medical or hospital assistance? Do we tell them: ‘Sorry mate. You’d better die on the doorstep.’ No. Because of the type of people we are, we will take them in. They may not have the financial capacity to pay but the nature and compassion of Australians is such that it becomes a burden on the taxpayer, which could be removed if we encouraged people who have not made arrangements in their home country to take out private health insurance on arrival. It is protection for taxpayers—and I made some points about that earlier today. When people talk about the blame game and say that the Australian parliament should pay for the mistakes of state governments, it means that people pay for a service twice because provisions have not previously been made. So this is very sensible legislation: it makes sure that the services that private insurers can provide are extended more practically to visitors.
As has already been said, the alterations to the pharmacy legislation are to make more opportunities. I am not surprised that Medicines Australia are not entirely enamoured of this legislation, because they are dependent on their brand names and defend them very rigorously. I do not necessarily criticise them for that; they spend a lot of money in building up a brand name. They might be the original investors, but eventually their products go out of patent and as such they no longer have any protection other than their brand. If legislation is such that pharmacists are restricted to one brand, it is an extra cost to the taxpayer and/or the person seeking those drugs. All this makes a lot of sense. As I said, I see nothing of great complexity in the government’s amendments, and maybe the minister who is present will be able to enlighten the shadow minister if she is listening on the television set—she is not here, of course—on that matter.
In closing, there is one aspect of this debate that this legislation gives me an opportunity to speak to—the great benefit that private health insurance and the private hospital system bring to the people of Australia. I have to say to the minister that we still have some silly provisions like community rating, which says a good risk pays the same premium as a bad risk. That is just a silly concept in the field, but it is there and it has some iconic status. It is a message to the young and the healthy not to privately insure, but we have other sorts of sticks and carrots to try and bring those people into the private insurance arena.
In the dying days of the Keating government, there was a clear conspiracy to destroy the private hospital system, and that was done because private hospitals survived on private health insurance. Private health insurance, because it had to assume all the bad risks, had a rapidly escalating premium structure and, for every massive increase, there was a corresponding departure of those who thought they were unlikely to use the services—the good risks, which are fundamental to all insurance policies. So there was a massive escalation in premiums and the participation of Australians crashed, and there were private cheers in the backdoor ranks of the then Labor government because this was their intention.
It is interesting to note that—although I think they might stop using the word—in his early remarks the Leader of the Opposition, in giving some suggestions as to how they might overcome the disastrous management of public hospitals by state government agencies and Labor governments, said, ‘If they won’t do this, I’ll just nationalise it.’ That is a pretty interesting comment because I was around when Australia was deeply concerned by the intentions of a particular Labor Prime Minister who wanted to nationalise the banks.
Nationalisation has all sorts of implications. There is a service available in the world called the British National Health Service, and I have had some inside information on that from a relative of mine who served within that system, building up her experience to become a specialist. She was only able to give five-minute interviews to the patients who came before her. In her first day she was attacked by one of her patients who said, ‘I’ve been waiting two hours.’ When she went out to the receptionist she said, ‘How could this happen?’ The receptionist said, ‘Well, we book one in every five minutes.’ Yet in the particular specialty involved there was a requirement to disrobe. That is British national health.
Of course, the first rule of running a public hospital is not to have too many patients, because you have got a block budget and a patient is a liability. So if you are an administrator you have to be careful about them. How do you address that? You address it with waiting lists. Con Sciacca, a man whom I admired in this place because he did so much for veterans, decided during his time as a minister to sell the veterans hospitals that were the property and the responsibility of the federal government. It is of great interest to me that whilst New South Wales and Victoria decided to take on the responsibility for those hospitals under their public hospital systems, the governments of Queensland and Western Australia said, ‘No, thanks,’ and a company called Ramsay Health Care took over.
I do not know how it worked out in Queensland but, as the then shadow minister for veterans’ affairs, I know very well how it turned out in Western Australia. The representatives of the RSL were deeply concerned about losing the umbrella of government in terms of the management of that hospital in Western Australia. Yet they told me, weeks after the takeover by Ramsay, that they were delighted. Suddenly, those of their membership who were in the hospital were actually having meals that were cooked within the hospital, instead of frozen TV dinners. And the waiting list of 10 months for elective surgery was wiped out in three months by a rather simple measure: the Ramsay people opened the operating theatres on Saturdays. I do not know what sort of AWA they used, or anything else, but they gave a service on Saturdays and because this very expensive technology—which should clearly operate seven days a week—was able to be utilised for an extra day they were able to wipe out the waiting list at that hospital. Why? Because they had a contract with the government that said, ‘We pay you for the people you look after.’ That is the same contract the private hospitals have with private health insurers. In other words, there is an incentive under private health insurance to give people prompt and timely service. The public hospital system works on exactly the opposite arrangement, that you cannot afford to have too many people in your hospital.
I just wanted to make those points, and this particular legislation has given me the opportunity to do so. I do not want to hold up the House too much more. I am sure the minister can satisfy the member for Gellibrand on the areas of her concern as to what is otherwise quite simple legislation. But we should never forget that had the Labor government of the period been elected for another term of office, I do not think we would be talking about private insurance today. Of course, measures have been taken, and one of the most important is that we now give a subsidy of between 30 and 40 per cent to older persons to ensure they can get prompt service out of the private health industry. Thank you very much.
64
13:48:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
0
Mr ABBOTT
—in reply—I do not want to further detain the House other than in ways that are absolutely necessary. I thank both the member for O’Connor and the member for Gellibrand for their contributions in the debate on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. I particularly thank the member for Gellibrand for the time she has taken to delve into this and to assess it. I will not repeat what was covered in the second reading speech but, in considering the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme amendments in this bill—and I think this will help the member for Gellibrand—I want to clarify the process which underpins the flagging of a pharmaceutical benefit in the PBS to show that it can be substituted for another equivalent pharmaceutical benefit or benefits. The practice for determining equivalence is that a sponsor has submitted evidence to the Therapeutic Goods Administration that a medicine has demonstrated bioequivalence or therapeutic equivalence against another medicine. The Therapeutic Goods Administration may also conclude bioequivalence between two medicines on the basis of the route of administration and the formulations of the products concerned. Bioequivalent and therapeutically equivalent medicines can be expected to produce the same clinical effects and to have the same safety. This is a technical assessment, and it is my intention that this practice will continue in effecting the provisions outlined in the bill. I commend it to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
64
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
64
13:50:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
0
Mr ABBOTT
—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit “item 4”, substitute “items 4 to 4B”.
(2) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 3 (after line 18), at the end of the Part, add:
4A Subsection 270‑45(4)
Omit “The *member”, substitute “Unless the Minister or the Council otherwise determines, the *member”.
4B At the end of section 270‑45
Add:
(5) For the purposes of the Council making a determination under subsection (4) in relation to a *member who has made a disclosure under subsection (1), a member who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matter to which the disclosure relates must not:
(a) be present during any deliberations of Council for the purposes of making the determination; or
(b) take part in the making by the Council of the determination.
These amendments amend the bill to include an amendment to section 270-45 of the Private Health Insurance Act dealing with conflicts of interest of members of the Private Health Insurance Administration Council. The section presently provides that any direct or indirect pecuniary interest of a council member, however minor, must be disclosed and disqualifies council members from participating in related discussions or decisions. This has emerged as an issue because half of the current council members are covered by the same private health insurer, and application of the section in its current form would limit the council’s consideration of that insurer’s affair. The amendment will provide that, if a member does disclose a pecuniary interest, the minister or the other council members may determine that the member can still take part in discussions and decisions. I expect that the council will take a common-sense approach to the operation of this provision and allow a member to take part in deliberations if the only pecuniary interest he or she has is as a policyholder in common with all other policyholders. However, if necessary, I will issue guidelines for use by the council.
65
13:52:00
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
0
0
Ms ROXON
—I need to indicate the Labor Party’s concerns about the late notice that we have had for these amendments. As I said in speaking on the bill as a whole, there were two sets of major reforms passed by this House only months ago; we are here again debating changes to them and, in addition to that, last night we received these further amendments, which relate to conflicts of interest for the council members of PHIAC.
I cannot indicate that we are enthusiastic supporters or strident opposers of these further amendments, because, frankly, they have not been properly considered; we have not had any opportunity to talk with stakeholders about them. Contrary to what the member for O’Connor said earlier—that this was just a simple matter; it was the sort of way that conflicts of interest had been dealt with since time immemorial—this is a change which is completely contrary to the sorts of approaches that have been taken in the past.
It sounds to me, from the minister’s opening comments, that these are sensible changes. We clearly do not want to be in a position where six members of the council cannot deal with certain regulatory matters simply because they are policyholders. I do think that it would be appropriate for there to be some consideration from others as to whether this is the appropriate way to deal with these changes. I am concerned that the council members themselves will determine whether or not there is a sufficient conflict of interest to require them to disqualify themselves.
We are left in a position where we have to trust that the government has properly considered the importance of maintaining the highest standards of independent decision making. I flag that we will pursue this matter in the other place if need be. It seems, from the government’s own description of what is intended by these amendments, that they are sensible ones. We will take advice and a little extra time to assess whether or not Labor supports these changes.
I encourage the minister, if he is interested in legislation passing smoothly through this House, to provide the opposition with appropriate notice and appropriate briefings. We had his staff and departmental officials in the office first thing this morning, briefing us on another piece of legislation which has urgently been required to be rushed through the House. It might have been sensible to flag, at that time, that these amendments were there and to provide a briefing to the opposition. These are just basic courtesies as to the way parliament should work. We are anxious that the minister still continue with those, although his mind is clearly focused on electioneering rather than the detail of health legislation. It would make the processes of getting bills through this House much simpler if he would comply with those basic courtesies.
66
13:55:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—I am sure it would facilitate the House if we had additional contributions to take us up to question time. I take the opportunity provided by the bill to pass comment on, and to express shock and amazement at, the health minister’s attitude towards the funding of a Medicare licence for Newcastle and the Hunter region’s PET scanner. I cannot believe two things: first of all, that the health minister continues to deny the residents of the Hunter region the opportunity to access that PET scanner and, second, his decision to ridicule the Labor Party for its decision to make that very commitment. I put it to the minister: why is it that the residents of the Hunter region cannot have access to a PET scanner when residents elsewhere in the country can?
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Hunter might think that he is assisting the chamber but he is not, and being so far out of relevance with the matter before the chair is not helpful.
66
13:56:00
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
0
0
Ms ROXON
—I would like to politely query that ruling when, of course, the consequences of dealing with private health insurance, what can be covered by private health insurance, and these changes are very much within the ambit of the concern of the member for Hunter, whose constituents are forced to rely on inadequate public services because of the lack of funding for this scheme. It is really quite relevant to the proceedings before the House, and I think that perhaps you might reconsider your ruling.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—There was no ruling. There was guidance to the member for Hunter that he return to the question before the chair. The honourable member for Gellibrand knows that there are forms of the House to question a decision of the chair, and no reflection should be made.
66
13:57:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—I acknowledge that I was ranging very broadly, and I apologise to the chair if I have caused any stress or put the chair under any pressure. This is a great opportunity for the health minister to stand in this place now, on this day, before question time and explain to the residents of the Hunter region why they should not have access to a PET scanner, while so many other Australians have that access. That is his opportunity today: to stand here and explain, firstly, why residents of the Hunter do not have that access and, secondly, his justification for ridiculing the Labor Party for making a similar commitment. I say to the health minister: here is your opportunity to stand at the dispatch box right now, on this day, and make that commitment to the people of the Hunter region.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
67
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Minister for Health and Ageing)
13:58:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being almost 2 pm, we will now move straight to question time.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
67
14:00:00
Questions Without Notice
Defence
67
14:00:00
67
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
Ms GILLARD
—My question is to the Special Minister of State. I refer the minister to a community meeting last week in his seat of Eden-Monaro where Labor candidate and decorated soldier—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Members on my right!
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I refer the minister to a community meeting last week in his seat which Labor candidate and decorated soldier Colonel Mike Kelly addressed. I refer the minister to a question posed by his chief of staff, Peter Phelps, to Colonel Mike Kelly asking if he compared his military service in Iraq to that of Nazi guards at the Belsen concentration camp. Does the minister endorse his chief of staff’s conduct and what will he do about it?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister is not required to be responsible for other people but, if he chooses to answer, he may do so.
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMullan
— On a point of order, Mr Speaker: as to the point of principle, if you are saying now that ministers are not accountable to this parliament for their staff that is changing a very important fundamental principle of the accountability of this parliament as articulated previously by the Prime Minister.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Fraser has made his point. I remind the member for Fraser that in the standing orders as applied to questions where the questions are derogatory statements or are critical of other people then they should be on notice. But the Special Minister of State has indicated that he is prepared to answer the question so I call the Special Minister of State.
67
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
Mr NAIRN
—I am aware that a former military lawyer who is standing for the seat of Eden-Monaro invited people from the public—in fact I got an invitation at home as well—to attend a forum. I think that it is only appropriate that individuals in their own private capacity, when invited to attend a forum, go along to that forum and participate in the debate.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Order! The minister has the call.
OK6
Nairn, Gary, MP
Mr NAIRN
—Certainly Dr Phelps was there. He went along in his personal capacity and participated in debate at that forum, as I understand it and as passed on by my chief of staff the day after it occurred. As he was invited he decided he would attend and he participated in the debate.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 98(c)(ii) which requires that a minister can be questioned on the following matters for which he or she is responsible or officially connected, including—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will resume his seat. The question has been asked and the minister has given his response. I call the next question.
Taxation: Income Tax
68
68
14:03:00
Barresi, Phillip, MP
ZJ6
Deakin
LP
1
Mr BARRESI
—My question is to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the rates and thresholds which currently apply in the personal income tax system? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies?
68
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to turn around and face the front, please, whilst I give this answer. Those who are watching—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The level of interjections is far too high. The Treasurer has the call and the Treasurer will be heard.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—The Leader of the Opposition has turned his back rather than listen to the answer, and I think it would be just as well if he did listen to the answer because I am asked what the tax rates and the tax thresholds are in Australia. As a result of this government’s reforms, the tax rates are 15 per cent, 30 per cent, 40 per cent and 45 per cent. Those tax rates apply from $6,000, $30,000, $75,000 and $150,000. So the proper tax rate of 45c applies to your first dollar of earnings over $150,000. That is a much improved tax scale on the one Labor left the country with.
On AM this morning the Leader of the Opposition was asked about his tax policy—this elusive tax policy which cannot be published and is not known. He said that the Australian public would be let into the secret of what Labor’s tax policy is. I think that the Australian public would like to be let into the secret on what Labor’s tax policy is. Since the Labor Party demands on a daily basis that an election be held, they might have the decency to actually release a policy so that people could know what it is.
If AM went badly for the Leader of the Opposition, he had one of those ‘I wish the ground would open up and just swallow me’ days when he went out to Eden-Monaro. After boasting about his tax plan, he was asked a very simple question at his doorstop interview today. He was asked this question: ‘The government’s tax plan, the tax policy in the budget: can you name for me the rates and the thresholds where those rates kick in?’ It was a pretty straightforward question: what are the tax rates and where do they kick in? The journalist said they were of this year, from 1 July.
The Leader of the Opposition will keep his back turned throughout this answer because he does not want to front up to his own ignorance on economic policy. This is the answer that the Leader of the Opposition gave when he was asked a very simply question to name the tax rates and the tax thresholds. He said:
Well, as of July 1, if you went through the four thresholds, I think the high threshold kicks in I think at $175,000 then I think it cascades down the spectrum.
He could not name a single rate, he could not name a single threshold, and the one threshold that he named of $175,000 does not exist.
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr Speaker, I ask you to ask the Treasurer to stop shouting into the microphone.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I call the Treasurer. The Treasurer is in order.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—He could not name a single rate, he could not name a single threshold, and the one that he named of $175,000 does not exist. And then he said:
... I think at $175,000 then I think it cascades down the spectrum.
Tax thresholds do not cascade. Cascade is a form of beer. It is not a form of tax threshold. This would be amusing if it were not serious. The Leader of the Opposition does not know what the Australian taxation system is. He does not understand it and he should never be put in charge of people’s mortgages, their businesses or their jobs.
Underneath the glib responses, underneath the media stunts and underneath the practised indifference—where he still has his back turned as if he is in deep conversation about nothing so that he does not have to front up to this ignorance—there is no economic substance. He has never cared about economic policy. He has no interest in it. He has never understood economic policy. He was exposed as a fraud on productivity and we do not hear him talking about productivity very much anymore. And now he has been exposed as being naked when it comes to understanding the tax system.
The income tax system raises over $100 billion for government services in this country. If you do not understand the income tax system, you cannot understand the Australian economy. He is a Leader of the Opposition on trainer wheels—not coming to grips with economic policy, not understanding it and not being able to look the Australian people in the eye and say that he has an economic plan. He has no plan because he has no understanding.
Defence
69
69
14:10:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
Ms GILLARD
— My question is to the Special Minister of State. I refer to the following exchange with Mike Kelly, a former colonel, at a community meeting in his electorate. Mike Kelly said:
No, I was a soldier, and I did what I was ordered to do.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—The minister’s chief of staff, Peter Phelps, then said:
Oh, like the guards at Belsen perhaps? Are you using the Nuremberg Defence?
Does the minister believe the words that were used are acceptable to be used by anyone in any circumstances, public or private? Given that the words were said by the minister’s chief of staff, does he endorse them; and, if he does not endorse them, what will he do about it?
RH4
Kerr, Duncan, MP
Mr Kerr
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr Speaker, during what was by any measure an exceptionally serious question being asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, there were a series of interjections of a crude and quite unnecessary nature against which you took no action. Frankly, on an issue of this importance we are entitled to have those questions heard and determined by the House without that kind of behaviour on the government’s side.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—As a member of the Speaker’s panel, the member for Denison ought to be well aware that he is reflecting on the chair. I was not aware of what he is referring to. But, before I call the minister, I would say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that I noticed in that question that she was being critical of the character of an individual which, under the standing orders and House of Representatives Practice, means the question should go on notice. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was also at one stage asking for an opinion. But, given that I understand the Special Minister of State will choose to answer the question, I call the Special Minister of State.
70
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
Mr NAIRN
—As I said in my earlier answer, I was not in attendance at that particular forum. My chief of staff did not attend that forum at any direction from me. He was not at that forum as my chief of staff. He attended as a citizen of Queanbeyan who had received an invitation to attend the forum. I cannot particularly comment on whether or not those words were said, because I was not there. However, clearly I would not agree with any comments that might compare the work of Australian soldiers with the work of those in Nazi Germany.
Transport: Road Safety
70
70
14:14:00
Ferguson, Michael, MP
DYH
Bass
LP
1
Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON
—My question today is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister outline to the House how the Australian government is helping to improve the safety of schoolchildren with a practical plan? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches to governing, or trying to govern, Australia?
70
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I thank the member for Bass for his question. I note, incidentally, that in March 1996 the unemployment rate in Bass was 9.9 per cent. I am now happy to report that it has fallen to six per cent. I also note that the Labor candidate in the seat of Bass in the forthcoming federal election is a former organiser with the Australian Services Union, taking her place inevitably and inexorably alongside all the other former trade union officials who are Labor candidates.
Can I also say to the member for Bass that the policy I announced this morning in Queanbeyan—flanked by my colleagues the member for Eden-Monaro; the member for Gilmore, who has campaigned very, very hard on this issue, and to whom I want to pay tribute for her work; and the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, the member for Robertson—was devised without reference to a committee. We actually decided to adopt the policy and we decided to implement it. It means that, from today, we are going to make available some $40 million over a period of four years to fund, up to a cap of $25,000 a bus, the installation of seatbelts in new or retrofitted buses that are used in country and regional Australia. This will be a wonderful addition that will provide additional safety for schoolchildren and additional peace of mind to the parents of those schoolchildren. As we all know, school buses in rural and regional areas travel over longer distances and at higher speeds. Therefore, the risk of accident, the risk of injury and even the risk of death is higher with country school buses than with those in metropolitan areas. This will be available in such a way that at least 375 school buses a year, and at least 1,500 over the four-year period, will get the benefit of this measure. It will provide improved safety for 7.5 million school student bus trips each year.
Can I say to the state and territory governments, whose responsibility this really is: please get on with fixing the situation in metropolitan areas. I know that in some parts of Australian cities these seatbelts have been fitted; in other parts, they have not. Where they have been fitted, I say: ‘Good on the state governments.’ Where they have not been fitted, I say to the state government: ‘Provide a basic service to the children under your charge.’ I think this is a practical initiative which will result in safer travel for our schoolchildren as they go to school on country roads. It is one of those practical measures immediately operating that this government is very committed to.
I want to record my thanks again to the member for Gilmore; the Government Whip; the minister, the member for Robertson; the member for Eden-Monaro; and indeed many other members who have worked very, very hard and have persuaded the government to introduce this long-overdue measure.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
71
Distinguished Visitors
71
14:18:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from the American Council of Young Political Leaders, who are visiting under the auspices of the Australian Political Exchange Council. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
71
14:19:00
Questions Without Notice
Defence
71
14:19:00
71
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
0
Ms GILLARD
—My question is again to the Special Minister of State. I refer the Special Minister of State to the fact that the tape of what occurred at the meeting in his electorate was played on ABC Radio and, when transcribed, read as follows:
MIKE KELLY: ... I was a soldier, and I did what I was ordered to do.
PETER PHELPS—
the minister’s chief of staff—
Oh, like the guards at Belsen perhaps? Are you using the Nuremberg Defence?
If the minister now acknowledges that this statement is unacceptable to have been made by anyone in any circumstance, what does he now intend to do in relation to this conduct by his chief of staff?
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on two points of order. The first relates to standing order 98(c), because this is not connected with the minister’s official business. The second relates to the standing order which says that, once a question has been fully answered, it may not be answered again. The minister has fully answered the question, with all its implications.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The question relates to an answer the minister has already given and it does raise a new point. The question is in order. I call the Special Minister of State.
71
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
Mr NAIRN
—I think I have fully answered that question. I did not hear the ABC report. I was busy representing the people of my electorate when that report was run. I was working closely with my community about the things that are important to them. I can only take the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and discuss these matters with my chief of staff.
Schools: Funding
71
71
14:21:00
Vasta, Ross, MP
E0D
Bonner
LP
1
Mr VASTA
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister inform the House of the government’s record in supporting schools? Are there any threats to this fair funding?
71
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 Bonner for his question. What a great member he has been for the seat of Bonner. In March 1996, unemployment was 6.7 per cent in Bonner; today it is 3.6 per cent. He has been a great member. He came from a small business background, and I understand that he is up against a Labor candidate who would know nothing about small business because, of course, she has been a Labor staffer—not a union member; a Labor staffer.
The Howard government has provided record levels of funding for schools in every year since 1996. I repeat: there have been record levels of funding since 1996 for our schools. This year there will be around $10 billion for our schools. Funding for state government schools particularly has increased by 70 per cent in real terms, even though there has only been a one per cent increase in enrolments over that time. The facts are that 65 per cent of students in state government schools receive 75 per cent of total public funding, 35 per cent of our students attend Catholic and independent schools and those schools receive a total of 25 per cent of public funds.
We believe in supporting parental choice. We do not believe in punishing parents for choosing to send their children—
0K6
Bartlett, Kerry, MP
Mr Bartlett
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 91. The members on the other side continue to disrupt. It is hard to hear the answer to the question, with the Chief Opposition Whip walking around deliberately trying to create a diversion. I ask that you bring the other side into order.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister has been asked a serious question. The minister will be heard.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—The Howard government believes in supporting parental choice. We do not believe in punishing parents who choose to send their children to a Catholic or independent school.
The member for Bonner has asked if there are any threats to this fair support that we provide for parents. I have to tell the member for Bonner: yes, there is a threat, in the form of Labor in lock-step with the Australian education unions. Labor and the unions are ideologically opposed to funding Catholic and independent schools. When they were in government, they had a ‘no new schools’ policy, which was designed to prevent new Catholic and independent schools from being established. In opposition they had a hit list which was designed to rip money out of particular Catholic and independent schools.
After decades of bias against Catholic and independent schools, all of a sudden the Leader of the Opposition pops up and says, ‘You must believe that Labor has suddenly changed. It has suddenly changed its spots.’ It has not. The unions’ unrelenting attacks on Catholic and independent schools—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I call the honourable member for Perth on a point of order.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr Stephen Smith
—Unlike your personality, Alex. That is—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Perth will come to his point of order or he will sit down.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr Stephen Smith
—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the course of her remarks, the minister for education said that Labor was ideologically opposed to funding Catholic schools.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will resume his seat. The member will not debate a question. The member will resume his seat or I will deal with him.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I will hear the member for Perth.
Government members interjecting—
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr Stephen Smith
—Well, you would know about that, wouldn’t you, John? Some of us remember—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Perth will resume his seat. If the member for Perth continues to abuse the standing orders, I will deal with him.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—As I said, after decades of ideological bias against Catholic and independent school, Labor want us to believe that they have changed their spots. They have not, and I will go on to prove it.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member for Perth asked that an offensive remark be withdrawn. You have not ruled on that.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The member for Perth was asked to resume his seat because, instead of coming straight to his point of order, he started to debate across the table. That is an abuse of the proceedings process of the House.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr Stephen Smith
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Perth will get straight to his point of order.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr Stephen Smith
—The minister for education said that we were ideologically opposed to funding Catholic schools. That is sectarian—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—There is not a point of order, and the member for Perth is warned!
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister made an offensive remark and I ask that it be withdrawn.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I listened carefully. That was not unparliamentary language. I am ruling on it and the member for Lilley will resume his seat. The minister has the call.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—I will tell you what was grossly offensive: the hit list that was going to take money away from Catholic and independent schools.
00AMR
King, Catherine, MP
Ms King interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Ballarat is warned!
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—That was grossly offensive to the parents of the 1.1 million students who attend Catholic and independent schools in this country. The unions’ unrelenting attacks on Catholic and independent schools, as demonstrated by the advertisements that they are running, totally misleading advertisements, are also borne out by what the unions say. In a submission to the Senate inquiry into Commonwealth funding for schools, they state this:
The Australian Education Union has long opposed any funding to private schools.
That is what the Australian Education Union says. In March this year, a press release from the New South Wales Teachers Federation said:
The New South Wales Teachers Federation will continue to campaign for
… … …
-
a redistribution of funds from private schools to public schools.
The Australian Education Union is working in lock-step with the Labor Party. Just a few weeks ago the Labor Party adopted the union position on education funding—again this year—and it is now up on their website. The Labor Party’s national platform restates the hit list formula. We know it, you know it and the public knows it. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to publish the list of schools that the Labor Party will take money away from.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Melbourne will withdraw that unparliamentary remark.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Melbourne will withdraw that statement or I will deal with him.
Opposition members—You allowed it yesterday.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Melbourne will withdraw that remark.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner
—Why is it okay for him to say it, but it’s not okay for me?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Melbourne is named.
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Leader of the House)
14:30:00
—I move:
That the member for Melbourne be suspended from the service of the House.
Question put.
14:34:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker)
86
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.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Downer, A.J.G.
Draper, P.
Dutton, P.C.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A.
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Howard, J.W.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Jensen, D.
Jull, D.F.
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. *
McGauran, P.J.
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.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
58
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
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.
Rudd, K.M.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The honourable member for Melbourne is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours under standing order 94(b).
The member for Melbourne then left the chamber.
Schools: Funding
74
74
14:37:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is to the Prime Minister and it follows the extraordinary answer given just now by the Minister for Education, Science and Training. I refer to the OECD report Education at a glance for 2007. Isn’t it the case that Australia has the third lowest proportion of public expenditure on education in the OECD, that Australia’s proportion of public expenditure on education is 14 per cent below the OECD average and that Australia’s proportion of public expenditure on education has declined by nearly six per cent since 1995? Why, after 11 years in office, is the government’s report card on education ‘fail, fail, fail’ and what plans will the Prime Minister now outline to the House to deal with his demonstrable failure on education policy?
75
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—In reply to the Leader of the Opposition, the OECD report is based on old data and therefore is wrong. The new data shows the very healthy financial position of the university sector. I ask the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly can accumulate a few more facts about things, to bear this in mind: the OECD analysis excludes HECS and other Australian government public subsidies to students. It leaves HECS out. I would have thought that was a fairly fundamental omission, and I would have thought there would be bipartisan agreement that it was a fundamental omission—not a fundamental injustice but a fundamental omission—because HECS was introduced by a Labor government in the 1980s, with the support of the opposition. The report leaves out 75 per cent of our vocational education expenditure, it leaves out our childcare subsidies which support early childhood education, and it also leaves out all new education expenditure since 2004. These facts would have been available to the Leader of the Opposition. He either knew this when he asked the question and was nonetheless prepared to mislead the parliament and the Australian people or, alternatively, he was not adequately briefed by his staff before he raised the matter in parliament. The truth is that this government’s record of supporting both public and private education is second to none not only around the world but also in the history of this country.
E09
Owens, Julie, MP
Ms Owens interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Parramatta is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Let me echo the words of the Minister for Education, Science and Training, seeing that the Leader of the Opposition referred to her remark, and let me endorse emphatically what she said about the bias in the Australian Labor Party, the bias in the trade union movement—the chief bankers of Labor—and the bias in the education unions against government support for Catholic and independent schools in this country. It was Australia’s great Prime Minister Robert Gordon Menzies who led the breakthrough for the first time in the history of this country, more than 40 years ago, to give direct financial assistance to Catholic and independent schools. And it will ever be to the credit of this side of politics that we have stood, through those years, shoulder to shoulder with Catholic and independent schools and shoulder to shoulder with Australian parents in their right to choose the school they want to educate their children.
We have never had a hit list. There has never been any doubt as to where we stand in supporting local Catholic parish schools. There has never been any double as to where we stand in relation to low-fee independent schools. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, and I remind the member for Perth that, if it had not been for the vote of Senator Brian Harradine in the Senate way back in 1996, the new schools policy of the coalition would never have become law and scores of low-fee independent schools, which are now the schools of choice for thousands of parents in the outer suburbs of the cities of this nation, would never have come into existence. That policy, which we introduced in 1996, was opposed by the Australian Labor Party. They tried to pass a resolution in the Senate to sink the policy and it was only with the support of Brian Harradine—and I record again my thanks to him—that we were able to get that policy through.
The Leader of the Opposition, in a rhetorical flourish, held aloft the flawed OECD report, and he said it represented ‘fail, fail, fail’ on the part of the government. Let me borrow the rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition and let me say that, when you test him on a knowledge of economics, it represents ‘fail, fail, fail and fail again.’ His first failure was: he does not understand anything about productivity.
A government member—Fail!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—That’s a fail. His second failure was that he mislead Rosanna Harris about his own rental policy. Thirdly, he misled the electors of Corangamite and all the people of Australia on his trade skills proposal—
Government members—Fail!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Fail—and now he does not understand the barest fundamentals of the Australian taxation system. So I would say, in relation to the Leader of the Opposition, when it comes to economics, he has four Fs against his name—failures on all of those counts—and I can assure him we are closely counting.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely, under the standing orders, if the Leader of the Opposition asks a question, he should at least have the courtesy to listen to the response instead of turning around and talking to the opposition.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Moncrieff will resume his seat. The member for Moncrieff would be well aware that the chair does not have authority to insist how people sit in their chairs.
Transport: Infrastructure
76
76
14:44:00
Thompson, Cameron, MP
84C
Blair
LP
1
Mr CAMERON THOMPSON
—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House how the government’s vision for transport is helping to keep the economy strong and provide jobs for working Australians? Are there any threats to these plans?
76
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr VAILE
—I thank the member for Blair for his question. The member for Blair in his local area is a local hero as far as transport infrastructure is concerned, getting into his area one of the largest investments in road infrastructure that was badly needed because of the lack of attention of the state Labor government in Queensland in looking after the people in the Ipswich area. But the member for Blair has done it. Not only that: under his watch while he has been the member for Blair, we have seen unemployment in that electorate fall from 9.4 per cent to 4.7 per cent. That is a great achievement by the member for Blair. He supports every government decision to invest in infrastructure across Australia and not just in his own electorate.
Yesterday, when I announced the approval of a billion dollar investment for a new parallel runway for the Brisbane airport, the member for Blair supported that decision wholeheartedly because he knows what it means for south-east Queensland—it means a boost to the economy in south-east Queensland of $17.2 billion by 2023. He supports economic development and growth because that delivers job opportunities to Australians. We thank him for his support. During the construction phase alone of the new parallel runway at Brisbane airport, 2,700 jobs will be created in Brisbane. That is a significant benefit. But the most significant benefit of this new runway is that it provides the flexibility for the Brisbane Airport Corporation to better manage air traffic in the area. It means that a lot more aircraft will be taking off and landing over Moreton Bay and not overflying the suburbs of Brisbane. That has been stated right through the EIS.
Yesterday I predicted that the Leader of the Opposition, off the back of this decision, would immediately announce another inquiry. Guess what: No. 97 is on its way—it was No. 96 yesterday—another inquiry into a possible curfew at Brisbane airport. That was last night and that was from the Leader of the Opposition. He said he would investigate the need for a night curfew at Brisbane airport. But come this morning, when the member for Lilley was being interviewed on Brisbane radio, he announced another new iteration of Labor’s policy. When he was interviewed and put under a bit of pressure on this issue on ABC radio to answer whether or not he supported a job-destroying curfew and the inquiry that the Leader of the Opposition had announced, the shadow Treasurer said, ‘Labor’s curfew policy would not apply if the majority of flights took off and landed over Moreton Bay.’ That is a bit of a revelation, given the EIS clearly states that, when the new parallel runway operation starts operating, 85 to 95 per cent of all night-time flights will operate over Moreton Bay. There you have your answer. Your answer is in the EIS, so there is no need for the inquiry. But what it indicates to us is that the Leader of the Opposition cannot make decisions. If he cannot make a decision, you cannot lead this country. If you cannot make a decision, you cannot manage a $1.1 trillion economy.
84C
Thompson, Cameron, MP
Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Blair has asked his question.
SU5
Vaile, Mark, MP
Mr VAILE
—But I will leave the last comment about leadership and the ability to make a decision to the member for Griffith. He is quoted in an interview that he did with the Courier Mail with Peter Morley. This is a direct quote about him and his ability to lead this nation. The article reads, ‘With the increasing influence of the Queensland right on federal politics, the ministry may well be within his reach.’ But as for the top job, Mr Rudd said, ‘I don’t believe I have the goods to be Prime Minister.’ We agree.
Education
77
77
14:49:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
0
Mr RUDD
—My question is again to the Prime Minister on education. I again refer to the OECD report card 2007. Prime Minister, isn’t it the case that expenditure on early childhood education in Australia is just 0.1 per cent of GDP compared to an OECD average of 0.5 per cent, placing us equal last for the eighth year in a row? Prime Minister, in the absence of an education revolution, isn’t the nation at risk of leaving our children with a worse education system from the one the nation inherited?
77
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I know that at the beginning of question time the Leader of the Opposition is given a script by the tactics committee. But, when you are confronted with the reality that the report on which the script is based is fundamentally wrong and does not contain any of the policy announcements that have been made, initiatives since 2004—can I just remind him again that the report leaves out—
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Oxley is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—75 per cent of our vocational education expenditure.
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Gorton will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Gorton then left the chamber.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: on what basis did you just exclude the member for Gorton?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business would be well aware that, if he has questions to ask of the Speaker, he will ask them at the appropriate time.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, it is a point of order. On what basis did you exclude the member for Gorton from this parliament?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business would be well aware that, if he wishes to challenge the exercising of 94(a), he should do so under other things; otherwise, I will insist he resume his seat.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: under what standing order have you excluded the member for Gorton?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The answer is, very simply, 94(a).
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I move that the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.
Government members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The members on my right are not assisting. I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that exercising standing order 94(a) is not a ruling; it is a direction. Therefore, the member cannot dissent from the use of 94(a).
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I move that that ruling be dissented from.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that that is not a ruling; it is a direction.
DISSENT FROM RULING
78
Dissent from Ruling
78
14:52:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Manager of Opposition Business
0
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the Manager of Opposition Business have the dissent in writing?
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—I do. This is the first dissent motion in your speakership—
Government members—That is not right!
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—that I have moved, because we on this side—
Government members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Members on my right! The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. He will be heard.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—We know that this is a desperate government. What we have seen in the last two days is a government that has been prepared to engage in any tactic other than to debate the future of the nation. We saw the Prime Minister yesterday in the House say very clearly about the Leader of the Opposition:
... when you know you are lying through your teeth ...
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: is the member putting forward a dissent or a party-political speech? If he is dissenting from your ruling, he has a responsibility to address the issue.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for O’Connor raises a valid point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business is raising a dissent against a ruling. He will stick to the ruling.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—Absolutely, to the core—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business will keep to the point.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—which is the inconsistencies in your ruling. We come into this chamber and we know that they have a majority. We know that they can use that majority. We know that everything is stacked against us in the standing orders and in House of Representatives Practice. But what we expect on this side of the chamber, and what the public expect, is a fair go. But when we raise with you, in consecutive points of order and in questions to the Speaker after question time, the Prime Minister saying ‘when you know you are lying through your teeth’ and you rule him in order, we do not expect you today then to exclude the member for Melbourne from representing his seat for 24 hours after he has used the exact same words and then, on the basis of an interjection, to exclude the member for Gorton for one hour. It is the inconsistency that has this side of the parliament fed up, because we expect a fair go.
The inconsistencies go on. On 25 June 1996, to use just one example, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said about someone on this side of the chamber:
You’re just lying through your teeth …
The foreign minister was asked to withdraw that remark, and he withdrew, as he should of—
A government member—Should have.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—As he should have. Every person on this side of the chamber who is asked by you to withdraw does so out of deference to you and out of respect for this parliament. But what we see are two different sides: on the one hand, this is reminiscent of what happened to the member for Lalor when the Leader of the House showed his leadership on parliamentary standards when he referred to ‘snivelling grubs’. What we saw then was this parliament being brought into disrepute.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Manager of Opposition Business has moved a dissent motion. He will speak to the motion. He will not reflect on the chair.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—Maybe, Mr Speaker, you should comprehend that the nature of a dissent motion is that, if it is carried, you lose your job. This goes to the heart of whether this parliament has confidence in you. But what we have seen over the last couple of days is an orchestrated attempt by a government that is out of touch and out of time and does not want to debate the issues so engages in disruptive behaviour. We saw it in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s first question yesterday, where we had an orchestrated attack from those opposite. We had the Prime Minister and the pretender without courage—Chicken Man—yesterday and the day before giving the finger to the Leader of the Opposition and to those opposite as if that were acceptable. That is the sort of behaviour that we have to put up with time after time.
When we raise points of order, what we get is reminiscent of The Castle—Denis Denuto being asked, ‘Why are rulings being made in the High Court?’ You sit there and you say, ‘It’s the vibe.’ We never get to an actual point of order or to any substance. What we simply get is: ‘That’s the majority, and it’s right. This is the minority and you’re wrong.’ It simply is not good enough. We know that it is sporting finals time, and everyone who follows sport knows that the home team usually gets a bit of an advantage from the umpire, but the figures this year show that 52 Labor members have been ejected and only two—one of which was yesterday—from the coalition. That is a penalty count of 52 to two. But, to be fair, that is consistent because you have excluded more members of parliament than any Speaker before you since Federation. You have excluded 175 Labor members from the House and only five members from the coalition. That shows, Mr Speaker, just how unreasonable the rulings have been.
You ruled question No. 1 today out of order, that the Special Minister of State did not have to answer it, even though standing order 98(c)(ii) makes it very clear that a minister is responsible for answering questions about administration. He is the Special Minister of State. He employs not just all his staff but every staff member in the parliament. He is responsible for it. But you, when there is a difficult question, say that it is optional whether ministers answer them.
Let me tell you that Mr Phelps has put out a press release and in it says, ‘Dr Phelps is the chief of staff to the Special Minister of State but was attending the meeting in a private capacity.’ The only problem is that the media contact, Dr Peter Phelps, uses 0419261416, the phone number paid for by the taxpayer. He is sitting in the office there. He did radio interviews this morning but you ruled that it was somehow optional whether he be accountable to this parliament or not. It is simply the case that those of us on this side of the House do not expect to get an advantage. But we do expect, when there is a clear parallel less than 24 hours apart—such as the Prime Minister’s statement and the statements from the member for Melbourne and the member for Gorton—that you will make a consistent ruling and treat people the same.
We are all accountable to our electorates, and you are accountable to this parliament. Whenever we raise difficult questions to you, you never refer to standing orders; it is just, ‘No, no, the government’s right.’ I have to say that you have a hard job, because the Leader of the House is probably the worst offender in the parliament when it comes to breaching standing orders. Not once has he ever got to that microphone at the dispatch box and referred to standing orders or House of Representatives Practice. That is because the members of the government do not care. Their arrogance is out of control. It is arrogance because they got a Newspoll result that was the same as the Newspoll two polls ago. How arrogant are they going to be if they are re-elected at the election later this year?
That is what we are seeing from this government. It is an arrogant government, out of touch, out of control and out of time. But they do not want to call an election because when you call an election you cannot abuse standing orders in this House, you cannot abuse the advertising budget and get the taxpayers to pay for all your party political advertising. This is a government out of control, and you have a responsibility, Mr Speaker, to be fair dinkum and make consistent rulings so that they are brought back into line. You have failed to do that, Mr Speaker. That is why we are dissenting from your ruling and that is why this dissent motion should be carried, and everyone in parliament knows it should be carried. (Time expired)
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMullan
—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
80
15:03:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ABBOTT
—I certainly do not intend to reproduce the venom and the spleen that we have had from the Manager of Opposition Business here—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Oxley has already been warned.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—because this was a censure of the government. It was not even a motion of—
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Oxley has been warned. I reminded him that has been warned. He continues to interject. He will exclude himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Oxley then left the chamber.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—It was not even a motion of want of confidence in you, Mr Speaker; it was a motion of dissent to one of your rulings and it should have been handled forensically, but unfortunately it was not. What we got from the Manager of Opposition Business was a shrieking rant that was unbecoming of this House. It was certainly not the sort of thing that we should have had from an opposition which is talking about new leadership and from an opposition leader who claims Dietrich Bonhoeffer as his inspiration.
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr Downer interjecting—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business has had his turn.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—For the benefit of the Manager of Opposition Business, let me put his mind—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister for Foreign Affairs has made an offensive remark across the chamber—the same one that the member for Melbourne and the member for Gorton have been excluded for.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—If the Minister for Foreign Affairs has made an offensive remark he will withdraw it.
4G4
Downer, Alexander, MP
Mr Downer
—I withdraw in the meantime, Mr Speaker.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—If the Manager of Opposition Business is going to be taken seriously, he should tell the truth. In the course of his contribution he made two statements that he knows to be untrue. First of all, he claimed that if this motion of dissent is carried you are out of a job. He knows that that is not true. There have been many motions of dissent. Some have been passed in this House and the speakers against whom they have been passed have not lost their jobs. It is only a motion of want of confidence in the Speaker that has the effect that the Manager of Opposition Business claimed. But a more important untruth is that he claimed in his contribution that more people had been suspended from the House under your speakership than ever before. That is absolutely untrue. It is completely untrue. He knows it is untrue and he should not make that kind of misleading statement before this House. This Manager of Opposition Business has no regard for the truth. He has no regard for parliamentary standards. The motion that he has moved cannot be taken seriously by this House.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan
—I rise on a point of order. Could you bring him back to order?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the House is responding to the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. He is entirely in order.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—The bad temper of members opposite began with a perfectly reasonable ruling by you. Just to indicate how reasonable your rulings were in respect of questions directed to the Special Minister of State, let me refer the House to page 545 of House of Representatives Hansard, at which it says:
Questions critical of the character or conduct of other persons must be in writing. Although this rule is generally applied to named persons, it has also been applied to unnamed, but readily identifiable, persons. Such questions may, however, be placed on the Notice Paper. The purpose of the rule is to protect a person against criticism which could be unwarranted. A question in writing...
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan
—What page of Hansard is that?
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—I have certainly read it into Hansard, but it was from House of Representatives Practice. Your ruling, Mr Speaker, was in fact if anything a generous extension of the traditional practice of this House. Far from being some kind of oppressor of the opposition, you are someone who has extended every courtesy to this opposition. In so doing, you have actually extended the traditional practices of this House.
Mr Speaker, if I may say so, the conduct of the Manager of Opposition Business been quite contrary to the standing orders of this House. I refer you, Mr Speaker, to standing order 94(a):
The Speaker can direct a disorderly Member to leave the Chamber for one hour. The direction shall not be open to debate or dissent ...
That is exactly what was dissented from. The Speaker dismissed the member in question from the service of the House. This is the issue that has excited the Manager of Opposition Business. But standing order 94(a) says:
The Speaker can direct a disorderly Member to leave the Chamber for one hour. The direction shall not be open to debate or dissent ...
This is yet another example of the Manager of Opposition Business abusing the forms of the House.
It is very clear that members opposite have had a very bad day. The Leader of the Opposition has been exposed as totally ignorant when it comes to tax. Yesterday, they were exposed as not having a clue about dental policy. We are supposed to believe that this motion of dissent was spontaneously triggered by your ruling when the Manager of Opposition Business plainly came well armed. But what has in fact triggered this motion of dissent is not just the opposition’s embarrassment over their failed dental policy; it is not just the opposition’s embarrassment over their lack of tax policy; it is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition’s question time attack today has completely collapsed.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan
—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The minister is not in order. He is not addressing the standing orders and he is not defending you.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Lilley will come to his point of order.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan
—He is not defending you, he is not relevant and he is not in order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Lilley will resume his seat and I will rule on his point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business in moving this motion gave a fairly wide-ranging speech. The Leader of the House is responding and he is entirely in order.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—Mr Speaker, they have moved this dissent because the Leader of the Opposition’s attack over the OECD report has turned out to be utterly and totally groundless. He did not have any questions, just as he did not have any knowledge of tax policy and just as he did not have any real understanding of dental policy. That is why this motion has been moved: to rescue a failing and floundering Leader of the Opposition.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—Mr Speaker, I rise on the same point of order raised by the member for O’Connor, which you upheld: the question of relevance to a motion of dissent.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the only time I interrupted the Manager of Opposition Business was when he was reflecting on the chair. He was allowed to complete his address. The Leader of the House is responding to the points raised by the Manager of Opposition Business.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—Mr Speaker, on the same point of order, it has been a difficult day and you may not recall that you upheld a point of order on relevance from the member for O’Connor. I am raising the same point of order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made her point.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—Mr Speaker, in conclusion, let me say that you have been a model of courtesy; you have been a model of forbearance. Members opposite walk around this chamber. The Leader of the Opposition deliberately turns his back on speakers. Even after he has asked questions of ministers, he deliberately turns his back. For someone who claims to model himself on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, he is a pretty sad reflection of the decency and courtesy of that man. (Time expired)
83
15:13:00
McMullan, Bob, MP
5I4
Fraser
ALP
Deputy Manager of Opposition Business
0
0
Mr McMULLAN
—If the Leader of the House thinks that the problem is that we do not have any more questions, do not cut off question time after this motion; let it continue. You only let us have seven yesterday; so far, we have only had five. If you think we have not got any more questions, let question time go ahead. We challenge you to let it go ahead and see what happens.
Mr Speaker, what we should be talking about in here is education, but because of the pattern of your rulings—which have been inconsistent and in our view entirely unreasonable—we have been led to this situation of a dissent motion. The most fundamental obligation of the speaker is to show impartiality. House of Representatives Practice—this is this book, Tony; this one here: House of Representatives Practice—says absolutely clearly on page 164:
The Speaker must show impartiality in the Chamber above all else. A Speaker should give a completely objective interpretation of standing orders and precedents, and should give the same reprimand for the same offence whether the Member is of the Government or the Opposition.
We have never had a clearer case of a failure to implement that part of House of Representatives Practice than today. Yesterday, the Prime Minister, as reflected in Hansard—he did not bother to try and change it—talked about ‘lying through your teeth’, and you said it was in order. The member for Melbourne said the same thing, and you called on him to withdraw and said it was not in order. The member for Gorton said the same thing, and you threw him out. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said the same thing, and you asked him to withdraw. That pattern of inconsistency has provoked this point of order, because it has provoked this opposition beyond acceptance, beyond reasonableness. I know, Mr Speaker, that the government behaves so badly that your job is very difficult. We accept that and try to make allowances for it because you have the foreign minister, who has never obeyed the standing orders in 10 years, and the Leader of the House, who does not know what they are and has not referred to them in 10 years.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Fraser is talking to a motion of dissent on standing order 94(a).
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMULLAN
—Absolutely. I was trying to say that you have sometimes been inconsistent in your rulings, and thank you for proving it, Mr Speaker. But what I was actually at the point of making—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will not reflect on the chair.
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMULLAN
—Mr Speaker, I am describing your behaviour.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will not reflect on the chair.
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMULLAN
—Mr Speaker, I am describing your behaviour. If you think it is a reflection, it is your interpretation, not mine. I am simply describing it accurately, because it has been inconsistent and unreasonable. We find it entirely unacceptable, and that is what has provoked this point of order.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a motion of dissent. It is not a motion of censure, and the member for Fraser should certainly not be reflecting on you in the way that he consistently does.
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Lingiari is warned!
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—He should be called to order and, if he refuses to do so, he should be dealt with in your usual fair and impartial way.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the House raises a valid point of order. A motion of dissent is not an opportunity for members to reflect on the chair. The member for Fraser, as an occupant of this chair, should be well aware of that. I ask him to come back to the motion.
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMULLAN
—I do not think I have ever done anything in the chair that warranted a motion like this. The reason we are dissenting—
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a further reflection on the chair. It is open defiance, and it should be dealt with.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Fraser should be well aware that he should not be reflecting on the chair in a motion of dissent, and, if he continues to do so, I will sit him down.
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMULLAN
—The reasons we are dissenting from your ruling are, firstly, that, in our view, it is a wrong and improper ruling and, secondly, it comes as the culmination of a pattern of behaviour. (Time expired)
Question put:
That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.
15:22:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker)
53
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Irwin, J.
Jenkins, H.A.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
84
NOES
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.
Causley, I.R.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Downer, A.J.G.
Draper, P.
Dutton, P.C.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A.
Gambaro, T.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Howard, J.W.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Jensen, D.
Jull, D.F.
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. *
McGauran, P.J.
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.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
* Denotes tellers
Question negatived.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—At a noisy time during question time yesterday, members may not have heard the words which are being complained about today. Firstly, I urge all members to have a look at the Hansard and, secondly, I point out that a member was not expelled for using those words; a member was expelled for 24 hours for defying the chair.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
85
Questions to the Speaker
Speaker’s Ruling
85
85
15:31:00
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
0
Mr BEVIS
—Mr Speaker, my question relates to procedure when the member for Melbourne was at the dispatch box. At no point while the member for Melbourne was at the dispatch box was the microphone system on. My question to you is: at what point did he actually have the call and, if indeed he had the call, why was it that the microphone was not on? Assuming that he did have the call—and I assume he did, based on your comments just then from the chair that he refused to withdraw and defied the chair, and given that none of us could hear that because the microphone was not on—how do you propose that Hansard will record those words of his defiance in the absence of the microphone being on; or is your view, on reflection, that he actually did not have the call at that time any way?
85
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Brisbane and I will certainly check on the question of the sound system. But the member for Melbourne certainly had been called upon to withdraw what he had said.
Question Time
85
85
15:32:00
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
83M
Sydney
ALP
0
Ms PLIBERSEK
—Mr Speaker, I have question to you. It relates to comments made by the member for Indi yesterday when she was mocking the member for Grayndler by saying that he pronounced ‘environment’ as ‘envinement’, and that is recorded in Hansard yesterday, and also to the foreign affairs minister as he was playing bubble breaker during the last debate. He corrected the member for Grayndler, saying that the expression was ‘should have’, not ‘should of’. Aside from these comments being both discourteous and pompous, I wonder whether you would consider counselling these members of parliament. When they behave in this way they are mocking not the member for Grayndler, who is pretty big and tough and can take care of himself, but every other Australian who speaks with an ordinary Australian accent.
85
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I say to the member for Sydney that I think if she refers to the Hansard she will see that in fact I did give the member for Indi a warning afterwards, insisting that she resume her seat immediately. So I did deal with it at the time. I am not aware of the references she has made to a minister.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Members will show respect for the chair.
Parliament: Broadcast of Proceedings
85
85
15:33:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—Last week the Chief Opposition Whip asked me a question about the use of television cameras in the galleries. As the honourable member would know from our previous discussions about this subject, parliamentary staff produce high-quality television coverage of chamber proceedings and make it available to all media outlets on an equal basis. I do not support the use of television cameras in the chamber or its galleries by anyone other than parliamentary staff. The current access arrangements for the media in relation to the chamber are the product of considered investigations and recommendations by parliamentary committees, resolutions of the House and negotiations between successive Speakers and representatives of the Parliamentary Press Gallery over many years. Collectively, these rules provide a sound framework for the media working in the House of Representatives chamber. The current framework supports the important objectives of providing high-quality and appropriate coverage of parliamentary proceedings throughout Parliament House and to the Australian community more generally in accordance with those earlier decisions of the House and its committees.
In relation to the address to the House by the Prime Minister of Canada last Tuesday, over a week ago, approval was given for an extra camera to be used by parliamentary staff in the southern chamber gallery in order to produce better coverage of Prime Minister Harper’s entrance to and exit from the chamber. This approval follows the practice which has developed in support of similar addresses by visitors last year and in the previous parliament.
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE
86
Documents
Annual Reports
86
86
15:35:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I present the annual report of the Australian National Audit Office for 2006-07.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
DOCUMENTS
86
Documents
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Leader of the House)
15:35:00
—Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Migration Act 1958—Section 486O—Assessment of detention arrangements—Government response to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s statements—Personal identifiers 215/07 to 220/07.
Workplace Relations Act—Agreement making in Australia under the Act—Report for 2004 to 2006.
Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
86
Matters of Public Importance
Education
86
86
15:36:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Perth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to adequately invest in the skills, education and training of our people and the need for greater investment in education at every level.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
86
15:36:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—Australians have traditionally looked at education as the one thing which gives a young Australian the chance to maximise potential and get ahead. The chance to get ahead particularly applies to those people who come from lower socioeconomic, disadvantaged or battling circumstances. Education is seen as the great arena of equity, access and opportunity. But these days it is also the case that education is the single most important economic investment that we can make for our nation. Investing in the skills, education and training of our people and our workforce is the single most important thing we can do to ensure our ongoing international competitiveness, to ensure that we take Australia to the next level of productivity and to ensure that we continue to be a prosperous country and give all Australians the opportunity to share fairly in that prosperity.
This absolutely essential economic and social requirement of making greater investments in education at every level—whether it is early childhood, primary, secondary, vocational or technical, university or on-the-job training—has been Labor’s mantra chant all this year. In addition to stressing the importance of that and the need to make greater investments for the future, we have also made this fundamental point. In the old days it may well have been that people looked at investments in education and compared the investment in one state to the investment in another state or the investment in one system to the investment in another system, or looked at educational outcomes from one state or system versus educational outcomes from another state or territory or system. These days, the absolutely essential requirement for us as a nation is to start comparing and contrasting the educational investments that we make internationally and comparing and contrasting the educational outcomes that we achieve as a nation internationally. In education, as in so many other things in life, we are now in an international competition. So it is the international comparisons in terms of both investments and outcomes that are so essential.
For all of this year the Leader of the Opposition and Labor have been making this single important point. Over its period in office, the Howard government has failed to invest enough in education. It has failed to invest enough in the education, skills and training of our people and our workforce. That puts us at risk. It puts our future prosperity at risk. It puts our future productivity at risk. It puts our international competitiveness at risk. That is why all year we have been urging the need for greater investments in education.
At the beginning of this year, we started with an investment in early childhood education, announcing a half-a-billion-dollar program to give every four-year-old whose parents want it the chance of 15 hours of education per week. Why did we do that? Because we know from the work done in Australia by Fiona Stanley, amongst others, and also from the work done internationally by the Canadians in particular that, if we make an educational investment early—particularly if that educational investment comes in respect of someone who may come from a disadvantaged or dysfunctional family or from a family where a culture of learning and study is not necessarily part of that family’s history—that is the thing that gives us the chance to maximise a long-term beneficial educational outcome.
As well as that half-a-billion-dollar investment in early childhood education, we have announced a $2.5 billion program to bring trades training centres into our secondary schools. We have linked that to improving and increasing our secondary school retention rates, which have regrettably stagnated at about 75 per cent over the last decade. We have committed ourselves to increasing our secondary school retention rates to 90 per cent by 2020.
The reason we have done that is, again, that all the evidence in Australia and internationally shows that, if we get a young Australian to complete year 12, to complete secondary school, then that young person effectively doubles his or her chance of going on and getting a further qualification, whether that is a vocational and training qualification, an apprenticeship qualification or a university qualification. It also doubles that young person’s chance of remaining in gainful employment all of his or her adult life. That evidence is backed up by the recent Australian Industry Group and Dusseldorp Skills Forum report that came out a week or so ago.
All year Labor have been saying that we need to make greater investments and all year we have been saying quite rightly that one of the great failings of the Howard government has been to not make enough investments in all of these areas. Today, the publication of the OECD report Education at a glance 2007 again confirms the lack of investment and the neglect and the complacency of the Howard government in this area. The report underlines Labor’s call for an education revolution to make these greater investments. The report underlines Labor’s view that our comparisons necessarily now have to be international; it underlines the fact that the real comparisons now are with what our international competitors and neighbours are doing.
A searing indictment of this report is that it effectively shows that at every level there has been a decline in investment as far as public investment in education is concerned. Let us just go through some of the damning analyses in this OECD report. As a proportion of GDP, public expenditure on education in Australia is 4.3 per cent; the OECD average is five per cent. As a proportion of total expenditure, Australia has the third lowest proportion of public expenditure on education, at 73 per cent, when the OECD average is 87 per cent, and our proportion of public expenditure has declined by nearly six per cent since 1995. We are the third lowest OECD country in terms of our proportion of public expenditure on education. We are 14 percentage points under the OECD average, and we have declined six points since 1995.
Public investment in tertiary education, for example, has declined by four per cent, while in other OECD countries the average increase has been 49 per cent. So in the period of the report—1995 to 2004, the substantial period of the Howard government in office—our public investment in tertiary education declined by four per cent when the OECD average was plus 49 per cent. Our share of public expenditure on tertiary institutions fell from 64 per cent in 1995 to 47 per cent in 2004, and the OECD average for public expenditure on tertiary institutions was 75.4 per cent. As a proportion of GDP, public expenditure on tertiary education was 0.8 per cent; the OECD average was one per cent.
When you go to primary, secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary education, you see the report finds that, as a proportion of total expenditure, Australia has the third-lowest proportion of public expenditure in the OECD. When you go to early childhood education expenditure as a proportion of GDP, Australia’s figure is 0.1 per cent, one-fifth of the OECD average. So for the key area of early childhood investment ours is one-fifth of the OECD average, and for primary, secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary education we have the third-lowest proportion of public expenditure of all OECD countries. That takes you through the searing, damning indictment of the failure of the Howard government to invest adequately in the education, skills and training of our people and our workforce.
The government’s response to that is to say that the report is dealing with old data and does not deal with data from more recent years. A university revenue report came out today, which, coincidentally, the minister released overnight, entitled Finance 2006: financial reports of higher education providers, but what the minister does not say when she looks at the finance of higher education providers is that, when the government came to office in 1996, Commonwealth recurrent funding to universities was 0.9 per cent of GDP; it is 0.6 per cent today. Commonwealth grants to universities, as a proportion of total revenue, decreased from 57 per cent in 1996 to 41 per cent in 2004 and, at the same time, university revenue derived from fees and charges increased from 13 per cent in 1996 to 24 per cent in 2004. As if the universities have not suffered the adverse consequences of that, the staff-student ratio in our universities, on the advice of the vice-chancellors, has increased, from 14.6 in 1995 to 20.4.
So the government says two things today: firstly, that we are dealing with old data and, secondly, that we should look at the revenue sources of the universities. What the minister will not say is that, as a rule of thumb, when the government came to office 57c of each dollar that the universities spent came from the Commonwealth, from the nation state adequately discharging its essential obligation to fund higher education and learning. Now it is close to 40c. So we have seen the universities stress on quality and rely increasingly on other sources: fees from full fee paying Australian undergraduates, fees from full fee paying overseas students and a substantial individual and national increase in the HECS burden.
At question time the Prime Minister said, ‘These figures don’t take into account HECS.’ He made only one mistake: the Leader of the Opposition, in all of his questions at question time today and in all of his comments today that I have heard, referred to public investment, as I have—the nation state discharging a central obligation to ensure that education at every level, whether it is early childhood education, primary or secondary schooling, vocational education and training or education at our universities, is adequately supported by the Commonwealth.
The other point that the minister and the Prime Minister made today is that we have not taken into account the things they have done recently. What a surprise that in this year’s budget the Howard government—after Labor and the Leader of the Opposition called for an education revolution and noted the need for greater investments—responded with the Higher Education Endowment Fund. Does anyone seriously think they would have come up with that if it had not been an election year and Labor had not been making greater investment in education front and centre? The Howard government are so very good in the run-up to an election at coming up with something that it then tries to use as a political fix to mask a longstanding, enduring complacency and neglect. The most serious indictment that can be made of this government is complacency and neglect and not providing for the future of our nation. The government and the nation have had 16 years of continuous economic growth. That is a great thing, a lot of it substantially set up by the structural reforms of the previous Hawke and Keating Labor governments and by, more recently, the benefits of a boom in sales of our resources to China. Whether it is infrastructure or skills or education, the government have completely failed to invest for the long term, to ensure that our investments are adequate on an international comparison, and to ensure that our outcomes are adequate and of a sufficiently high level on international comparisons.
The government has been sprung by this OECD report, and again I will very quickly go to some of the analyses. The OECD report says that, as a proportion of GDP, Australia’s public expenditure on education is 4.3 per cent less than the OECD average of five per cent and that Australia has the third lowest proportion of public expenditure on education in the OECD. It says that Australia’s proportion of public expenditure on education is 14 per cent below the OECD average and has declined by six per cent since 1995. It goes on to say that public investment in tertiary education has declined by four per cent, compared with the OECD average of a 49 per cent increase, with Australia the only country to have a decline in public investment in tertiary education. It further says that public expenditure on tertiary education is 28 per cent lower than the OECD average, that it has declined by 17 per cent since 1995 and that expenditure on childhood education in Australia is 0.1 per cent of GDP, compared with the OECD average of 0.5 per cent.
That is a series of damning indictments. The government is completely exposed here by an OECD report that treats Australia in exactly the same way as all of the other 29 OECD countries, and it comes to a searing, damning indictment. This government has failed to adequately provide for the future of young Australians and for the future prosperity of our nation by failing to invest enough in early childhood education, by failing to invest in primary and secondary education and by failing to invest in postsecondary technical and higher education. The reason the government has done that is that, in the end, its ideological view is that these things should not be part of the central obligation of a nation state to discharge but should be pushed onto individuals and families to fund for themselves. That attitude puts our nation’s prosperity at risk, and for that the government stands condemned. (Time expired)
90
15:51:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues
1
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—The member for Perth’s entire argument on this matter of public importance is based on one OECD report, a report that is riddled with flaws—it is a very flawed assessment of the education system in Australia. First, it is old data. It does not take into account any investment, public or private, since 2004. It ignores the last three years of public and private investment in education. In particular it ignores the $7.9 billion of additional funding that has been announced this year for higher education. Second, it omits all subsidies that the government pays under the HECS system. Third, it omits the majority, about 75 per cent, of the funding in vocational and technical education. The fact is that funding across all levels has increased but specifically in tertiary education it has increased by 31 per cent in real terms.
Labor quotes selectively from this report. It is like Groundhog Day—out comes the OECD report and out come the member for Perth’s usual declarations about it. But what the member for Perth does not do is acknowledge the outcomes that Australia is able to deliver from the investment that it makes in education. Let me take tertiary education as an example. The OECD report shows that our population has one of the highest percentages of tertiary qualifications. We have one of the highest percentages of young people—that is, 19-year-olds—at university across the OECD world. Most importantly, we have the highest level of employment amongst graduates in the entire OECD world.
Labor is so keen to rely on this OECD report—let’s have a look at a comparable OECD report, a report released in 1996. The member for Perth will be fascinated by this, because it shows the position of investment in education as at 1993. Let’s have a look at what Labor did when it was in government at the federal level. Let’s expose the rank hypocrisy of the member for Perth in raising this matter of public importance and let’s destroy any credibility he has on that issue. I remind the member for Perth as he leaves the chamber that in 1993 he was the economic adviser to then Prime Minister Paul Keating. At that time a million Australians were unemployed. At that time 100,000 eligible students were turned away from the universities in this country. The 1996 OECD report for 1993 proves that the member for Perth did not think an investment in education made much economic sense back then.
Take the question of the percentage of the population that had tertiary qualifications. In 1993, 15 per cent of our population had tertiary qualifications. In 2004, 32 per cent of the population had tertiary qualifications, and it is much higher today. Take the number of students at university. In 1993, only 23 per cent of 19-year-olds were at university. That of course is because, in 1993, 100,000 eligible students were turned away from university because the then Labor government was not funding enough Commonwealth supported places. In fact, in the last three years of the Labor government, 300,000 eligible students were turned away from university because the then Labor government did not fund sufficient Commonwealth supported places. In 1993, 23 per cent of 19-year-olds were at university; in 2004, according to the OECD report released today, 35 per cent of 19-year-olds were at university, and it is even higher today. The vice-chancellors of our universities have acknowledged that unmet demand—that is, the number of eligible students unable to get a place at university—has virtually been eliminated and will most certainly be eliminated by next year.
Here’s a doozy: when the member for Perth was the economics adviser to then Prime Minister Paul Keating, back in 1993, expenditure on tertiary education as a percentage of GDP was 1.1 per cent. The figures released by the OECD today show that in 1994 that increased to 1.6 per cent of GDP. Back in 1993, the figure was 1.1 per cent of GDP, when we were in the middle of a recession. In 2004, it was 1.6 per cent of GDP, when we were in the middle of a booming economy.
In 1993, when Labor was in government, total expenditure on all education relative to GDP was 4.9 per cent. In a recession, 4.9 per cent of GDP was the total expenditure on education. In the figures released today for 2004, it is 5.9 per cent. The expenditure on education relative to gross domestic product is 5.9 per cent in a booming economy, an economy that is outstripping virtually every other OECD economy. These figures again do not take into account the huge investments that have been made in education since 2004, including the $7.9 billion boost that we have given to higher education this year.
The fact is that when we came to office we were saddled with a $96 billion debt from the Labor Party; the Labor Party in government left a $96 billion debt. As we have paid off that debt since 1996, and as we have not had to find $9 billion each year to pay off the interest on that debt, we have been able to increase our investment in education. So we are paying off the debt and we are increasing our investment in education. The member for Jagajaga would be interested in that—as we have paid off Labor’s debt we have increased the funding to our universities.
The Howard government has invested record levels of funding in schools, in vocational and technical education and in universities. We have been able to invest because of our strong management. We have paid off Labor’s debt and we are now in a position to invest even more in education, as shown by our announcement of a $6 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund, a perpetual growth fund for the benefit of our universities for decades to come. As I said, the $9 billion that we used to have to find to spend on interest payments on Labor’s $96 billion debt can now be invested in our schools, in vocational training and in our universities.
It is worth thinking about Labor’s legacy. Labor puts itself forward as an alternative government. What did it leave the Australian people after 13 years in government, from 1983 to 1996? We went through one of the worst recessions in the nation’s history; unemployment peaked at one million Australians and 300,000 eligible university students were turned away from university because of a failure to fund enough Commonwealth supported places. Real wages decreased under Labor by 1.8 per cent and homeowners were hit with 17 per cent interest rates. Labor governments closed technical colleges and deprived a whole generation of young Australians of a technical education. A generation of young Australians had their aspirations, their hopes and dreams, taken away from them. They could not get a job. They could not get an apprenticeship. They could not get a place at university. Labor talks about skills needs. We need look no further than when Labor was in power to see the policy failures that have led to a lack of skilled workers—and all this was when the member for Perth was economics adviser to the Prime Minister at the time, Paul Keating. The member for Perth oversaw failed policy after failed policy. He was part of the team that gave the Australian people the ‘recession we had to have’. It is a shameful record, and the member for Perth was part of it.
Let me also refer to another matter regarding the OECD report. The report fails to recognise that, in Australia, parents have choice in education. In Australia, we have a strong public education sector and a strong private education sector. Particularly in primary and secondary education, parents choose to send their children to schools where they pay fees. They send their children to Catholic and independent schools. On this side of the House we support parents in their choice of schooling. We believe parents have a democratic right to choose the school of their choice for their children—a school, which, as far as the parents can see, will give their children the best outcomes. We believe that parents, having paid their taxes, are entitled to receive a level of public funding if they choose to send their child to a non-government school.
The OECD report, the report that is prepared in Paris, fails to recognise that Catholic and independent schools are part of Australia’s education system. You could be forgiven for thinking that the OECD has been listening to Labor, because Labor is ideologically opposed to supporting the parents of children in Catholic and independent schools. When Labor was in government, it had a policy that actually prevented the establishment of new Catholic and independent schools. When we came into government in 1996, we overturned that policy—but we only overturned it with the support of former Senator Brian Harradine. Labor opposed the coalition’s policy of allowing more Catholic and independent schools to be established. We only got that legislation through with the vote of former Senator Brian Harradine—not Labor. Labor is the party that opposes funding for non-government schools. Since we got rid of Labor’s ‘no new schools’ policy—that is, its ‘no new Catholic and independent schools’ policy—we have seen almost 300 new Catholic and independent schools established in Australia. Nearly 300 new schools have been established in response to parents’ concerns that they be able to send their children to a school of their choice. This government supports parents in that choice.
Labor is the party that announced in its policy a schools hit list. Labor actually listed the names of schools that were going to have their funding ripped away from them. And their crime? They were Catholic or independent schools. Labor has adopted the Australian Education Union’s policy of punishing parents who choose to send their children to a Catholic or an independent school. Labor’s hit list would have cut $520 million in funding from 178 schools, representing 160,000 students. That is a disgraceful policy. After decades of bias against Catholic and independent schools, after its ‘no new schools’ policy, after its hit list, Labor is trying to make us believe that it has changed its spots. I can assure you that Labor has not changed its spots, because the education unions who control the Labor Party have not changed their spots. The Australian Education Union said in a submission to a Senate inquiry:
The AEU has long opposed any funding to private schools.
In March this year, the New South Wales Teachers Federation said in a media release:
The Teachers Federation will continue to campaign for:
… … …
-
a redistribution of funds from private schools to public schools.
They are going to rip money off private schools. The Victorian branch of the Australian Education Union in May this year in an opinion piece in a newspaper, when talking about the Labor national conference, said:
Positive news from the ALP’s national conference. The education platform reaffirmed the importance of funding education on the basis of need.
That is code for the hit list formula. It is the same terminology. It goes on to say:
Stephen Smith, shadow education minister, pointed out that this generally means government schools.
In other words, government schools, not private schools, will get funding. The fact is that ALP policy—and let us make no bones about this—is set by the unions and delegates at Labor’s national conference. It is not set by Labor’s parliamentary leadership. Labor’s actual constitution says:
Policy within the Australian Labor Party is not made by directives from the leadership—
So it does not matter what the Leader of the Opposition says; Labor Party policy is made by:
... resolutions originating from branches, affiliated unions and individual Party members.
The ALP’s national platform, approved by their national conference in April this year, recently made public, states:
Labor will adopt new funding arrangements for non-government schools that reflect the following principles:
… … …
the resources available to non-government schools, including income from private sources, will be considered when assessing financial need;
Those words—word for word—are the words from the 2004 Latham policy that underpinned the hit list. The wording of that clause, reaffirmed this year, is exactly the same as Labor’s national platform in 2004. (Time expired)
93
16:07:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—We have just heard a whole matter of public importance response by the Minister for Education, Science and Training—the minister responsible for education in this country—but not one word about early childhood education or preschool education, even though the OECD report released overnight demonstrates that Australia gets the wooden spoon when it comes to the delivery of preschool education.
It is extraordinary that the minister for education said not one word about preschool education when, a little over a year ago—in March last year—the minister got a great headline on the front page of the Australian, ‘Preschool plan for all four-year-olds’. She trumpeted that she was about to force all four-year-olds into formal preschool education under a plan, to be delivered by her, for a nationwide program to educate youngsters before school. The article states:
Ms Bishop wants all Australian children to receive the education through a preschool or an accredited childcare centre with trained staff.
That is what the minister for education said in March last year.
DZP
Bird, Sharon, MP
Ms Bird interjecting—What happened?
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—As the member for Cunningham rightly asks: what happened to this wonderful plan that she put out there? As she said in the article:
The problem is there is no overarching policy to ensure that long daycare offers a preschool program that is carried out by a qualified early childhood teacher.
She was so right back in March 2006. Nothing happened then, just like nothing happened when the Prime Minister went to cabinet back in 2003. We have a copy of a leaked cabinet submission from 2003 which noted the inconsistent preschool education provision across the states and territories. What was the Prime Minister’s proposal back in 2003? We know that the minister for education has achieved nothing for preschool education. The Prime Minister’s proposal back in 2003 was to set up a committee. He decided that he would set up a committee, and the committee would include the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, the Treasurer, the Minister for Education, Science and Training and the Minister for Family and Community Services. They were going to get advice from another high-level committee—an interdepartmental committee—and report to the cabinet in mid-2004 with possible models for the future direction of the childcare and early childhood education sectors. What happened? Absolutely nothing. Apparently the committee was formed, but there was no plan whatsoever developed for early childhood education. There was no plan to fix the inconsistent provision of early childhood education in this country.
We know from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that 100,000 four-year-olds in Australia miss out on preschool education. The cabinet has known this for years. The Prime Minister set up two committees to examine this issue; in fact, the Prime Minister told the media back in July last year, more than a year ago, that he was resurrecting this plan and taking it to the Council of Australian Governments. Once again, what happened? Nothing. There was a cabinet committee back in 2003; the minister said in March last year that she had a preschool plan for the country; the Prime Minister took it to the Council of Australian Governments—so he said—back in July last year. Nothing has happened. Absolutely nothing has happened. This government has been in office for 11 years. A lot of four-year-olds have gone through preschool, and a heck of a lot of other four-year-olds have missed out on preschool because this government has done nothing except set up committees and make empty promises that it has had no intention of meeting.
Interestingly enough, I went to a conference with the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs earlier this year. It was a conference held by the Creche and Kindergarten Association in Brisbane. A few home truths were told at the conference. The Chief Executive of the Creche and Kindergarten Association told the conference that he had been told by the minister for education that the Howard government would take a similar approach to Labor and deliver comprehensive preschool education to all four-year-olds. But the minister for families and community services decided that at this conference, in front of 500 preschool and kindergarten teachers, he would blow the whistle on the minister for education:
For a starter, that has not been enunciated policy, as you would know—
Mr Brough told the whole conference. He went on to say to the conference:
You’ve had meetings which you’ve referred to. So as far as Julie Bishop being concerned, mate, she’s not standing before you, and when she’s ready to do that, she can do so.
In other words, the minister for families and community services made it plain, for everybody to see, that the minister for education had no plan; and, if she thought she might have a plan, he was not going to agree with it. Once again, it is quite clear that four-year-olds are going to continue to miss out on early childhood education.
Finally, in July this year, we had them all coming clean. The Howard government has now ruled out matching Labor’s promise to place early childhood teachers in all childcare centres and to make sure that all four-year-olds get an early childhood education. Finally they have ruled it out. Finally they have all come clean and made it clear that it does not really matter what the minister for education might have said last year. It does not matter what they might have decided in cabinet three or four years ago and with all their committees. All that has been put aside because they have given up on early childhood education—which is pretty extraordinary when you consider the level of advice that they have received, that we have all received, from people right around the world demonstrating the importance of investing in early childhood education. Nobel laureates have made plain the importance of investing in children’s education when they are young, the ages nought to five being so critical for a child’s development.
All that advice has been coming to this government year after year. And what do we find out in this Education at a glance report that was received in Australia last night? It shows that for eight years Australia has had the wooden spoon when it comes to preschool education. We invest 0.1 per cent in preschool education while the rest of the OECD countries are investing 0.5 per cent. What an extraordinary demonstration of failure from this Howard government.
Compare that to the policy that Labor has proposed. This was the first part of the Leader of the Opposition’s education revolution. The Leader of the Opposition has committed a future Labor government to something that no other national government—and certainly not the Howard government—has ever committed itself to. Kevin Rudd has committed us to every single Australian four-year-old having a right to a preschool education enshrined in Commonwealth legislation—to 15 hours of education for 40 weeks delivered by a qualified teacher, whether at a childcare centre, at family day care, a preschool or a kindergarten. We want to make sure that all of those children get the early childhood and preschool education that we know they not only deserve but will benefit enormously from. And we will make sure that the staff are there to teach them. We are going to deliver additional, fully funded early childhood education places at university. We are going to pay the TAFE fees for our childcare workers to get their diplomas. We are going to make sure that the staff are there for our four-year-olds so that they get the education that will mean, when they get to school, they are ready to start learning.
We recognise just how important this is. We are not going to shove it off onto a committee like John Howard, the Prime Minister, did back in 2003. We are not announcing it on the front page of the paper and then doing away with it, as this minister for education has done. (Time expired)
96
16:17:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
1
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—That was a riveting contribution by the member for Jagajaga. She is always somewhat less than an inspiration. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance because it is important. This government is absolutely committed to education. This government takes the decisions that are necessary to drive this country forward. If you are going to have a strong education system, you need to have a policy. You do not just go around the countryside telling people what they want to hear. You need to take the tough decisions and decide your priorities and sometimes priorities can be difficult. Choosing between alternatives can be difficult. But what do we hear from the Leader of the Opposition? What do we hear from the members opposite? They just wander the countryside telling all who will listen exactly what they want to hear with no intention of delivering anything.
Good education policy needs a rigorous approach. Good education policy needs a grasp of the detail. We saw the Leader of the Opposition fail in this House today. He came into question time and asked questions on education based on a false premise. He did not have the facts. He did not understand. Just as he did not understand productivity and just as he was found clueless today on tax policy, he has proved he is clueless on education. He is nothing but a policy fraud. He is nothing but a projected image. He is a disgrace. He is a weak leader and he is a disgrace. He mouths the words scripted by Hawker Britten but does not understand them. He is the gutless fraud of Australian politics. He wanders the country, as I said, telling people what they want to hear and then he disappears without providing a solution—except perhaps for a policy review or a new bureaucracy. He does not take on the challenge of advancing this nation. He merely cowers before the unions in telling them what they want to hear. He is a weak leader. He is a gutless leader. He is a fraud. He had to get the member for Grayndler today to rescue him from his question time mess. He is so hopeless that he had to send out the member for Grayndler to rescue him. Goodness me!
If you are running a trillion dollar economy, you cannot just run away. You cannot just halt question time and pull on some rather dubious dissent motion. You cannot run away when you are running a trillion dollar economy. That is what we saw from the Leader of the Opposition today. He had to send out his strong man—the member for Grayndler—to try and rescue him. Such was his disaster in question time today. The Leader of the Opposition is a weak leader—a leader who can talk the talk but does not walk the walk. We know he is a patsy for the union movement—
LN6
Hatton, Michael, MP
Mr Hatton
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The matter of the MPI is very specific. Since he started the member has come nowhere near the matters we have been debating.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—MPIs are usually broad ranging, but I think the member for Cowper could moderate his language and come back to the discussion.
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr HARTSUYKER
—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The importance of this is the relevance of the character of the Leader of the Opposition in relation to standing up to the education unions with regard to good policy. We know he is a patsy and we know he is a doormat for the unions. They are going to walk all over him. Good policy will need strong action in relation to unions. What do the Australian Education Union say about funding for private schools? This government believes in choice in education. This government believes that we should assist parents. If they wish to choose a quality education in the public system or if they wish to choose a quality education in the non-government system, they should be assisted in that choice. This government strongly supports both sectors. But we know the Leader of the Opposition’s union masters are not going to wear that. We know that. We know he is a patsy, we know he is weak, and we know he is a doormat. What do the Australian Education Union say in their submission as to schools funding in 2004? They say the AEU has long opposed any funding to private schools. So what do I tell the parents of the students who attend non-government schools in my electorate?
0K6
Bartlett, Kerry, MP
Mr Bartlett
—Don’t vote Labor.
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr HARTSUYKER
—Absolutely. I thank the member for Macquarie. ‘Don’t vote Labor’ is how they can secure their choice in education. What should I tell them? Do I tell them that the Leader of the Opposition will not stand in the way of the Australian Education Union? We know that. He has form; he will not stand up to them. What did the New South Wales Teachers Federation say? In their media release in March 2007, the New South Wales Teachers Federation said that they will continue to campaign for a redistribution of funds from private schools to public schools. Well, I think the people of Australia deserve a detailed explanation from the Leader of the Opposition—in far more detail than he was able to give today in respect of the tax thresholds, I might say—on how he proposes to deal with his union masters and to manipulate this redistribution from private schools to public schools. We want to hear that from the Leader of the Opposition—not more airy-fairy words, hot air and rhetoric. We want to know how the Leader of the Opposition will respond to his union masters.
The Leader of the Opposition cannot hide from this question any longer. We know he is weak. We know he will not stand up to the unions. The unions—the policy mandarins of the Australian Labor Party—are saying that there will be a redistribution of funds from private schools to public schools. It is a disgrace that the Leader of the Opposition pretends that he is serious about education and that he will look after all Australians, when we all know that his union masters will not allow him to do that. They are going to walk all over him. They will show him who is boss if he ever gets onto the Treasury benches. The education unions will be the de facto ministers for education in Australia. I think that would be a retrograde step. I would be meeting with my school communities and having to answer their questions, should the Labor Party ever gain government in this country, as to why their school’s funding has been cut, why their school is on a hit list and why they now have to pay fees of double the magnitude. The real tragedy in this is that the very strong growth we have seen in the private schools sector has been primarily in the low-fee independent schools sector. They are the families who can least afford to pay increased fees brought about by the de facto puppet masters of education policy under a future Labor government, the education unions.
This government has spent ever-increasing amounts of money on education. Today was not a good day for the Leader of the Opposition to make a foray into the field of education. The report Financial reporting information for higher education providers was released earlier today, and it showed a record revenue for universities—$15.5 billion in 2006. That is an 11 per cent increase from 2005, supported by an increase in coalition funding of 10.4 per cent. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is hardly the sort of increase in education funding that you would expect from a government that did not support education. We have seen more higher education places. We have seen the level of unmet demand in our universities fall from some 70,625 places in 1994—under Labor, the party that claims to support education—to only 14,200 unmet places in 2006. That is a massive decrease.
As with all matters of public importance that the Australian Labor Party introduce in this House, they have proven themselves to be hypocrites. They do not have the policy rigour to claim the high ground on education. They do not support education; they support education unions. We know the Leader of the Opposition is weak. We know he will not stand up to the unions. We know he is a patsy and he is a doormat, and his policies will result in a poorer education outcome for Australian students and for people who seek trade training. It will be a very poor result for Australia. It will affect Australia’s productivity. We do not want the unions running the education system. We do not want the Leader of the Opposition and his second rate opposition.
98
16:27:00
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
0
Mr MELHAM
—I rise to support the matter of public importance that was submitted by the member for Perth in the following terms:
The failure of the government to adequately invest in the skills, education and training of our people and the need for greater investment in education at every level.
I support the comments made by the member for Perth and also the comments made by the member for Jagajaga. As I only have five minutes, I will certainly cover a different area from the areas they covered. There was a press release issued by the Leader of the Opposition today, and the member for Perth, as well as the federal Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro, Mr Mike Kelly. It pointed out that, after 11 years, the government’s record on public spending for schools and vocational education shows that Australia has fallen to third-last in the world on OECD figures, ahead of only Korea and the United States. That is a disgrace.
Reports released by the ACTU and the Australian Industry Group in 2004 projected skills shortfalls of over 21,000 positions, particularly in the traditional trades areas, although the Australian Industry Group said that a more conservative estimate would put the number close to 18,000 positions. In the manufacturing sector, the AiG projections recorded the following skills shortages: wood, wood products and furniture, 2,800; chemicals, petroleum and coal products, 3,200; transport equipment, 3,000; and, machinery and equipment, 3,100.
The ACTU paper stated that, in addition to the manufacturing sector, there were national shortages in the vehicle trades, in the electrical and electronics trades and in some of the construction and food trades. To date, these shortages have not been seriously addressed by this government—11½ years, 11½ years too long. Their record shows that they deserve to be thrown out at the next election.
As I have said previously, the government’s reaction has been simply to introduce the infamous Australian technical colleges. I quote what I said on 21 June 2006:
Of course, the concept of Australian technical colleges crystallises the government’s agenda on two fronts: industrial relations and education. ATCs further privatise our education system and have the potential to damage enrolments and course offerings at nearby high schools.
… … …
The real ideological attack is on public education and the government’s underhanded attempt to deregulate the national training system.
I have a TAFE in my area of Padstow and I know the member for Blaxland has the Bankstown TAFE in his electorate. They are terrific institutions and they have served the community well. They are the institutions that we should be pumping money into. We should be growing those institutions and creating opportunities for children to come through those institutions with trade qualifications. Ideology stopped this government from doing it, so they set up an alternative system which is doomed to failure.
I am of the view that the Commonwealth should cooperate with the state and territory governments on the all-important issue of apprenticeship training. Instead, we have a government that is duplicating existing skills structures. The government have effectively decided to avoid cooperation and coordination. They will be caught out and found out when the figures come through.
In my seat of Banks, apprenticeship completions have been dropping over the past 10 years. I am advised that failure rates have risen—in some cases to 40 per cent. Certainly there have been marked changes in the types of apprenticeships completed, with the proportion of those in traditional trades decreasing. For example, in the 12 months to June 2005 there were 430 new apprenticeship completions and only 110 traditional apprenticeship completions. What is the government’s solution? Bring people in from overseas on 457 visas. That is a short-term, crazy solution.
A federal Labor government will work with the states and territories to encourage and support young people to take up apprenticeships which will realistically address the national skills shortage. Among other initiatives, younger students will be encouraged to try their hands at a trade through a trade taster program. We will increase the number of school based apprenticeships and establish a $2,000 trade completion bonus to encourage kids to complete their courses. We will introduce skills training centres in our high schools, where students will be able to complete their general education while at the same time beginning trades training. This is how it should work: a federal government working in conjunction with the states and territories to achieve outcomes together, not setting up in competition to make a political point.
This government has failed to adequately invest in the skills and education Australia needs to participate on the global stage in the 21st century. They will suffer for it at the next election, because people will punish them for it. If you do not invest in the nation you are stupid or foolish because you do not give the nation a decent future. What this government has done for the last 11½ years is to invest in ideology alone. (Time expired)
99
16:32:00
Bartlett, Kerry, MP
0K6
Macquarie
LP
1
0
Mr BARTLETT
—This matter of public importance is particularly disappointing, not because under any examination it is totally untenable—there is nothing unusual about that in motions from the other side—but because in question time today it was shown clearly that the OECD report on which this MPI is based is totally false. Firstly, it excludes a whole number of government initiatives. It excludes HECS subsidised places at university, it excludes 75 per cent of VET funding and it omits all new government initiatives since 2004, including the now $6 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund. The disappointing thing is that, although knowing that this report was wrong and knowing that it was seriously flawed and did not accurately represent the situation with regard to education funding in this country, the opposition still came in and presented this MPI on the basis of the report.
Let me quickly turn to the three areas of education. Firstly, I turn to the higher education sector. The fact clearly is—the 2006 finance report shows this—that revenues for universities this year total $15.5 billion, double what they were in 1996. How in the world can the opposition say that we have not increased funding when the finance report shows clearly that it is double what it was in 1996?
Not only that but the outcomes in terms of meeting the demand for university places are very clearly there. In 1995, Labor’s last year in office, there were an estimated 100,000 unmet places at university—that is, 100,000 students who wanted to go to university could not find a place. The situation now is that basically there is no unmet demand. The head of Universities Australia, Professor Gerard Sutton, in January this year said:
Nationally, effectively, the unmet demand has been met.
It has been met because of the policies of this government. We have removed the waiting list of 100,000 that we had when we came into office.
Secondly, let me turn to vocational education and training. Here we have the same story. The evidence that the Labor Party wishes to ignore shows a massive increase in spending by this government. Spending is now up to $22 billion for vocational education and training. We have introduced a range of initiatives, including a massive increase in vocational education and training at schools, an extra 7,000 new school based apprenticeships, the establishment of 28 Australian technical colleges and a range of initiatives to encourage employers to take on apprentices and give young people a chance of an apprenticeship and meaningful training that will lead to a job.
The outcomes speak for themselves. Look at the outcomes in terms of the effectiveness of that training to prepare people for the workplace. In 1995, Labor’s last year in office, youth unemployment was 34 per cent. We have halved that to 17 per cent. Total unemployment was 8.3 per cent. We have almost halved that, down to 4.3 per cent. It is the lowest level of unemployment in over 30 years. The point is that the Howard government is investing more in training. That training is meeting the needs of young people, because those young people are now finding jobs and unemployment is at a 30-year low.
It is worth pointing this out: there was not so much of a skills shortage under Labor because there was a jobs shortage. There were masses of unemployed eagerly waiting to get a job but there were no jobs available. We have a skills shortage now, if there is such a thing, because we are running at full employment. Young people, when they leave school, now have a range of options from which to choose—university, apprenticeships, trade courses and whatever. The point is that we are investing heavily and getting the outcomes.
The third area of education is our schools. Primary and secondary school funding by this government has increased by 170 per cent since we have been in office. How in the world can the other side say with a straight face that we are cutting funding for schools or that we are not increasing funds for schools rapidly enough? There has been a 170 per cent increase, a far faster rate of increase than the spending that we are seeing from state governments. We have provided not only extra money but new initiatives to improve the quality—such as national testing for literacy and numeracy in years 3, 5, 7 and 9, plain-English report cards, explicit teaching of values, increased investment in teacher professional development and moves towards a national curriculum. We have put more money into education and provided a greater focus on quality outcomes. This has been ignored by the other side. Let us not have any more of this hypocrisy and nonsense from the other side. Our record stands for itself. We are investing heavily in education. (Time expired)
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time for the discussion has concluded.
COMMITTEES
101
Committees
Economics, Finance and Public Administration Committee
101
Report
101
101
16:38:00
Baird, Bruce, MP
MP6
Cook
LP
1
0
Mr BAIRD
—On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, I present the committee’s Report of the 2007 New Zealand Parliamentary Committee Exchange, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
MP6
Baird, Bruce, MP
Mr BAIRD
—by leave—Australia and New Zealand share a close and longstanding relationship. The countries’ similarities provide a platform to discuss many issues common to both, while their unique features allow the sharing of new ideas. The Australian and New Zealand parliaments tap into this cooperative spirit through an annual trans-Tasman parliamentary committee exchange program. This year, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration visited New Zealand between 15 and 19 July. The program, which was organised and hosted by the New Zealand parliament, was thorough and rewarding. The committee built upon the robust relationships already forged between the two parliaments and discussed a variety of economic and policy issues with government and non-government organisations.
Formal meetings were held with the Speaker of the New Zealand parliament; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; the opposition spokesperson on housing; and members of both the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Commerce Committee. The delegation also met with many other New Zealand parliamentarians during the visit. Both the New Zealand and the Australian parliamentary committee systems have a role in scrutinising the conduct of monetary policy by their respective central banks. Meetings with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand on the bank’s current monetary policy mechanisms and the parliamentary scrutiny it is subject to were most beneficial.
Independent meetings were held with market economists about the New Zealand economy and the Australia-New Zealand economic relationship. The delegation also met with representatives from the New Zealand Stock Exchange and the New Zealand Post Group. The committee discussed the New Zealand retirement savings system with New Zealand government departments and agencies, with a focus on the KiwiSaver scheme, which was introduced in July 2007. This issue related to recommendations in the committee’s 2006 report relating to improving the superannuation savings of people under 40. The New Zealand government’s industry policy was discussed with government department officials. These discussions were relevant to both the committee’s report Servicing our future—which had been tabled in June 2007—and the inquiry into Australia’s manufacturing sector, the report of which, Australian manufacturing: today and tomorrow, was tabled soon after the visit.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all of the organisations, departments and individuals in New Zealand who participated in the visit meetings and activities. We were made to feel very welcome. People generously gave their time to discuss issues of economic policy relevance and we experienced many cultural aspects of New Zealand. The support and enthusiasm of all involved ensured that the visit was productive and memorable. I commend the report to the House.
Public Works Committee
102
Reports
102
102
16:42:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
1
0
Mrs MOYLAN
—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 10th, 11th and 12th reports for 2007 of the committee, which relate to CSIRO co-location with the Queensland government on the ecosciences and health and food sciences precincts, Brisbane; RAAF Base Amberley redevelopment stage three, Queensland; and the C17 heavy airlift infrastructure project.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
4V5
Moylan, Judi, MP
Mrs MOYLAN
—by leave—The committee’s 10th report relates to a proposed co-location of CSIRO ecosciences and health precincts with those of the Queensland government, and in this sense represents an important strategic alliance between the Commonwealth and the state of Queensland. It will have the effect of harnessing the extensive research being undertaken—by the CSIRO, by scientists of the Queensland government’s Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and Department of Natural Resources and Water and by the Environmental Protection Agency—and avoiding duplication of research. The new facility will enable the CSIRO to dispose of three sites on which it occupies buildings that are currently over 40 years old and that will require significant Commonwealth funding for refurbishment and modification to meet the basic scientific and safety requirements of the CSIRO. Furthermore, these properties are dispersed across the Brisbane metropolitan area, with buildings fragmented across the individual sites, precluding the opportunity to realise benefits from the critical mass created through the co-location of CSIRO divisions and its scientific collaborators.
By electing to co-locate, there is considerable potential for financial savings to accrue to the Commonwealth not only in terms of the avoidance of the need to maintain buildings that do not meet acceptable standards but also through the capacity to co-locate a critical mass of scientific research with the capacity to deliver the best return on investment.
The new facility is to be constructed on a cost-share basis with the Queensland government meeting the majority of the total cost of $371.23 million. The estimated cost to the CSIRO is expected to be $85 million. This will be derived from the sale of three properties with the balance coming from CSIRO capital funds.
I turn now to the committee’s 11th report, which relates to the proposed RAAF Base Amberley redevelopment stage 3 project. These proposed works build on works undertaken in previous stages of the redevelopment of RAAF Base Amberley. Stage 1 was the subject of a committee report to parliament in 1998 that addressed a general upgrade of facilities needed to enhance operational, training, aircraft maintenance, logistics support, improvements to engineering facilities and the demolition of redundant facilities. Stage 2 was the subject of a committee inquiry in 2005 that focused on the development of facilities associated with the introduction into the ADF of new multirole tanker transport aircraft and other related infrastructure works.
The current works reflect the changing operational requirements of RAAF Base Amberley. It has recently been announced by the government that the FA18F Super Hornet bridging air combat capability will operate from Amberley from 2010. Amberley also supports elements of the strategic lift capability with the introduction of the multirole tanker transport aircraft and the C17, about which I will have more to say shortly.
New training accommodation, a new headquarters building for the Combat Support Group, the provision of additional fuel storage facilities, an upgraded RAAF Security and Fire School, the rationalisation of maintenance facilities and the demolition of some facilities that are now inappropriately located are some of the works proposed.
While the committee recognises the importance and the need for the current project, it is equally important for Defence to recognise the need to ensure that projects of this magnitude take into consideration the range of issues that have a bearing on the wider community.
The committee was particularly concerned to ensure that Defence address a number of issues related to the provision of infrastructure services associated with the sustainability of the base. These include water and power. While the committee is satisfied that the department will exercise responsibility in terms of water consumption and energy use, we have asked that it report to us in due course on the measures it has implemented to conserve the use of water and energy.
The proposed works will have some impact on the local community. The Amberley state school that will be brought within the proposed new medium security fencing will need to be relocated, and a new school will need to be provided. Recently, the Prime Minister announced that the federal government would contribute $26.8 million toward the cost of a new Amberley state school to replace the existing school. Other issues affecting the local community are the subject of ongoing consultations with various community groups by Defence and will hopefully be resolved. The committee has requested that Defence keep it informed of the progress of these consultations.
The committee has recommended that these proposed works, to be undertaken at an estimated cost of $331.5 million, proceed.
Finally, I would like to address a few words to the committee’s 12th report, relating to the C17 heavy airlift infrastructure project. Works for this project will be undertaken at RAAF Base Amberley, RAAF Base Darwin, RAAF Base Edinburgh, RAAF Base Pearce and RAAF Base Townsville. The decision to acquire four C17 Globemaster aircraft was taken by the government in 2006. The first two of these aircraft are already in service, with the remaining aircraft due for delivery in February and March 2008.
The committee considered the proposed works as ‘repetitive works’ since the nature of the project is similar at all bases. The works largely involve the strengthening and widening of runways, taxiways and aprons, to take into account the weight of the aircraft as well as the increased payload it is able carry, and some modifications to cargo-handling facilities. The exception is the proposed works at RAAF Base Amberley, which, because it will be the home base for the new aircraft, will need to incorporate additional features, including new and larger warehousing and cargo storage facilities, an aircraft simulator, a new headquarters building for No. 36 Squadron, which will operate the aircraft, and additional training facilities for load masters and maintenance crews.
Until the new facilities are provided, some of the previous redevelopment works associated with RAAF Base Amberley will be shared with the multirole tanker transport aircraft. At those bases identified as deployment bases, tests are currently being conducted on the strength of existing airstrips and taxiways so that operations of the C17 are able to continue, albeit at less than full operational capacity.
The committee has recommended that the works associated with the C17 heavy airlift infrastructure at RAAF Base Amberley, RAAF Base Darwin, RAAF Base Edinburgh, RAAF Base Pearce and RAAF Base Townsville proceed at an estimated cost of $268.2 million.
In conclusion, I would like to thank all those who contributed to these inquiries, particularly my fellow committee members, who have made themselves available to try and clear away a considerable amount of work, officials of the CSIRO and officials of the Department of Defence. I would also like to thank the committee secretariat for their assistance and, of course, Hansard, who travel and keep a record of our meetings as we go.
I commend the reports to the House.
104
16:51:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
0
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—by leave—I rise to concur with the comments made by the member for Pearce with respect to reports Nos 10, 11 and 12, which have been prepared by the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Public Works. I also want to extend my appreciation to the secretariat—John, who is in the chamber, and Raymond, who is in the gallery—and others who have worked very hard throughout the year.
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member, after his behaviour, will be very careful to play to the gallery today!
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—Mr Deputy Speaker, this will be the last opportunity for me to express the appreciation of opposition members, so I do so. I concur with the member for Pearce that the three reports before the parliament are, indeed, worthy of support. I again emphasise the very valuable contribution by the secretariat and, indeed, Hansard.
Environment and Heritage Committee
104
Report
104
104
16:52:00
Washer, Dr Mal, MP
84F
Moore
LP
1
0
Dr WASHER
—On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage, I present the committee’s report entitled Managing the flow: regulating plumbing product quality, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
84F
Washer, Dr Mal, MP
Dr WASHER
—by leave—On Monday I tabled the committee’s report entitled Sustainability for survival: creating a climate for change: inquiry into a sustainability charter, which explores the concept of a national charter for sustainability. However, rather than resting on its laurels, as that inquiry drew to a close the committee took on another inquiry into the regulatory arrangements for the control of plumbing product quality in Australia.
This has been a short and focused inquiry into a matter of considerable significance to the Australian community. The committee strongly believes that a failure to adequately control the manufacture, importation, sale and installation of plumbing products could have serious public health and environmental implications. The regulatory arrangements in place for controlling plumbing product quality reflect the level of risk that governments are prepared to take with drinking water supplies and sewage collection.
Cases such as the SARS outbreak at Amoy Gardens, in 2000, reinforce why we need to be vigilant about controlling plumbing product quality. During the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong, the failure of plumbing products that were part of the sewerage system at a residential complex contributed to the further spread of the disease. The committee felt that safeguarding public health and conserving precious water resources in this period of persistent drought are too important to be left to the mercy of the complicated nexus of national and state based arrangements that currently prevail. During the inquiry, it became clear to the committee that there is a pressing need for improvements to be made to the cohesion, consistency, understanding and enforcement of the current regulatory arrangements for controlling plumbing product quality.
The report discusses some of the deficiencies identified in the current arrangements, including the need for more effective enforcement of mandatory schemes, stricter point-of-sale requirements for a range of plumbing products and better communication with industry and community stakeholders. In particular, the committee felt that the lack of coordination between state and territory jurisdictions and, indeed, between the two national mandatory schemes—WELS and WaterMark Certification—is a problem for industry, consumers and the Australian community.
The committee believes there are a number of actions that the Australian government and industry can and should take to improve the way in which plumbing product quality is managed in Australia. Accordingly, the committee makes five recommendations in this report, aimed at improving the coordination between jurisdictions and the two national schemes, establishing minimum water efficiency standards for plumbing products under the WELS scheme and improving the effectiveness of enforcement practices for the national WELS and WaterMark Certification schemes. I commend the report to the House.
105
16:55:00
Kerr, Duncan, MP
RH4
Denison
ALP
0
0
Mr KERR
—by leave—Firstly, I acknowledge the profoundly enthusiastic and excellent work which has been done by this committee, led by the member for Moore, but also by the deputy chair, the member for Throsby, who has worked in a most cooperative way with the chair to ensure that some very large tasks undertaken by this committee have been completed within the life of this parliament.
This report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage was produced at short notice. There was some scepticism that a report of worth could be generated in the short time that was available. I also had some scepticism when the reference was first presented to us. It is a mark not only of the work of the committee and the secretariat but also of the excellent submissions that were provided to us and the roundtable discussions that we were permitted to achieve the consolidation of this report in the short time available.
This is a narrowly focused but, I think, entirely worthy use of parliamentary time. There is a very practical side to this report. Currently, consumers have two national accreditation schemes for plumbing and water delivery systems, but they do not interrelate well. We heard evidence from the Institute of Plumbing Australia that there is an anomalous situation whereby you can purchase a product which has the WELS label—which, on its face, appears to be a national certification mark, stating that the product is efficient and appropriate for sale—but a licensed plumber may refuse to instal that product if it is not also WaterMark certified. As the evidence presented to us indicated, not unnaturally this upsets people who may undertake illegal methods of installation and, as the institute indicated, above all it brings what could be a major contributor to water conservation—the WELS scheme—into disrepute.
The five recommendations of the committee are entirely practical. They demonstrate the effective working of this parliament when it establishes committees whose memberships work in a harmonious way. That is not always the case in this parliament. There are some committees for which that has been a less marked characteristic, but this particular committee has always enjoyed, throughout the life of this parliament, a very congenial working relationship between its members. This report simply builds on the work of the committee over the life of this parliament. It is a tribute both to the member for Throsby and the member for Moore that benchmarks are now established in key environmental areas that will be and ought be the foundation for the work of the next parliament when it comes to grips with some of the more complicated issues which the committee have been addressing throughout the life of the present chamber. I thank the member for Moore and also the House for its indulgence.
106
17:00:00
Washer, Dr Mal, MP
84F
Moore
LP
1
0
Dr WASHER
—I thank the member for Denison for his kind remarks and I move:
That the House take note of the report.
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Australian Crime Commission Committee
106
Report
106
106
17:00:00
Kerr, Duncan, MP
RH4
Denison
ALP
0
0
Mr KERR
—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission, I present the committee’s report, incorporating additional comments, entitled Inquiry into the future impact of serious and organised crime on Australian society, together with evidence received by the committee.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
RH4
Kerr, Duncan, MP
Mr KERR
—by leave—Again I have the pleasure of acknowledging, at the outset, that this report is the product of a bipartisan committee—in this instance, one on which members of the Senate also served. The chair of the committee, I understand, will be tabling this report shortly in the other chamber.
This report is a substantial reflection on one of the key responsibilities that any community has—that is, effective law enforcement. The breadth of the committee’s report reflects its nature. It is the report of an inquiry into the future impact of serious and organised crime on Australian society. Inevitably, it can give only a generalised and limited window into the workings of the agencies that this committee examines. It took evidence broadly across Australia, and I would hope that its recommendations are taken into account by future governments.
I will focus on four principal recommendations, although I should not dismiss the importance of the balance of the 22 recommendations that are made in the report. The first recommendation that I would draw the House’s attention to is recommendation 15, in which the committee acknowledges and recognises that the Australian Crime Commission has prepared a public version of the Picture of criminality in Australia report. The public version is an unclassified version of the report that is prepared for the commission and for ministers to enable there to be information upon which judgements can be made about the proper resourcing of law enforcement in Australia.
It has always struck the committee that we have a less informed knowledge base in one of the most important areas of social and public policy in Australia—that is, law enforcement—than in almost any other area. In the analogous area of national security, defence, the government and the department regularly publish white papers. Those papers enable baselines to be set and public debate to be focused on issues of large priorities and different strategic settings for our defence structure. For example, you have to identify threats and challenges: you look at whether the Defence Force structure is one which should be highly mobile or whether it should involve heavy armour, whether it should involve submarines or frigates. You look at what tasks it is going to undertake; you look at the threats it faces.
In law enforcement, the debates tend to be much less well focused. It is not to say that there are not public debates at almost every election, particularly at state level. There are sometimes hysteric debates about law and order. But we do not have national benchmarking enabling the community to make intelligent, strategic, long-term judgements about the threats that face the law enforcement environment and about the kinds of policy decisions that ought to be taken strategically to make certain that our law enforcement expenditure is best matched to those challenges. One of the tasks that have been undertaken by the Australian Crime Commission in taking over the role that was rolled into the new structure from the Office of Strategic Crime Assessment, which was a previous stand-alone agency in the department of the Minister for Justice and Customs, is to provide that strategic oversight advice.
It is the view of the Australian Crime Commission that an unclassified version of the classified report should be made available to the public so that there can be an intelligent, focused, strategic discussion in Australia about the very real challenges that law enforcement faces, how state and federal law enforcement can meet those challenges most effectively and where resources need to be applied. It is matter of great regret that, for whatever reason might be behind it, a record of the report has not yet been made available. We re-emphasise a recommendation that we made earlier that a non-classified version should be produced to enable there to be sensible debate. If we go in to the next federal election without that framework, we would be likely to be presented with various arguments about expenditure, priorities and strategic settings in law enforcement, without the baselines being informed by the best possible strategic advice from the agency charged with that responsibility by this parliament and by the nation.
The second recommendation, recommendation 11, fits into the first:
Recommendation 11
7.46 The committee recommends that the Productivity Commission inquire into the cost effectiveness and benchmarking of law enforcement bodies and current national arrangements to address serious and organised crime.
We need the white paper to enable us to make long-term, strategic decisions about resource allocations. We also need to treat our expenditure in law enforcement with the seriousness with which we treat expenditure across all other areas. It is not the case in law enforcement, nor is it in any other area of public policy, that an extra dollar spent in one area will necessarily produce outcomes as effective as those produced by spending in another area. In some areas, if you produce more staff and expend more money you will be rewarded by very effectively enhanced outcomes. Law enforcement capabilities may be massively increased by small increases in expenditure in particularly important areas. In other areas, you will have a law of diminishing returns, where each extra dollar does not provide any substantial increases in output or efficiency.
We need to develop effective measuring devices in law enforcement that enable us to make better judgements about where limited resources should be applied. We have made large increases in the resourcing of law enforcement quite naturally and quite properly as the challenges manifestly facing Australia have become more pressing. But where there are very large expenditures of public resources we need to be able to better distinguish between those areas which need further enhancement and those where we will face the law of diminishing returns.
Those two issues are ones of public policy setting and they are, I think, the most important of the recommendations of the committee. But there are two other areas where deficiencies that were identified by the committee ought to be brought to the attention of the House. Recommendations 21 and 22 address the problems of exchange of information between various jurisdictions. Recommendation 21 is that we provide funding for a feasibility study into the development of a single national case management system and recommendation 22 is that the national Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management - Police give consideration and support to the development of a single national case management system.
The evidence shouts out for such a recommendation. For example, in his evidence, Mr Burgess from the Police Federation of Australia offered the following evidence as an example of the consequences of inadequate national case management data not being readily available:
... the shooting of offender William Watkins at Karratha in Western Australia in early 2006 ... Watkins had three days earlier murdered sisters Colleen and Laura Irwin in Melbourne. He had then driven 5½ thousand kilometres in those three days to Western Australia, where he came under the notice of Senior Constable Shane Gray at Karratha for failing to pay for petrol. When Gray did a check on Watkins via the Western Australian police computer system he was not shown as wanted or a suspect on the system. Unfortunately, of course, he was on the Victorian police system, but that was not accessible through the Western Australian system. Watkins attacked Gray and tried to get hold of his firearm. Gray, the senior constable, was seriously injured in the incident, and Watkins was eventually shot and killed.
Plainly this highlights the fact that failure to have coordination between the case management systems is a serious issue. It is crucial that we fix it.
The last matter I raise is that the report draws attention to the fact that Queensland still does not have a capacity for the Queensland Police Service and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission to intercept telecommunications. It is inevitable that, in an area where there has essentially been a stand-off between the Commonwealth and the state, various people will make political points about the matter. I do not understand why it has not been within the capacity of the Commonwealth to permit the state to utilise the public interest monitor, which they wish to integrate into the use of interception devices, in the Commonwealth scheme.
There has been a very long period where both the Queensland government and the Commonwealth government have said that they want to be able to exercise at a state level the same intercept powers that are exercised in every other state jurisdiction. Queensland, however, say that they want to have the extra civil liberties safeguard of the involvement of a public interest monitor. As a matter of policy from the point of view of the Commonwealth, I see no reason why that could not have been facilitated. Nonetheless, that stand-off is still occurring and whatever political stance one takes—whether one wishes to blame Queensland or the Commonwealth—it is an issue that needs to be resolved. It is a matter that needs attention. I thank the House for its extended tolerance of these remarks. I commend the work of the committee and I acknowledge the work of the chairman, Senator Ian Macdonald, who is tabling this report in the other place. I commend the report for the attention of the next parliament.
109
17:12:00
Wood, Jason, MP
E0F
La Trobe
LP
1
0
Mr WOOD
—by leave—I would like to speak in support of the report on the Inquiry into the future impact of serious and organised crime on Australian society by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. I would first like to congratulate the member for Denison on the way he conducted himself as deputy chair. I also congratulate the other members on the way they conducted themselves throughout the inquiry and I extend special thanks to Senator Ian Macdonald.
First of all, I would like to take up a point with the member for Denison. We had a point of difference at the start on the Queensland telephone interception issue. The Queens-land state government asked for a public interest monitor but no other state in the country has it. To me there is no need for it. It is an amazing situation that, in 2007, we have a state in Australia where the police and law enforcement agencies do not have the ability to intercept criminals’ telephones. I would like to see that situation resolved urgently.
In my maiden speech to parliament I spoke on the lack of interoperability of police databases across this country, which is an issue that I am very passionate about. It is something that has been crying out for attention. The member for Denison talked about the tragic murder and rape by Watkins of the two Irwin sisters in Victoria. He was subsequently intercepted in Western Australia. He drove off without paying for petrol and the police officer who intercepted him did not realise that he was wanted for a double murder. There is an inquiry going on at the moment and there is evidence that the police were not aware of that information because it was not on the nationwide police system. Even if it had been, the Western Australian policeman would not have been able to access the Victorian database. We must ensure that this is urgently and quickly resolved.
As I stated in my maiden speech, in order to take intelligence efforts up to the next level I would recommend the establishment of a national database which would record details of people who have access to specific chemical, biological and radiological substances. Additionally, the database could record details of applicants applying for legitimate training courses or licences where the technical skills taught could be used for terror-ist related activities. Ideally, it would record the details of applicants for flight and underwater diving courses, explosives training courses and people who hold licences for ammonium nitrate fertilisers at the time of the newly proposed ammonium nitrate fertiliser legislation. The ability to determine potential links between terror suspects and to identify trends or patterns of suspicious activities, coupled with ASIO checks on these individuals, will serve to strengthen our intelligence efforts. This will go a long way to pro-viding for a consistent and robust approach to fighting terrorism.
I congratulate this inquiry on taking a very serious look at the way the police databases across the country do not link up. We have heard about the incident of Watkins. We have had previous incidents such as that with Cornelia Rau. She was a missing person reported in one state and, even if her correct details had been put in the police database, she would not have been picked up. Explosives licences are held in the states by the departments. If a police officer looking at a terror suspect put that suspect’s name in the computer and that person had a licence to possess explosives, they would not be aware that he actually had a licence. With aviation identification cards, we had a situation with terror suspect Bilal Khazal, a baggage handler for Qantas. Again, if the authorities had put his name in the computer, they would have had no idea that he had access to the aviation industry. We now have the aviation identification card—something which needs to be on the centralised database. We also have chemicals, high-consequence dangerous goods, which are actually rolling out in Victoria as we speak.
You may wonder why we need the licence holders of chemicals to be on the database. We just have to go back to Jordan in 2004 when terrorists purchased 20 tonnes of chemicals and explosives using false identification. They loaded these onto three vehicles, again purchased with false identification. They purchased chemicals with the intention of mounting an attack which, if it had been carried out, would have killed over a hundred thousand people.
My thoughts have been shared with a number of law enforcement agency experts across the country, and I would like to quote a few comments from the report:
Deputy Commissioner John Lawler, National Security, Australian Federal Police, noted that the vulnerability of present databases lies wherever two jurisdictions cannot easily retrieve relevant information from each other, and this is the central and most important issue identified concerning the question of adequacy of Australia’s law enforcement databases.
This is a state government responsibility. All the states have completely failed. We have state Labor governments and there is talk of having a federal Labor government. If the state Labor governments cannot work this out, I cannot see what a federal Labor government would actually add to this. The report states:
Assistant Commissioner Wayne Gregson, Portfolio Head, Specialist Crime Portfolio, Western Australia Police, highlighted the implications of this:
… different states have different databases designed around their different legislation, which means that law enforcement tends to be a secondary consideration of information holdings ... [consequently there] is a large number of disparate databases holding different tranches of information.
The report further states:
Mark Burgess, Chief Executive Officer, Police Federation of Australia, supported this view—
and this is the crux of what I was saying in my maiden speech in parliament, the need to have the centralised database; and that database which has come out very strongly in the inquiry and throughout the research is CrimTrac, which has been established—
saying:
… a real opportunity now exists for CrimTrac to play a more significant and meaningful role … providing information sharing solutions for law enforcement right across the country… CrimTrac should be fully developed to become the key hub for exchanges of law enforcement information between Australia’s police jurisdictions and broader law enforcement.
Chief Commissioner Nixon from Victoria—and I congratulate her on a new role as the head of CrimTrac—was quoted in the report:
… Chief Commissioner Nixon noted that CrimTrac has already contributed to the inter-juris-dictional capacity for information sharing:
What we have started to see...is the growth of a system to...help us share information... [CrimTrac] has gone some distance towards helping develop these national systems in...local police offices …
The report also states:
One of the most important CrimTrac systems from the operational policing perspective is the Minimum Nation-wide Person Profile (MNPP). The MNPP is intended to allow the sharing of information about persons of interest between all Australian police jurisdictions. It is currently being rolled out nationally to replace the National Names Index.
It will be accessed via computers. The report goes on:
-
access information about a person of interest from another jurisdiction; and
-
perform nation-wide searches using name and/or other identifying information.
We come back again to the tragic situation of the murder of the Irwin sisters and how that information could have helped arrest the suspect Watkins in Western Australia. Recommendation 17 relates to the database—and I congratulate the committee and the secretariat because this was actually fairly complex to get your head around—and it states:
The committee recommends that CrimTrac be funded to examine the legislative, administrative and technical aspects to allow the inclusion of additional datasets to the Minimum Nation-wide Persons Profile; particular consideration should be given to Aviation Security Identification Cards, Maritime Security Identification Cards, explosives licences and ammonium nitrate licences.
I would also like to see high-consequence dangerous goods listed.
CrimTrac was initially established by this government with a $50 million capital injection by the Commonwealth. We would like to see the state governments do the heavy lifting also and contribute to this. The report states:
… Commissioner Keelty noted that some of CrimTrac’s work is, and should continue to be supported from the proceeds of crime.
Recommendation 18 saw the committee recommend:
... that the Commonwealth Government review CrimTrac’s current funding model in order to provide it with a greater level of funding certainty.
Another area that the committee looked at was national automotive numberplate recognition. The advantage of this would be that, as a car went past a camera, the police could automatically check to see if the person was wanted; it may be a stolen car. That method is used effectively in the UK for terrorism. Another aspect was the concerns by law enforcement agencies about the cost of obtaining telecommunications data from the providers. In Victoria, Detective Superintendent Mark Porter said that this year they have already spent $500,000 of the police budget. In New South Wales in 2006 it was $1.63 million. That places a very heavy burden on law enforcement agencies and needs to be addressed.
Another concern was that there is no requirement to produce identification for people getting SIM cards. We heard from experts across the country how criminals—from minor criminals to major criminal organisations—are changing their SIM cards up to five times a day, making it impossible for police to track them. Requiring a 100-point ID check is being looked at. Obviously this is something that needs a bit more work. Finally, we had a quick look at racketeering laws and a way of targeting outlaw motorcycle gangs. The committee agreed that more research needs to be done into this.
I congratulate the committee and the secretariat. I look forward in particular to the database issue being addressed throughout this country to make the jobs of law enforcement agencies a lot easier and better. Not having one hand tied behind their back will make a great difference when dealing with terrorism and serious crime.
CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CHILD SEX TOURISM OFFENCES AND RELATED MEASURES) BILL 2007
111
Bills
R2877
Report from Main Committee
111
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
112
Ms JULIE BISHOP
(Curtin
—Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues)
17:25:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
DEFENCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2007
112
Bills
R2860
Report from Main Committee
112
Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments; certified copy of the bill and schedules of amendments presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Main Committee’s amendments—
(1) Schedule 3, item 8, page 32 (after line 17), at the end of subsection 146A(1) (before the note), add:
Note 1: The summary authority must comply with the rules of natural justice and other basic principles of the rules of evidence.
(2) Schedule 3, item 8, page 32 (line 18), omit “Note:”, substitute “Note 2:”.
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
112
Ms JULIE BISHOP
(Curtin
—Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues)
17:26:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
TRADE PRACTICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 2007
112
Bills
R2842
Consideration of Senate Message
112
Consideration resumed from 18 September.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Schedule 2, page 5 (after line 5), after item 1, insert:
1A After subsection 46(1)
Insert:
(1AA) A corporation that has a substantial share of a market must not supply, or offer to supply, goods or services for a sustained period at a price that is less than the relevant cost to the corporation of supplying such goods or services, for the purpose of:
(a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation in that or any other market; or
(b) preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market; or
(c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market.
(1AB) For the purposes of subsection (1AA), without limiting the matters to which the Court may have regard for the purpose of determining whether a corporation has a substantial share of a market, the Court may have regard to the number and size of the competitors of the corporation in the market.
1B Subsection 46(1A)
Omit “subsection (1)”, substitute “subsections (1) and (1AA)”.
1C Paragraph 46(1A)(a)
Omit “paragraph (1)(a)”, substitute “paragraphs (1)(a) and (1AA)(a)”.
1D Paragraph 46(1A)(b)
After “paragraphs (1)(b) and (c)”, insert “and (1AA)(b) and (c)”.
(2) Schedule 2, page 7 (after line 26), after item 8, insert:
8A Paragraph 151AJ(5)(c)
Omit “paragraph 46(1)(a)”, substitute “paragraphs 46(1)(a) and (1AA)(a)”.
(3) Schedule 2, page 7 (after line 28), after item 9, insert:
9A After subsection 46(1) of the Schedule
Insert:
(1AA) A person that has a substantial share of a market must not supply, or offer to supply, goods or services for a sustained period at a price that is less than the relevant cost to the person of supplying such goods or services, for the purpose of:
(a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the person or of a body corporate that is related to the person in that or any other market; or
(b) preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market; or
(c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market.
(1AB) For the purposes of subsection (1AA), without limiting the matters to which the Court may have regard for the purpose of determining whether a person has a substantial share of a market, the Court may have regard to the number and size of the competitors of the person in the market.
9B Subsection 46(1A) of the Schedule
Omit “subsection (1)”, substitute “subsections (1) and (1AA)”.
9C Paragraph 46(1A)(a) of the Schedule
Omit “paragraph (1)(a)”, substitute “paragraphs (1)(a) and (1AA)(a)”.
9D Paragraph 46(1A)(b) of the Schedule
After “paragraphs (1)(b) and (c)”, insert “and (1AA)(b) and (c)”.
113
17:27:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
113
17:27:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—The government’s method of handling the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007 in this instance shows why they are no longer fit to hold office in this nation. The Trade Practices Act is a very important piece of legislation and it has been broken for a very long time. We have been pointing out since 2003 that section 46 of the act is not working. We have pointed out that since the Boral case not one action under section 46 has commenced. In fact, the ACCC discontinued several cases under section 46 following the Boral case. The government has arrogantly ignored the concerns expressed by this side of the House, by small business, by the ACCC and by commentators across the board. Now, at five minutes to midnight, we see the mother of all backflips from this government, and the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business and Tourism have not even bothered to come into the chamber and deal with it.
We have seen review after review of the Trade Practices Act. We have seen the Dawson committee. We saw the Senate inquiry in 2004. We have seen the Senate inquiry this year. The ACCC has been particularly vocal, and it made a particularly comprehensive submission to the Senate inquiry in 2004. Labor closely reviewed the evidence and moved six balanced, sensible and reasonable amendments in this House and in the other place, and the government rejected them.
Our amendments were crafted to strengthen the Trade Practices Act without undermining the competitive pressures that make our economy work. They were crafted to strike that sensible balance. And what does the government do? Firstly, it says that our amendments are unnecessary. Members will recall the minister for small business saying, ‘Your amendments aren’t necessary, because we’ve consulted with small business and they don’t want them.’ Minister Bailey, for obvious and understandable reasons, is not in the House today; she is too embarrassed to come in and deal with these amendments, because she said they were not necessary. She said, ‘No further amendments are necessary because we’ve consulted with small business.’
Then the minister for small business said to senators in the other place, ‘Please don’t refer this to a Senate committee, because this bill has been consulted on to within an inch of its life and no more changes are necessary.’ And, then, the government dropped their opposition to strengthening the Trade Practices Act. But do they adopt the position of the ACCC? No. Do they adopt the position of the Senate inquiry or the Dawson inquiry? No. Do they adopt Labor’s sensible and balanced amendments? No. Do they consult with the business community? Certainly not. I think there is a considerable amount of evidence relating to the concerns of the business community to suggest that that is not the case. Instead, they adopt an amendment written by Senator Joyce in the Birdsville pub. I have nothing against the Birdsville pub; I am sure it is a very fine establishment. I am sure it is a very nice place to be, but it is not particularly where I would prefer to see amendments to the Trade Practices Act written.
008K0
Byrne, Anthony, MP
Mr Byrne
—They were drafted there?
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—Drafted at the Birdsville pub, and Senator Joyce’s press release refers to the amendments as the Birdsville amendments. They are the Birdsville amendments by Joyce QC, written at the Birdsville pub. What a way to run a country! No wonder the government is viewed cynically across the nation. At five minutes to midnight they move these cynical amendments after rejecting for years Labor’s calls to strengthen the Trade Practices Act. Now what do we have? We now have a different test for different breaches of the Trade Practices Act. We have a test for ‘substantial market power’ under section 46, but we also have a test for ‘a substantial share of a market’ under the proposed new section which deals with predatory pricing. So we now have a Trade Practices Act which is a dog’s breakfast. We have a Trade Practices Act which is confusing. We have a Trade Practices Act with two different tests, but not for other breaches.
It is worth bearing in mind that the Boral case, one of the big Trade Practices Act cases, was about predatory pricing. Other big Trade Practices Act cases have not been about predatory pricing. There is more than predatory pricing when it comes to the abuse of market power. The Queensland Wire case was not about predatory pricing. The Rural Press case was not about predatory pricing and the Melway case was not about predatory pricing. There have been no changes to those—no change to the recoupment test and no change to the ‘take advantage’ provision. Section 46 stands unamended by this government, ignoring the ACCC, which has been calling for amendment to section 46. Instead, we have the amendments written by Chief Justice Barnaby Joyce in the Birdsville pub. (Extension of time granted) ‘Market share’ has not been defined in the amendments. ‘Substantial market share’ might be 20 per cent, 25 per cent, 15 per cent or 50 per cent—we do not know until there is a court case. So there is a substantial amount of uncertainty. ‘Market’ has not been defined in these amendments, so Birdsville is probably a market all to itself. Certainly Jindabyne would be a market, and Sydney is probably a market, and then we have the national market. We do not know what ‘market’ is and we do not know what ‘substantial share’ of a market is.
We affirm that the way forward in this matter is to adopt Labor’s sensible and balanced amendments, and I reaffirm that, should we form a government shortly, we will proceed with our amendments. We will strengthen section 46 properly. We accept that these amendments have already been through the other place and we accept that they will go through here, but we reserve the right to monitor their operation closely. It is hard to say that there will be unintended consequences, because I do not think the government had any idea what the consequences would be when they did this last-minute backflip to accept the amendments moved by Senator Joyce. This is a last-minute, cynical attempt to get the small business vote at the coming election.
The government have done this before. We know about their attempts to get the small business vote. Recently I read a very good book—the biography of the Prime Minister. When I was reading it my attention was drawn to page 295, which is about small business issues. There is a quote from the Treasurer.
A8W
Pearce, Christopher, MP
Mr Pearce interjecting—
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—The parliamentary secretary at the table might enjoy this quote. This is the Treasurer talking about small business paperwork where he says:
‘We successfully gave the impression of something being done without anything substantive being done.’
That is the Treasurer boasting:
‘We successfully gave the impression of something being done without anything substantive being done.’
He was boasting about pulling the wool over the eyes of small business by pretending that they were doing something to help small business when in fact they had done nothing. After years of neglect, years of ignoring the concerns of small business and years of ignoring the concerns of the ACCC, we now have the mother of all backflips with the adoption of amendments written by Chief Justice Barnaby Joyce at the Birdsville pub.
No wonder this government is viewed cynically. This is a cynical attempt to smudge the issues at the last minute. The government have no idea what the consequences of these amendments will be. Government advisers have admitted as such in private to certain business lobbyists; they have admitted that they do not know what the implications of the bill, as amended, are. We accept as a fait accompli that it will go through, but we will monitor it very closely and will continue to press our amendments to make section 46 work as was intended.
115
17:36:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
0
0
Dr EMERSON
—It is important to impart some philosophy in this debate, because it is clear there is no philosophy on the government’s side. Labor’s economic philosophy is as a party of competition. Labor, when in government, created the open, competitive economy. The purpose of a trade practices act is to ensure that competition prevails, to strengthen competition. Therefore Labor’s guiding principle in considering amendments to the Trade Practices Act is this: the amendments must be pro competition; they must not be designed to protect competitors but to protect competition.
Small business should agree—and most small businesses agree with that fundamental philosophic statement—because small business operators know that they can survive and thrive best in an open, competitive economy. It might be tempting from time to time to argue for protection against competition but they do best when they thrive in an open, competitive economy. It is against that yardstick that we judge these amendments.
As my colleague the member for Prospect has said, the government in this chamber through the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business and Tourism said it needs to make no further amendments. We were critical of the amendments that the government made because we believed that they were ineffective. Labor proposed a set of amendments that were well considered, balanced and pro competition. They were based overwhelmingly on recommendations on the public record by the competition watchdog, the ACCC, and we were therefore very comfortable in putting those amendments to the parliament. The government rejected them and, in doing so, the minister for small business said this:
The government’s amendment is as a result of the unanimous agreement of the small business groups.
… … …
As I said, the member for Rankin will not want to hear that response, but these amendments—and let me repeat it for the member for Rankin and the member for Prospect and everyone else on the opposition benches—are the result of detailed discussions and consultation with the small business groups.
The minister was saying: ‘We’ve got it right. There’s no purpose in adopting Labor’s amendments because we’re drawing a line.’ What line? The Birdsville line. Because Senator Joyce in a pub in Birdsville created government policy.
Senator Joyce, as a senator for Queensland, has every right to go to a pub in Birdsville, talk to his mates and come up with any sort of idea he wants to. But the Treasurer of this country surely does not have any right to then bow to the pressure of Senator Joyce having drafted an amendment to an important piece of competition legislation and then saying, ‘That’s okay. If Joyce QC says it’s okay, it’s okay with me, the Treasurer.’ That is an abrogation of economic responsibility in this country, a total abrogation to just accept an amendment moved by someone who designed it in a pub in Birdsville.
The fact is the government knew it was going to accommodate Senator Joyce. Why? Because the Birdsville amendment was drafted on 28 June of this year, the debate in the House was held in early August and the debate in the Senate just a few days ago. The government knew that it was going to accommodate Senator Joyce. Why do we know that? Because Labor offered to support the government’s bill. We said, ‘If our sensible amendments fail’—as we expect that they would—‘we will pass the bill.’ The Hansard records that the member for Prospect said Labor would join with the government and pass its amendments—the government’s amendments, not Senator Joyce’s Birdsville amendments.
There were 28 Labor senators ready to vote for the government’s bill, but the government knew it had a little caper going with Senator Joyce. The government did not tell us but, more importantly, the government did not tell the business community. Why? Because they had convinced the business community to run a very expensive advertising campaign on Work Choices. If they had told the business community that they were going to shaft the business community then the big business part of our economy would obviously have said, ‘Hold on. We’re going to try and help you on Work Choices, then you’re going to shaft us.’ That is why the Treasurer did not tell them. He knew what he was going to do in relation to Senator Joyce and the Birdsville amendment, and here are some of the consequences. (Extension of time granted). Legal opinion, in this case from Allens Arthur Robinson, is that as a result of the Birdsville amendment:
... it will no longer be necessary to prove that a corporation has ‘substantial market power’ to establish the threshold for the application of s46 to below-cost pricing … it will be sufficient to show that the corporation has a ‘substantial share of a market’.
… … …
Under the new amendments, a large market share of itself will be sufficient to attract the application of the predatory pricing provision, even where that market share does not equate to market power because there are low barriers to entry and a number of other competing firms with large market shares.
It goes on to say:
Purpose may be established by inference (s46(7)) or by direct evidence, and it is sufficient if the anti-competitive purpose is a substantial and operative one, even if the corporation has acted for a number of different purposes.
In other words, it is very easy for a business to get tripped up and be regarded as engaging in predatory pricing even when all it is doing is acting competitively as we would want a business to act competitively to keep prices low. There is a big debate in the parliament and beyond about the cost of living. We want businesses to keep prices low as a result of competition prevailing, not having businesses protected from competition.
There is another piece of legal opinion from Corrs, which says—and this backs up what I have just said:
The changes, if passed, are likely to introduce considerable uncertainty in the pricing decisions of large business and may prompt them to price more cautiously and conservatively. There is some potential for the changes to place upward pressure on prices.
The Treasurer is not here to explain the background, the purpose, the thinking. This will be very important, presumably, when the courts have to grapple with the Birdsville amendment. They are getting no guidance, and that is why I am going to ask the parliamentary secretary a number of questions which I hope he will be able to answer so that the courts will have some guidance in relation to the Birdsville amendment. This legal opinion goes on to say:
Restricting such competitive conduct may protect inefficient firms and damage competition.
That is the basis of our concern. So my questions go to these sorts of examples. Suppose, for example, that Tesco, a very large multinational retailer, enters the Australian market. Under the Birdsville amendment, it has no significant market share because it has just come in, so it cannot engage in predatory pricing no matter how able and willing it is to engage in low-cost pricing for a sustained period of time. The point I am making is that Tesco could come in and smash large and small retailers here because it cannot be affected by this Birdsville amendment because it does not have a market share. So the small businesses that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister say they are protecting could easily get screwed to the ground as a result of this. That is what we are talking about: unintended consequences in terms of forcing prices up through restricting competition, and unintended consequences for the small business community, many of whom will quite possibly think this is a great thing for them. They need to be very careful in assessing this. They need to look at the legal opinions.
A second example is an independent supermarket business in a small regional market. Let us consider this case. It could have, say, a 20 to 30 per cent market share. This is a small business in a small regional market. It therefore has a significant market share. That small business therefore could be caught by these provisions on predatory pricing as a result of the Birdsville amendment. There are other examples. Budget airlines entering Australia do not have substantial market share. So you could have Qantas and the other airlines here being unable to match them in a price war. That means it is bad for Qantas and for the other Australian airlines—and it is bad for consumers—because the international firms coming in cannot be caught under this provision but the ones that are here and already have a significant market share can be.
This is a crazy approach to policymaking by Joyce QC. Labor supports small business and Labor supports competition, but above all Labor supports good policy. It just shows how lazy the Treasurer is and how desperate the Prime Minister is in ordering that the Birdsville amendment be accepted. That is why we are deeply concerned about unintended consequences. It is all very good for the Prime Minister to run around and say, ‘We’re the friend of small business.’ We will see about that. (Time expired)
118
17:47:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—From the outset, I have to say that I have never heard so much nonsense and rubbish in all my life. In saying that, I have to also say that we hardly need a lesson from the Australian Labor Party about the abrogation of economic responsibility. The last time the Australian Labor Party were in office, they abrogated economic responsibility unbelievably. We had one million people unemployed. You talk about support for small business. The last time the Labor Party were in office, the best they did for small business was 22 per cent on overdrafts.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—Mr Deputy Speaker, we need answers to these questions.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—Order! The member for Rankin will resume his seat.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—Answer the questions!
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Rankin will desist from interjecting. He does not have the call.
A8W
Pearce, Christopher, MP
Mr PEARCE
—It will be a long time before I answer your particular questions, I can tell you, Member for Rankin. And don’t preach to me about history; you have been prattling on for the last 15 or 20 minutes about history. The last thing that you gave small business in Australia was overdraft rates of 22 per cent, so I do not think we need any lessons from the Australian Labor Party.
We heard from the member for Prospect about feedback from business. The feedback that we get from business around Australia is that the very last thing they want is for the socialists in the Australian Labor Party to get their hands on the Trade Practices Act.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This is a very important question. The courts will need guidance on the intention of this legislation. They will be relying very heavily on the response of this man to the questions that we have asked.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Rankin has made his point of order. The member for Rankin does not have a point unless it is a point on relevance.
A8W
Pearce, Christopher, MP
Mr PEARCE
—Mr Deputy Speaker, it is an amazing thing: we allow the ALP to prattle on with nonsense and rubbish without interrupting them, but we are not entitled to the same courtesy. It is absolutely stunning and amazing, isn’t it?
As I said, the feedback that we receive from Australian businesses throughout Australia is that the very last thing they want is for the Australian Labor Party to get their hands on the Trade Practices Act. I thought that Labor supported this amendment, but we have heard all this rubbish and nonsense for the last 15 or 20 minutes. I thought that they supported this amendment. They certainly did in the Senate. The question was that the amendments be agreed to. The question was not for us to go on and on about nonsense. We think that this amendment makes sense. We think that it does balance those critical areas of promoting competition, protecting consumers and of course looking after business across Australia. I commend the amendments to the House.
Question agreed to.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2007 MEASURES
No. 5) Bill 2007
119
Bills
R2872
Consideration of Senate Message
119
Message from Governor-General recommending an appropriation for the purposes of amendments of the Tax Laws Amendment (2007 Measures No. 5) Bill 2007 announced.
Bill returned from the Senate with a request for amendments.
Ordered that the requested amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s requested amendments—
(1) Schedule 10, item 1, page 137 (lines 10 and 11), omit subparagraph 376‑65(5)(a)(ii), substitute:
(ii) each episode of the series is at least one half of a commercial hour in duration, except where the film is predominantly made using cell, stop motion, digital or other animation, in which case each episode is at least one quarter of a commercial hour in duration; and
(2) Schedule 10, item 1, page 137 (lines 17 and 18), omit subparagraph 376‑65(5)(b)(ii), substitute:
(ii) each episode of the series is at least one half of a commercial hour in duration, except where the film is predominantly made using cell, stop motion, digital or other animation, in which case each episode is at least one quarter of a commercial hour in duration; and
Mr ANDREWS
(Menzies
—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship)
17:51:00
—I move:
That the requested amendments be made.
Question agreed to.
AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 2007
119
Bills
R2895
First Reading
119
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.
AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 2007
119
Bills
R2895
Referred to Main Committee
119
Mr BARTLETT
(Macquarie)
17:53:00
—by leave—I move:
That the bill be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
TAXATION (TRUSTEE BENEFICIARY NON-DISCLOSURE TAX) BILL (NO. 2) 2007
119
Bills
R2837
TAXATION (TRUSTEE BENEFICIARY NON-DISCLOSURE TAX) BILL (NO. 1) 2007
119
Bills
R2836
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2007 MEASURES NO. 4) BILL 2007
119
Bills
R2820
QUARANTINE AMENDMENT (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY) BILL 2007
119
Bills
R2887
Returned from the Senate
119
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
BUSINESS
119
Business
Rearrangement
119
Mr ANDREWS
(Menzies
—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship)
17:54:00
—I move:
That order of the day No. 6, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2007 BUDGET MEASURES FOR STUDENTS) BILL 2007
120
Bills
R2825
Second Reading
120
Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Mr Robb:
That this bill be now read a second time.
120
17:54:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—The Social Security Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures for Students) Bill 2007 gives effect to income support measures for students announced in the 2007-08 budget and updates aspects of the administration of Abstudy and the Assistance for Isolated Children schemes in line with similar provisions under the Social Security Act 1991. The bill extends eligibility for Austudy payments to some students undertaking particular types of master’s degrees and expands the eligibility for rent assistance to Austudy recipients. The bill also makes minor amendments to the act to bring processes for Abstudy and assistance for isolated children payments into line with other allowances when money is deposited into an incorrect financial institution and to allow data to be transferred electronically for administrative purposes. The total financial impact of the bill is $130.2 million over the forward estimates
Labor supports this bill. Labor supports this bill because for too long too many of our young people attending university have been doing it tough. Responsibility for this lies with the Howard government. In its more than 11 years in office, the Howard government has made it more difficult for Australian students to go to university. There are now more than 100 degrees that cost $100,000 or more. Under the Howard government HECS debts for students have increased by between $7,500 and $30,000. Since 1996, HECS debts have nearly tripled from $4.5 billion to nearly $13 billion and, according to figures from the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, between 1998 and 2006 there was a 6.4 per cent drop in the number of students receiving either Austudy or youth allowance.
These factors particularly adversely impact students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Most graphically, we saw a few weeks ago the release of the vice-chancellors’ final report on student finances, the Australian University Student Finances 2006 report by Universities Australia. This underlined just how difficult the financial burden of going to university is for many students. The report revealed that: nearly 42 per cent of all full-time undergraduates and nearly 33 per cent of full-time postgraduate coursework students had a total annual income of less than $10,000; full-time postgraduate coursework students had the highest rate of rejection for youth allowance, the highest rate of dependence on a partner, and the highest level of debt; female students are more likely to rely on free or subsidised services provided by universities and student associations and believed they would be less able to afford these services if they were not subsidised; and financial pressures are increasingly forcing full-time students into taking on multiple part-time jobs, undermining the whole of university life experience.
The report is an indictment of the Howard government’s neglect and complacency about the financial pressure university students are under. Showing just how out of touch the Howard government is, the response from the Minister for Education, Science and Training has been that students should be more ‘frugal’ and the government should not fund a ‘lifestyle’. Minister Bishop claimed that the report’s findings were flawed as the study was based on ‘anecdotal’ evidence and questioned the honesty of the students participating in the survey, saying, ‘I know what I would have said if I were a student.’ That the minister for education does not trust Australian university students or believe that students are facing financial hardship demonstrates just how out of touch the Howard government is. These financial pressures are increasingly turning full-time students into multiple part-time workers, undermining if not eliminating the whole of university life experience.
The difficulties faced by young Australians trying to get an education were reinforced by the evidence presented to the Senate committee of inquiry into this legislation. The committee received seven submissions to the inquiry. Each submission was ultimately supportive of the legislation but each noted that the legislation did not go far enough. Universities Australia, for example, welcomed the measures, noting that they will provide better financial support for many students. Its submission argued, however, that the measures did not go far enough. In particular, Universities Australia was critical of the fact that narrowly defined criteria for youth allowance eligibility were preventing many students from gaining income support assistance. The submission argued that the financial difficulties young Australians face in completing their university studies is exacerbated by an increasing number of students having their applications for youth allowance rejected or not receiving youth allowance at the full rate.
To support its case, Universities Australia provided the 9 March draft of its Australian University Student Finances 2006 report to the committee to support its argument that university students at all levels are increasingly faced with financial hardship. That 9 March draft report found that 40 per cent of full-time students and 33 per cent of part-time students believed the jobs they were doing were having an adverse impact on their studies, 22 per cent of full-time students and 33 per cent of part-time students regularly missed classes because they had to work and the number of students incurring a debt had more than doubled from 11 per cent in 2000 to 24 per cent today.
Universities Australia argued that the ‘age of independence for youth allowance recipients should be reduced in order for university students not to be assessed on the basis of their parents’ incomes and assets.’ It also pointed out that the Social Security Act 1991 governs the age of independence and that the act contains a provision indicating that the age of independence ‘will be progressively reduced over time’. Universities Australia observed that this provision has been in place for nine years, since the passage of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Act 1998, and the age of independence has not yet been reduced. It argued that an amendment to the bill to reduce the age of independence to 18, as per the policy principle of reducing the age of independence, would greatly improve the support available to Australian university students.
Both the National Union of Students, the NUS, and the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations, the CAPA, welcomed the budget measures, as did university-specific student organisations. Both the National Union of Students and the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations noted that, of themselves, the measures are only part of the answer to redressing the financial hardship of university students. The NUS submission noted that, as a general proposition, the budget measures would not ‘sufficiently address the ability for students to live and study without experiencing or being at risk of falling into poverty’. The NUS also argued that:
... the expectation that students will continue to be financially supported by their parents (if they are deemed well-off) is unrealistic and does not allow for the individual’s respective needs and situations.
The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations submission, while particularly welcoming the measure to extend rent assistance to Austudy recipients, was critical that insufficient effort had been made to provide genuine income support assistance and that:
... the current rates for Youth Allowance and Austudy place many students in extreme poverty.
It further noted that:
... even with access to rent assistance, most students are unable to live on income support alone, let alone those challenged with additional financial commitments and responsibilities.
The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations submission made a number of recommendations, including that access to income support be extended to all students studying at postgraduate level to include both coursework and research higher degrees, regardless of the nature of the course in which they are enrolled; the base rates of youth allowance and Austudy be raised to, and remain above, the relevant Henderson poverty line; and the age of independence be reduced to 18 years of age to bring it into line with most other measures of social and financial responsibility.
The council was also critical of the course eligibility provisions in the bill. The bill provides that only master’s degree courses required for entry to a profession or that exist as a result of a course structure will be eligible for income support assistance and that course eligibility will be at the discretion of the minister. The council argued that:
... these measures in their current form will allow access to income support to only a very small number of students in this group, and therefore fail to address the genuine need that has been identified in this area.
I now move to the substance of the bill. The bill contains a number of measures to bring the processes for Abstudy and AIC payments into line with other allowances when money is deposited into an incorrect financial institution and to allow data to be transferred electronically for administrative purposes. The key provisions of the bill, however, relate to the Austudy income support allowance.
Austudy provides financial help to students aged 25 years or more who are studying or undertaking an Australian apprenticeship full time. Currently, eligibility is restricted to students undertaking undergraduate courses and associate diplomas, to the exclusion of master’s degree level qualifications. The payments are subject to an income test and an assets test and do not currently include access to rent assistance. Rent assistance is a payment to assist those on income support to pay their rent, in addition to regular payments.
This bill makes two welcome changes to the Austudy allowance by extending eligibility to those undertaking some, but not all, professional master’s degrees and allowing all Austudy recipients to apply for rent assistance. As the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations noted in its submission to the inquiry into this legislation, restrictions have been placed on the types of master’s degrees that would make students eligible for this support, limiting the impact of the measures. The bill provides that only master’s degree courses required for entry to a profession or that exist as a result of a course restructure will be eligible for income support assistance and that course eligibility will be at the discretion of the minister. This will have the effect of limiting the number of students who are eligible for income support. While Labor welcomes the extension of Austudy to master’s degree students, the government’s approach fails to address the genuine need in this area.
These measures are a welcome start to addressing the financial pressures facing Australian university students, but they are but a modest beginning. The government’s own 2005 higher education report released earlier this year reveals that the debt burden for young Australian students has more than tripled under the Howard government, from $4.5 billion in 1996-97 to nearly $13 billion in 2005-06. This constitutes a massive debt burden around the necks of young Australians and our nation. It is little wonder that the HECS debt burden continues to grow, given the Howard government’s green light for a 25 per cent increase in university fees in 2005.
If increasing HECS debts were not enough of a burden on students, the Howard government has presided over the establishment of $100,000 degrees in Australian public universities. This has occurred despite the Prime Minister’s promise that there would be no $100,000 university fees under his government. The recently published 2008 Good Universities Guide shows that there are now over 100 domestic full-fee degrees at public universities that cost in excess of $100,000 and two domestic full-fee university degrees that cost in excess of $200,000. The guide also shows that one degree at a public university costs in the vicinity of $240,000, roughly the same amount as the average Australian housing loan of around $245,000. Like the Minister for Education, Science and Training, who believes that students should be more frugal, the Treasurer has described the present system as ‘generous’ and has pointed out that in the United States students fork out more than $100,000 and rely on banks to lend them the money. This just demonstrates how out of touch the Howard government has become.
Labor welcomes the announcement by Universities Australia to commission a study into equity and access issues for low socioeconomic students in Australia’s universities. Labor recognises that mounting student HECS debts can act as a disincentive to attending university, particularly for those from lower socioeconomic or battling backgrounds. That is why Labor has already announced targeted HECS relief in the national priority areas of maths and science.
Labor has also announced that it will give struggling university students a helping hand by reintroducing the Voluntary Student Supplement Scheme, abolished by the Howard government in 2004. The Voluntary Student Supplement Scheme will allow repayable loans of up to $7,000 per annum to be made available to students currently receiving Commonwealth income support. The scheme will allow students to trade in $1 of their income support payment—for example, youth allowance or Austudy—to obtain a $2 loan supplement, up to the value of $7,000, and repay the loan, without interest, once their annual income rises above a certain level. The Voluntary Student Supplement Scheme rewards students for agreeing to pay back the income support they would receive as a student when they achieve a higher level of salary as a graduate. Students must be willing to put in the hard yards to support themselves, but there is a point when the financial and time pressures faced by students simply become too great and compromise not only the quality of their education but the potential future contribution they can make to the Australian economy.
On a technical matter, I have been approached by Melbourne University, which wrote to me expressing concern about one detailed aspect of the bill. The university said:
... the University welcomes the proposed extension of eligibility to students enrolling in professional graduate courses who would otherwise be significantly disadvantaged in terms of access to living support. This is an important equity measure. For this institution, the passage of the amendment will ensure students from disadvantaged backgrounds will enjoy eligibility in a new suite of Melbourne Model degrees from 2008.
However, the University has identified one significant issue with the current wording of the legislative amendment.
The Bill before the Parliament (Schedule 2, Clause 5) proposes a new provision in the Social Security Act 1991 in the following form:
“5 After subsection 569H(8)
Insert:
Level M courses
(8 A) A course for a degree of Master is a Level M Course.”
A literal reading of the proposed amendment to the Act may restrict the scope for Administrative Guidelines and Ministerial Determinations to extend support to students enrolling in professional coursework programs with a designation other than “Masters”.
This is an immediate and pressing concern. For example, Melbourne’s professional graduate entry Law Course is the Juris Doctor—the accepted design for law degrees at leading universities in North America and, increasingly, in many Australian universities offering graduate legal education. Likewise, the amendment as proposed could exclude students seeking support to study clinical professional graduate programs in the health and veterinary sciences areas. Again, consistent with emerging international practice, such programs are typically of three or four years duration, and offered as professional coursework doctorates—a Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Dentistry, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and so on.
The University understands, and discussion at officer level with DEST officers confirms, that it has always been intended that students enrolling in these degrees, providing they met the other requirements in the guidelines, were to be covered by this extension of support.
Despite suggestions at officer level to the contrary, the University has grave reservations whether, if the proposed legislation were to proceed in its current form, an administrative solution could be found that would enable such students to be covered.
I understand that the same representations have been made to the government and a similar request was also made to the government to amend the bill. Following this approach, my office consulted further with the university sector formally through Universities Australia, the Group of Eight and the Australian Technology Network of Universities, all of which advised that the proposal to amend the bill was sensible and would provide greater clarity. I therefore propose to move a substantive amendment along these lines to the bill during committee stage. I will be seeking to amend schedule 2, clause 5. The clause currently reads:
“After subsection 569H(8)
Insert:
Level M Courses
(8A) A course for a degree of master is a Level M course.”
My amendment will insert the words ‘or equivalent’ to change the definition of a level M course to:
“A course for a degree of master (or equivalent) is a Level M course.”
That is a technical amendment, which, on the basis of my understanding, the government intends in any event for the bill as drafted to cover, and I hope the government will see fit to agree to it so as to ensure there is no doubt about these matters.
In conclusion, Labor supports the objectives of the limited budget measures contained in this bill. However, they come after more than 11 years during which the government has been either complacent about or neglectful of or has actively undermined our university sector. Labor believes universities and university students are an investment in our national productive and economic future. The restrictions on eligible courses mean that the bill does not go far enough in addressing the financial pressures faced by university students, and there is much more that needs to be done. To reflect these sentiments I will now formally move a second reading amendment in the terms circulated in my name and commend the amendment and the bill to the House. 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:
-
welcomes the extension of eligibility for Austudy payments to students undertaking Masters degrees and the expansion of eligibility for Rent Assistance to all Austudy recipients;
-
notes that these measures come after more than eleven years in office, during which time the Government has made it more difficult for Australian students to go to University, demonstrated by the fact that;
-
the cost of a university degree has increased student HECS debts by between $7,500 and $30,000;
-
there are now more than 100 University degrees costing more than $100,000;
-
since 1996, HECS debts have nearly tripled from $4.5 billion to nearly $13 billion;
-
notes the findings of the Australian University Finances 2006 report which revealed;
-
nearly 42 per cent of all full-time undergraduates and nearly 33 per cent of full-time postgraduate coursework students had a total annual income of less than $10,000;
-
full-time postgraduate coursework students had the highest rate of rejection for Youth Allowance, the highest rate of dependence on a partner, and the highest level of debt; and
-
female students are more likely to rely on free or subsidised services provided by Universities and student associations and believed they would be less able to afford these services if they were not subsidised.
-
notes the Government’s dismissive and out of touch attitude of these findings, in particular, the labelling of the survey of nearly 19,000 questionnaire responses as ‘anecdotal’, for suggesting that students should be more ‘frugal’ with their finances, and for saying that the HECS system is ‘generous’; and
-
condemns the Government for failing to adequately meet the genuine income support needs of Australia’s University students over its period in office”.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—Is the amendment seconded?
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr Murphy
—It is an unalloyed pleasure to second the amendment.
125
18:14:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
1
0
Mr TUCKEY
—The Social Security Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures for Students) Bill 2007 is primarily about financial matters that endorse budget promises that were designed to improve the fairness and administrative flexibility of certain social security assistance applicable to tertiary students. The measures total almost $130 million over a four-year period. One measure provides $86.9 million for extending rent assistance to Austudy and $43.3 million for youth allowance and Austudy for master’s degree courses. These measures are to be welcomed, and it is obvious that the opposition, in preparing some amendments, have gone down the pious amendment road once more, because, having welcomed certain aspects of the bill, they have taken the opportunity to raise issues regarding HECS payments. HECS, of course, was an invention of the Hawke Labor government and was supported at the time by the then Liberal opposition on the simple grounds that it had become patently obvious that the Whitlam free university experiment had failed. It failed because it became beyond the resources of this parliament and the Australian taxpayer to finance it. It also became patently obvious that the grand plan that every poor kid would go to university because it was free was not to materialise; in fact, the very generous scheme introduced by the Whitlam government became middle-class welfare.
One might wonder, therefore, about this pious amendment by which the opposition want to revert to their pleadings with regard to HECS. HECS is their own invention, and of course they remind us that the cost of a university degree has increased students’ HECS debts by between $7,000 and $530,000. As I recollect, since the introduction of HECS the income threshold before people have to repay HECS has gone from about $15,000 to about $37,000. Where is the creative arithmetic? It so happens that the value of a home in that period has gone up three or four times. So why bother to move an amendment that recognises the obvious and tries to lay some sort of blame on government administration?
A similar comment could apply to the 100 university degrees costing more than $100,000. Of course, we believe in payment for excellence. Excellence is a fundamental of university education, and I assume that during the same period the cost of professors, tutors and people with doctorates who work in the universities and of all the other people associated with them has also gone up, and it is not necessarily the responsibility of the government. HECS has also tripled. That might mean that there are a lot more kids going to university, and there was a period of high youth unemployment when many did. But again, those figures do not tell us exactly how much of that money anybody is responsible to repay. If, for instance, a person does not enter the workforce, goes overseas or takes other options, that money remains unpaid under the law as it is written.
This also raises another point, about which a previous minister for education was at pains to remind this House: there are very extensive benefits for people who undertake a university degree. Salaries at the lowest level can be $40,000 while people in certain other jobs and professions might never achieve that income level, even as a mature-age worker. There are those who do, but when one looks at a lot of the lower paid jobs—maybe even those associated with someone who has paid up-front fees to get a diploma at TAFE—they do not earn that sort of money. One would think it only reasonable to ask people to repay to the taxpayer—not the government—some of the assistance that the taxpayer has provided that allowed them to earn above-average incomes and sometimes very excellent incomes. Please remember that HECS relates to only 25 per cent of the total cost of delivering certain degrees.
I think that deals primarily with the complaints of the opposition in terms of their saying something that is really totally unrelated to this legislation. But it also reminds me, as I just said, that the opposition seem to have a quite limited interest in the rights of people who earn TAFE diplomas. They do not seem to care that much about what those people might get paid or what it costs them, even though those sorts of people have always been considered to be their voter base. Primarily, as the member for Perth has advised us, the provisions in the bill are related to including people who do a second master’s degree and people who have certain rights under Abstudy but have been excluded from some of the tax benefits.
They are the sorts of issues being addressed in this legislation. It is a clear attempt by the government to better address these problems. It overcomes what might seem to be a very simple issue; that is, funds being improperly or incorrectly directed to a financial institution, which I assume is where the addressee has no right of access—in other words, it is a mistake—and this empowers the relevant agencies to recover that money. That is a very workmanlike decision.
Considering the association of this legislation with university education, this gives me the opportunity to make a couple of remarks that the minister at the table, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship—whilst this is not his responsibility—might pass on to his cabinet colleagues. I have heard it said in the party room that there is still a deficiency in the financial assistance we give to people who reside outside of major cities and/or even larger regional centres where university services are available.
It is an interesting aspect of the education system that, in the urban environment, the more wealthy you are, the closer you are likely to live to a university, and so it is pretty easy for your kids to get to the university on foot or by pushbike—that is, if they have not already insisted that you buy them a motorcar. The reality is that, when one resides in many parts of my electorate or, more particularly, the electorate of Kalgoorlie or, in fact, your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, the difficulty in attending a tertiary institution, a university, increases hugely because you have to relocate yourself. That has always been a major problem in rural and regional communities. People in employment, valued employees—even those in the teaching profession—in these rural and regional communities plan their life to be back in a city and as close as possible to a university as their children complete secondary education. Those people are valued in these small communities and they literally pack up and leave.
If they have business, rural farming or pastoral commitments, that opportunity is not so easily available, and then the question comes to them: what do we do? Do they buy a house, a flat or something in the capital city at some considerable expense—which they might not be able to afford? Does one of the partners leave the family business or where they live and go down to look after the young person, or do they just buy a flat and take a risk on the young person’s future by leaving them there on their own? Whatever the choice, there is a very significant expense involved that simply does not apply to people who live in the vicinity of a tertiary institution—and I will talk a bit more about that in a minute.
What I am saying is that it has nothing to do with your wealth; it is just unfair by comparison because, as I pointed out, in the urban environment, the richer you are, the closer you live to a university—and I think there is still an opportunity for the government to take closer notice of the representations that have been made to most members of parliament by the highly regarded ICPA—Isolated Children’s Parents Association. I thought I had got my letters in the wrong order there, but that is not as bad as not being able to quote the tax scale, is it, Mr Deputy Speaker? From the point of equity, this bill provides a wonderful improvement in access assistance. We give rent assistance and other things, but access has been denied to so many young people who reside a fair distance from a tertiary institution.
In that regard, I can be very proud of my own efforts, as I claim a very significant amount of credit and responsibility for gaining a university for the town of Geraldton—a town, which at the time, had a population of about 25,000 people and had no localised university services whatsoever. The reason for that was that the universities to whom our government provided the recurrent training places were of the view that they did not want to extend a subcampus to Geraldton. I am very grateful to a minister who has now left the parliament, David Kemp, whom I approached, asking that at the next recurrent round of grants he not just give the regional places to the universities to pick and choose from—as they would—but instead identify some geographic locations, particularly Geraldton, where he might allocate some places. As I say, I record my gratitude many years later that he did that. Suddenly the university club of Perth saw 20 recurrent places sitting up in a town that had no facilities whatsoever and they became obliged to go to Geraldton and service them.
Since then the attendance has grown and a building primarily funded by this government—I think $3 million was funded—now operates as the centre. It was a very emotional day for me when I celebrated with nine mature-age women—mothers; family people—who were the first nursing graduates, and actually the first graduates, from that facility. While looking at all of them I realised that none of them could have got that degree had there not been a facility in their town. They had family responsibilities. They wanted to improve themselves—and they were obviously contributing to that community by being resident in that community—but they could not say to their husband and children, ‘I want to go to university; I am off to Perth and you look after yourselves.’ So I was pleased to see the extension of those sorts of facilities into regional communities.
The University of Western Australia already had a campus in Albany, and they have extended the recurrent places for that campus by another five. That is also giving the services that I mentioned. It is very good to have that service provided, but there are still people who are well outside that area or who reside in very small communities. It even gets very difficult when one looks at the various costs involved and the thresholds and the caps we put on the availability of this assistance, because it virtually comes to a point where, if you have enough money to be able to afford to relocate your children to the city, you are deemed too wealthy to get any of this rent assistance or other things referred to in this legislation.
This debate has been a good opportunity to make those points. The fundamentals are that this is good legislation. I think the opposition’s amendment is creative arithmetic and serves little purpose in this debate. But they have said it and, as they did the other day, they are criticising their own initiatives. They were the ones who criticised their discontinuance of dental assistance from the Australian parliament’s budget, yet it was their legislation that started it and their legislation that finished it and the only outcome at that time was that the states who received that money withdrew their own money in roughly an equivalent amount. They did not hire the extra staff they should have and the waiting lists declined only marginally. This frequently occurs. It is interesting that individuals get the money from the Medicare proposal that has now been passed in the parliament and not state agencies, which have a wonderful capacity to spend money. I am more than happy to conclude my remarks at this stage.
128
18:32:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues
1
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—I thank all members of the House for their contribution today to the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures for Students) Bill 2007, particularly the member for O’Connor. The purpose of this bill is to amend three acts: the Student Assistance Act 1973, the Social Security Act 1991 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. The measures contained in the bill enhance the delivery of income support for students and provide a significant benefit to students and their families at a cost to budget of $135 million over four years.
The amendment to the Student Assistance Act 1973 will allow for the recovery of payments under Abstudy and the Assistance for Isolated Children’s Scheme that are made to incorrect financial institutions. The amendment also allows notices for data transfer to be issued electronically. Current technologies and data transfer processes that are used by Centrelink for other student income support payments will now be extended to Abstudy and the Assistance for Isolated Children’s Scheme. The amendment to the Social Security Act 1991 will provide rent assistance to students aged 25 years and over who receive Austudy. Extending rent assistance to Austudy supports measures to attract more mature age people to participate in education and training. The bill also extends eligibility for youth allowance and Austudy to students enrolled in an approved master’s by coursework program, which is required for entry to a profession, the fastest pathway to professional entry or the only pathway provided by the higher education institution, following a restructure of existing course delivery. Extending income support for student payments to approved coursework master’s degrees will assist these students to acquire the skills and training they need for careers, which will make a significant contribution to the Australian economy.
The amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 will ensure that crisis and bereavement payments under the Abstudy scheme are treated in the same way as crisis and bereavement payments under the Social Security Act 1991—that is, Abstudy crisis payment and Abstudy bereavement payments are wholly or partly exempt from income tax. Extending crisis and bereavement payments to Abstudy recipients will allow Indigenous students to receive these payments, which were not previously available under Abstudy. The measure itself will be introduced under the Abstudy ministerial guidelines. The bill also provides for a multiple exclusion clause to prevent crisis payment under the Social Security Act 1991 for the same event being claimed also under Abstudy. This provision will also be mirrored in the Abstudy guidelines.
In summing up, these measures demonstrate the importance that the Australian government places on ensuring that all Australians, regardless of age, location or background, have the opportunity to participate in education and training and to contribute to the nation’s continued prosperity. The Australian economy depends on its most precious and important resource—its people. A well-educated and skilled population increases workforce participation and allows every Australian to make a contribution to the broader Australian community. I commend the bill to the House.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Perth 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.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Consideration in Detail
129
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
129
18:37:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—I move:
Schedule 2, item 5, page 6 (line 20), omit
‘(8A) A course for a degree of Master is a Level M course.’, substitute
‘(8A) A course for a degree of Master (or equivalent) is a Level M course.’.
I dealt with the amendment extensively in my remarks. The Minister for Education, Science and Training has given me the courtesy of indicating, as I myself said, that it is of a technical nature to ensure that particular master’s equivalent degrees are included within the purview of the legislation, which was said to be the intention. The minister has also indicated that she has no difficulty with it, so there is no need for further or extensive remarks from me.
Question agreed to.
130
18:37:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues
1
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2):
-
Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
6. Schedule 3
1 January 2008.
1 January 2008
-
Page 8 (after line 22), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3—Amendment of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
1
Section 11‑15 (table)
After:
social security or like payments
insert:
ABSTUDY scheme, payment under
Sub-divsion
52‑E
2 Section 51‑35 (note)
Omit “52‑F”, substitute “52‑E or 52‑F”.
3 Section 51‑40 (note)
Omit “52‑F”, substitute “52‑E or 52‑F”.
4 After Subdivision 52‑D
Insert:
Subdivision 52‑E—Exempt payments under the ABSTUDY scheme
Guide to Subdivision 52‑E
52-130 What this Subdivision is about
This Subdivision tells you:
(a)
the payments under the ABSTUDY scheme that are wholly or partly exempt from income tax; and
(b)
any special circumstances, conditions or exceptions that apply to a payment in order for it to be exempt; and
(c)
how to work out how much of a payment is exempt.
Table of sections
Operative provisions
52‑131 Payments under ABSTUDY scheme
52‑132 Supplementary amounts of payments
52‑133 Tax‑free amount of ordinary payment on death of partner if no bereavement payment payable
52‑134 Tax‑free amount if you receive a bereavement lump sum payment
Operative provisions
52‑131 Payments under ABSTUDY scheme
(1) This section tells you about the income tax treatment of a payment under the ABSTUDY scheme made in respect of a period commencing at a time when you were at least 16 years old.
Note: The whole of a payment made under the ABSTUDY scheme in respect of a period commencing at a time when you are under 16 years old may be exempt under section 51‑10.
(2) A crisis payment made to you under the ABSTUDY scheme is exempt from income tax.
(3) If:
(a) an *ordinary payment becomes due to you; and
(b) the payment is not covered by subsection (4) or (6);
the *supplementary amount of the ordinary payment is exempt from income tax.
Note: To work out the supplementary amount of the ordinary payment, see section 52‑132.
(4) If:
(a) your partner dies; and
(b) you do not qualify for a payment under the ABSTUDY scheme in respect of that death; and
(c) an *ordinary payment becomes due to you during the bereavement period;
the *supplementary amount and the *tax‑free amount of the ordinary payment are exempt from income tax.
Note 1: To work out the supplementary amount of the ordinary payment, see section 52‑132.
Note 2: To work out the tax‑free amount of the ordinary payment, see section 52‑133.
(5) If a payment becomes due to you under the ABSTUDY scheme because of a person’s death (except a lump sum payment because of your partner’s death), the payment is exempt from income tax.
(6) If:
(a) your partner dies; and
(b) a lump sum payment under the ABSTUDY scheme becomes due to you because of your partner’s death;
the total of the following are exempt from income tax up to the *tax free amount:
(c) the lump sum payment; and
(d) all other payments that become due to you under the ABSTUDY scheme during the bereavement lump sum period.
Note: To work out the tax‑free amount, see section 52‑134.
(7) ABSTUDY scheme means the scheme known as ABSTUDY.
(8) Ordinary payment means a payment under the ABSTUDY scheme, other than:
(a) a crisis payment; or
(b) a payment made because of a person’s death.
(9) The following expressions used in this Subdivision have the same meaning as in the ABSTUDY Policy Manual:
(a) bereavement lump sum period;
(b) bereavement period;
(c) illness separated couple;
(d) lump sum payment;
(e) partner;
(f) pension age;
(g) respite care couple.
Note: In 2007, the ABSTUDY Policy Manual was accessible through the website of the Department of Education, Science and Training.
52‑132 Supplementary amount of payment
The *supplementary amount of a payment is the total of:
(a) so much of the payment as is included to assist you with, or to reimburse you for, the costs of any one or more of the following:
(i) rent;
(ii) living in a remote area;
(iii) commencing employment;
(iv) travel to, or participation in, courses, interviews, education or training;
(v) a child or children wholly or substantially dependent on you;
(vi) telephone bills;
(vii) living away from your usual residence;
(viii) maintaining your usual residence while living away from that residence;
(ix) accommodation, books or equipment;
(x) discharging a HEC assessment debt (within the meaning of Chapter 4 of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988);
(xi) discharging a compulsory repayment amount (within the meaning of the Higher Education Support Act 2003);
(xii) transport in travelling to undertake education or training, or to visit your usual residence when undertaking education or training away from that residence;
(xiii) if you are disabled—acquiring any special equipment, services or transport as a result of the disability;
(xiv) anything that would otherwise prevent you from beginning, continuing or completing any education or training; and
(b) so much of the payment as is included by way of pharmaceutical allowance.
52‑133 Tax‑free amount of ordinary payment on death of partner if no bereavement payment payable
This is how to work out the tax‑free amount of an *ordinary payment for the purposes of subsection 52‑131(4):
Method statement
Step 1.
Work out the *
supplementary amount of the payment.
Note: The supplementary amount is also exempt and is worked out under section 52‑132.
Step 2.
Subtract the *
supplementary amount from the amount of the payment.
Step 3.
Work out what would have been the amount of the payment if your partner had not died.
Step 4.
Work out what would have been the *
supplementary amount of the payment if your partner had not died.
Step 5.
Subtract the amount at Step 4 from the amount at Step 3.
Step 6.
Subtract the amount at Step 5 from the amount at Step 2: the result is the tax‑free amount.
52‑134 Tax‑free amount if you receive a bereavement lump sum payment
This is how to work out the tax‑free amount for the purposes of subsection 52‑131(6):
Method Statement
Step 1.
Work out the payments under the ABSTUDY scheme that would have become due to you during the bereavement lump sum period if:
(a) your partner had not died; and
(b) your partner had been under pension age; and
(c) immediately before your partner died, you and your partner had been neither an illness separated couple nor a respite care couple.
Step 2.
Work out how much of those payments would have been exempt in those circumstances.
Step 3.
Work out the payments under the ABSTUDY scheme or the Social Security Act 1991 that would have become due to your partner during the bereavement lump sum period if your partner had not died, even if the payments would not have been exempt.
Step 4.
Total the payments worked out at Steps 2 and 3: the result is the tax‑free amount.
5 At the end of subsection 52‑140(1)
Add “(other than a payment to or on behalf of a student under the scheme known as ABSTUDY)”.
6 At the end of subsection 52‑140(1)
Add:
Note: The income tax treatment of payments under the scheme known as ABSTUDY is dealt with in Subdivision 52‑E.
7 Subsection 995‑1(1) (definition of ordinary payment)
Repeal the definition, substitute:
ordinary payment is defined as set out in this table:
Ordinary payment
Item
Ordinary payment
, in relation to this kind of a payment:
has the meaning given by:
1
Payment under the ABSTUDY scheme
subsection 52‑131(8)
2
Payment under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004
subsection 52‑114(3)
3
Social security payment
subsection 52‑10(3)
4
Veterans’ affairs payment
subsection 52‑65(4)
8 Subsection 995‑1(1) (after table item 2 in the definition of supplementary amount)
Insert:
2A
Payment under the ABSTUDY scheme
Section 52‑132
9 Subsection 995‑1(1) (at the end of the table in the definition of tax‑free amount)
Add:
2
Payment under the ABSTUDY scheme
Sections 52‑133 and 52‑134
10 Application
The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to a payment made on or after 1 January 2008.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
133
Ms JULIE BISHOP
(Curtin
—Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues)
18:39:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT (EXTENDING FEE-HELP FOR VET DIPLOMA AND VET ADVANCED DIPLOMA COURSES) BILL 2007
134
Bills
R2843
Second Reading
134
Debate resumed from 21 September, on motion by Mr Robb:
That this bill be now read a second time.
134
18:39:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—As I indicated in my remarks on the bill on 15 August, Labor supports the Higher Education Support Amendment (Extending FEE-HELP for VET Diploma and VET Advanced Diploma Courses) Bill 2007. The bill extends FEE-HELP assistance to full fee paying students in diploma and advanced diploma courses, accredited as vocational education and training qualifications. Labor supports FEE-HELP arrangements for private hire education providers and will not disturb the current arrangements in place. Labor also supports this bill because it provides some relief from the up-front costs of some vocational education and training.
Labor believes that the government’s approach is too narrow, excluding many vocational education and training students from the operation of this bill. Access to the current FEE-HELP loan scheme is limited to full-fee students undertaking studies at an accredited higher education provider. Students undertaking equivalent level vocational education and training qualifications are not able to access this scheme and, as a result, often pay up-front tuition fees. Labor regards the continuation of the situation as inequitable and inconsistent with the importance of vocational education and training for Australia’s economy. Labor believes that FEE-HELP is an important instrument in providing assistance through deferred payment of up-front fees to students attending higher education courses at accredited private education providers.
This bill only extends FEE-HELP assistance to full fee paying students in diploma and advanced diploma courses that are accredited as vocational education and training qualifications and where credit towards a higher education award is available. That means that those who are undertaking vocational education courses that do not articulate into a higher education qualification, such as a university degree, are not eligible for assistance. Importantly the bill, as presented to the House, also excludes the two most senior vocational education and training qualifications from FEE-HELP, namely, vocational graduate certificates and vocational graduate diplomas, by virtue of the fact that these qualifications do not lead to a higher education qualification. The legislation should allow for FEE-HELP to apply to those higher qualifications without the requirement to articulate into a university degree.
In addition to these restrictions, the Queensland state government has also expressed concern over the criteria for eligible vocational education and training providers. The Queensland state government has argued that the definition of a vocational education and training provider in the bill is too narrow, requiring providers to be classified as a body corporate. The Queensland government has expressed concern that this definition excludes Queensland TAFE institutes, which are not currently, but will be in due course, constituted as corporate bodies.
Since debate on this bill adjourned on 15 August, the government has circulated amendments to the bill to extend FEE-HELP to vocational graduate certificates and vocational graduate diplomas. I welcome the government’s recognition of the importance of these certificates and diplomas and the fact that these courses will not need to articulate into a university qualification. I do, however, question why the government has not proposed to remove the requirement for vocational diplomas and advanced diplomas to articulate into a higher education qualification, a requirement that fails to recognise the value of a standalone vocational qualification. I indicate at this point that Labor will support the amendments circulated by the government. They reflect the comments I made in my earlier contribution and they reflect the recommendations of the Senate inquiry into the bill.
This budget measure goes some small way to addressing some of the post-secondary school vocational education needs of our nation. Labor support this measure, although we do not believe that it goes far enough. The amendments proposed to be moved by the government, however, go some way to addressing these restrictions but the requirement for diploma and advanced diploma qualifications to articulate into a university degree continues. Similarly, further consideration as to the eligibility of institutions is warranted. It is, in my view, unfair that those students engaged in vocational education and training studies in Queensland miss out on FEE-HELP eligibility purely on the basis of the corporate status of the TAFE sector in that state.
As I indicated in my remarks of 15 August, I have a second reading amendment and I now formally move that 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:
-
welcomes the extension of FEE-HELP but notes it has been unnecessarily restricted by requiring eligible providers to be corporate entities thereby excluding more than 7,000 VET students in Queensland TAFE Institutes, and secondly by limiting eligibility to those courses that give credit for higher education or University qualifications; and
-
notes the Senate Inquiry into this legislation also shared Labor’s concerns through their recommendation that the Government consider the practical examples raised regarding the exclusion of the vocational graduate certificate and vocational graduate diploma to ensure the legislation adequately meets its stated objectives”.
As I indicated in my earlier remarks, the government has now circulated amendments that meet paragraph (2) of the second reading amendment. In that respect, I now commend the bill and the second reading amendment to the House.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Is the amendment seconded?
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr Murphy
—I second the amendment.
135
18:46:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I am delighted to participate in this debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Extending FEE-HELP for VET Diploma and VET Advanced Diploma Courses) Bill 2007 to endorse the government’s actions, its commonsense and practicality in recognising that there are many different ways that people may choose to get to the same ends. We have a circumstance where if a student decides to go down a university pathway they are treated in one particular way but where they could gain an equal qualification through their local TAFE or other training provider. It is a qualification which is equal to that university outcome but which has a different set of circumstances. One of the key things is the up-front fee requirement of state government TAFEs and of other training providers before students can commence study while university students are of course able to access the Higher Education Contribution Scheme for accredited courses. I was one of the first people in Australia to pay HECS. I started my part-time studies at Griffith University in 1987 while I was working. If I remember rightly, I got too enthusiastic about the payment schedule and overpaid my HECS debt, so I got a nice refund at one stage. I understand how university students have an advantage over TAFE students.
As is the wont of the opposition, they will promise the world and, based on their track record, no-one can believe anything they promise. When we came to office in 1996 barely $1 billion was put into vocational and technical education in this country. We are spending $2.9 billion this year and over the current quadrennium the best part of $12 billion. It has been this side of the House that has sponsored the way forward for acquisition of skills by mechanics, cane cutters and all the other people who do things for a living. It was this side of the House and not the Labor side that gave voice to the genuine concerns about market responses of governments, like that of the New South Wales government a few years ago when it increased TAFE fees by 300 per cent. What sort of signal do you send to young people who are deciding whether they want to do hairdressing or bricklaying or to become a chippie when they find that not only do they have to pay the fee up front but the fee for some of these courses has increased by 300 per cent? These are the sorts of things that came out of New South Wales, which has the biggest economy in Australia but also the worst performing economy in Australia. Is it any wonder? They see TAFE students as milch cows and revenue raisers. They turned them into general accounts rather than treating the time that people take to educate and train themselves and gain skills as a very important investment.
At the same time, the TAFE sector has become enormously stodgy and unresponsive in various parts around the country. It was the students who had to work for them rather than the other way around. Employers, who are the ones that trigger the training by hiring apprentices, had to work around the way that the TAFEs wanted to operate—36 weeks a year and 20 hours of student contact time per week. That approach is not the real world but it is the TAFE world.
The government has a very much reformist program to deliver a better outcome. At the same time, we are saying to people who want to go to a diploma level of attainment similar to a university degree or above—in TAFE and training system parlance it is a certificate V or certificate VI qualification—that we think they should be offered the chance to get access to FEE-HELP. Through this bill, we are extending that to these diploma and advanced diploma vocational education courses.
On this side of the House we have the real people who have come to this place with qualifications they earned in the community. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training is in the chamber. He is the only mechanic I know of here. There might be a few amateur ones, but he is a qualified one and he is on this side of the chamber, not on that side. They are the people who represent the union leaders, 70 per cent of their frontbench being former union officials. They are not the ones who represent the workers. We are. This measure, I think, proves this again.
This measure is one of a suite of measures. In the Skills for the Future package, announced almost a year ago by the Prime Minister, there was an additional vote of the best part of $1 billion. There is the Australian technical colleges program, which now is a $500 million program and has 28 colleges around Australia. It provides opportunities for kids to learn the trades and gain skills while they are still doing years 11 and 12 at school and, perhaps because of their own ambition, they will not just be a tradesperson; they will re-educate themselves and gain further skills by taking on a diploma or advanced diploma course. There are people in this country today who are engineers with university qualifications who seek to understand how to build the things they design. It is important that those people know that when they aspire to improve their credentials—which benefits both their families and the community—the government is willing to back them all the way. The Skills for the Future package was in part about that.
The measures in the education revolution budget that was announced by the Treasurer in May this year are further evidence of this government’s commitment, not simply to the high-intellect end of town but also to those who have the intellect and the skills to be good tradespeople. We have put the taxpayers’ money where our mouths are.
FEE-HELP is a loan scheme which eases the up-front financial burden on eligible students. It assists them to pay their tuition fees. These fees, as I have said, go to the service provider, and state governments see TAFE students as a massive milch cow so I certainly hope that the response from state governments is not to jack up fees. If we are going to start helping students to pay these fees, the last thing I want to see is state TAFEs starting to ramp up the costs and saying, ‘You beauty! Commonwealth-state relations will be enhanced in our favour if we charge these students more.’ I suppose in one sense that is the potential downside of our engaging in this, but I know, because I chaired the meeting, that the state TAFE ministers agreed in November last year to do more—to provide a greater range of courses and to provide greater competition in these higher end things. I guess the deal was that they would do that provided we could come through with FEE-HELP. We have kept our word at that ministerial council level.
In the end, we are about encouraging excellence amongst students. We want to pay the amount of the loan direct to the student’s education provider and the student will then repay their loan through the taxation system once their income is above a minimum threshold, just like the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. Of course, if anybody wants to make a voluntary repayment they can do that at any time.
We believe this legislation will remove some of the barriers which exist for students who have chosen to pursue a higher level qualification through the vocational education system. We believe that it brings a certain amount of equity to the two. I think this confirms what the Prime Minister and others have been so passionate about—that is, to defeat forever this logic that seems to have come into our society over the last 20 or 30 years that if you do not have a university degree you are a dud. We want to put vocational education qualifications on the same footing in attainment as the best of university outcomes. There will be those who say, ‘The great brain surgeons must be held up on a platform way above the best of plumbers.’ I guess that might be true unless the water main in your front yard breaks. That certainly happened to me in Brisbane. I said to the plumber who came out that particular Sunday afternoon in the middle of the Labour Day long weekend in May a couple of years ago, ‘Mate, I’m glad you didn’t take on brain surgery, because you’re a good plumber and you fixed my problem fast.’
The point is that we on the government side have been absolutely zealous in our ambition to restore the sense of attainment, dignity and importance associated with the vocational trades. While the 2006 figures show that there were 623 full fee paying students studying at these higher levels within the Australian Qualifications Framework—we know the uptake of the scheme is fairly modest in the sense of these higher end credentials and, therefore, the financial impact is probably going to be modest as well—we have nevertheless offered an extra $40-plus million over four years to accommodate the qualifications. We suspect the numbers in the FEE-HELP scheme will gradually increase to about 500 students by 2010-11. We are factoring in the notion that not every student will want to do it, but also we are recognising that those who choose the vocational education system in which to attain these higher levels of qualifications should not be disadvantaged in their efforts by not being able to access the FEE-HELP scheme.
I know that the Minister for Vocational and Further Education, Mr Robb, has circulated some further amendments to the original bill in response to the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education, which looked at these things. I welcome those further amendments. The amendments are basically saying that there are some people at the vocational graduate certificate and vocational graduate diploma levels who deliver professional skills which build on the technical skills that they have obtained through the vocational system. There are various certificates, diplomas and advanced diplomas. In a technical sense these people have reached a point of personal attainment and qualification equivalent to any higher education graduate certificate or graduate diploma. They sit at levels 8 and 9 in the Australian Qualifications Framework—above a bachelor degree but below a master’s degree.
I see the member for Rankin in the chamber. He has a PhD—he is probably going to speak after me—and I am sure he would understand the importance of the hard work to obtain a PhD. I am in awe of people who have done that. The key thing is that, if people who have gained a qualification through the vocational framework want to qualify themselves even more, we are all for that. The rub-off in society is—and I know the member for Rankin has written lots of papers about this—the great economic advantage that comes our way with the qualifications that are gained.
There are some who would have perhaps been disadvantaged by the original draft of the bill, so we have taken the Senate committee’s advice on board. One of the examples that has been given to me is the excellent state owned TAFE in Western Australia, Challenger TAFE. They have a vocational graduate diploma in maritime management. It provides students with the skills to manage the business and legal aspects of shipping. In Western Australia, when it comes to the shipping and fishing industry, the TAFE sector—and Challenger TAFE is at the heart of this—is world’s best practice. If world’s best practice is being offered, and other countries around the world are seeking the advice of places like Challenger TAFE, then it is important that Australia recognises that. So we have these further amendments that the minister has provided and I am pleased that the opposition agree that they make sense.
I must declare a personal friendship with Jeff and Michelle Lee, who run the Royal Brisbane International College at South Bank—in part in concert with the University of Canberra. Michelle is over in Changping, north of Beijing, right now doing what she does well—that is, flogging Australian education overseas and encouraging more students to come and study. I hope she makes a dollar at it! I also know that the Royal Brisbane International College has provided a vocational graduate certificate in business administration, which provides high-level skills to managers in the tourism and hospitality sectors. Until these further amendments came into this place, they might not have been able to be assisted by the FEE-HELP amendments that we are making to the Higher Education Support Act.
The government is saying that, after years of strong economic management and of gearing this country up to the point where we are at a threshold of even better years ahead of us, we need to find new ways to further invest in what will sustain our good, strong economy and our economic circumstances. This is about growing trade skills and growing the vocational education sector. This measure will add further to those. So, on top of that original budget allocation of $221 million, an additional $40.142 million has been added, so all up there is an enormous amount of money being dedicated to assist students through FEE-HELP.
Reflecting on the Royal Brisbane International College’s effort in tourism and hospitality management, it is absolutely vital that these sectors have well-qualified and capable people. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation recently tabled a report which looked very closely at the folly of employers in the tourism sector not seeing the value in training their staff and training them well. Here is a perfect opportunity for them to take up the challenge. They should not see those who come through their businesses and work for them as just the current crop of people who will then cycle on. Tourism and hospitality should not be seen as something that you do until a real job comes along. Instead, people in the industry should be seen as a commodity worth investing in. They should be seen as groups of people with passion and ability and they should be able to gain a qualification that will stand them in enormous positive stead all around the country.
Consider this government’s attention to the task of repairing what was a very parlous set of circumstances that we inherited in 1996. At that time, there were about 30,000 people in the vocational education system as apprentices, and now we have over 180,000, or whatever it is—the officials do not need to get involved; the number of apprentices is something in that order. There are over 400,000 people in the vocational system, which is up from around 100,000 when we came to office. It is pretty obvious to me that people actually get the fact that the best investment you can make in your business is in your people. As people make this investment, what is absolutely important is that the training sector is as responsive and as agile as it can possibly be. The power to choose the best provider of that training is in the hands of those who receive that training and, indeed, those who sponsor that training as employers. It is important that we understand that not one apprentice can be created unless somebody actually decides to invest in their business in this particular way.
It is more than just about apprenticeships, though; it is about higher level skills. It is about this government getting parity through the higher education support scheme—the HECS scheme, the FEE-HELP scheme. It is about getting parity between those who want to seek higher level qualifications through the vocational sector and those who are getting them through the university sector.
There is one last thing that is worth putting on the record, and that is an ambition only exercised by a handful of institutions around this country—currently four of them in Victoria. How sad it is to think that there is still this sort of highbrow arrogance about universities versus TAFEs. Organisations like RMIT and others in Melbourne are in fact offering a double outcome for the same effort—a TAFE qualification and a degree qualification out of the same effort. They recognise that the skills and the effort taken to gain the credit units that you need to get your degree may well be very complementary to or exactly the same as the skills and effort taken to gain a diploma or higher diploma—a technical underpinning through a technical qualification—at a TAFE. If we can get more institutes adopting the kinds of models that we are seeing mainly in Victoria, we will start to see a lessening of this highbrow sandstone university view of the world.
I am really speaking like an ex-Griffith student now, aren’t I—a real radical? But we need to see more of this respect for, and understanding of, the effort that it takes for people at different education levels and different experience levels to achieve technical outcomes through a vocational course. Their skills and experiences are just as valid as those of someone who may well have the academic qualifications but not the practical skills. Marry those two skill sets together and you will get a mighty capable workforce; marry those two skill sets together and the world will beat a path to our door; marry those two skill sets together and you will get a greater sense of cooperation and respect, and perhaps some shorter pathways to problem solving in the years ahead. I see this bill and the amendments that the government have put forward to it as being valid, strong steps taken by this side of the chamber to ensure that Australia is ready to be unleashed on the rest of the world in the 21st century.
140
19:05:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
0
0
Dr EMERSON
—Labor supports the Higher Education Support Amendment (Extending FEE-HELP for VET Diploma and VET Advanced Diploma Courses) Bill 2007 and the second reading amendment moved by the shadow education minister and seconded by me. Most particularly, we would like to see the extension of these arrangements. The current legislation limits eligibility to FEE-HELP to those courses that give credit for higher education or university qualifications. We have come a long way now. It was only a few years ago that there was the suggestion that, if an income-contingent loan were made available for a vocational education course, it would be heresy. It is a pity that after 11 years of government the coalition has just come to this idea. It always made sense. The coalition, to its credit, when in opposition supported the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, which enabled the then Labor government to obtain a contribution, based on income subsequently earned, from university students, all of which was then put back into the university sector. The purpose of that was to expand the number of university places in Australia.
It was an inspired scheme. It was designed by Professor Bruce Chapman at the Australian National University. It has become a model for other countries that were fascinated by the fact that we administered this income-contingent loan scheme through the tax office—that is, if and when people who have been through university and obtained a degree earn an income above a particular threshold, the tax office takes a share of that money above the threshold, which is then a contribution to the cost of their education.
It would be marvellous if we could afford in this country a free university education. The Whitlam government captured the imagination of the Australian people by making university education free but, unfortunately, that was also restricted in terms of the numbers. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a free lunch and taxpayers had to fund all of that. So the concept of an income-contingent loan was a good one. It was applied by the previous Labor government and the coalition, when in opposition, supported it. It was always logical that this concept be capable of being extended to vocational education, most particularly because a lot of people from lower income backgrounds choose to take on a vocational education rather than a university education. Just as the HECS arrangements were designed to avoid shutting people out of universities, it made sense that such an income-contingent loan arrangement applied to technical education would help avoid shutting them out of a technical education.
Our concern with the legislation now is that it does not go far enough. Why have this distinction between universities and TAFE colleges and other vocational education courses in terms of eligibility for an income-contingent loan? If it is good for university students, surely it is good for any and all vocational education students. I do accept that the cost of a vocational education course usually is lower than that of a university course; therefore, the barrier to entry for people from lower income circumstances is lower. But it still makes sense that, if it is good for uni students, surely it is good for students who are going through a vocational education course. That is why Labor is moving the second reading amendment, welcoming the extension of FEE- HELP but noting that it has been unnecessarily restricted in this legislation by limiting eligibility to those courses that give credit for university or higher education qualifications.
The second part of the second reading amendment notes that the Senate committee inquiry into this legislation shared Labor’s concerns, as reflected in its recommendation that the government consider the practical examples raised in that inquiry regarding the exclusion of the vocational graduate certificate and vocational graduate diploma to ensure that the legislation adequately meets its stated objectives. To be perfectly honest, I am now aware that there are amendments that the previous speaker, the former minister for vocational education, says reflect those Senate concerns. That is a good thing, if that is the case. If the government has now moved to address those concerns, that does go a further step towards Labor’s second reading amendment. I have been in this parliament for the best part of nine years and I think this is the first time I have seen a second reading amendment actually have an effect on government thinking—or certainly on the thinking of this government. I suppose it will claim it had no effect whatsoever and it just saw the light of day at five seconds to midnight.
This is a good piece of legislation, but it is unduly restrictive. In a book that I wrote last year, which was released in March, entitled Vital Signs, Vibrant Society, I talked about the virtues of income-contingent loans. I talked about the possibility of the private sector, indeed, investing in the talents of our young people going through universities. But I also went on to say that, if it makes sense—as it does—for income-contingent loans to apply to university degrees, surely it also does towards vocational education courses. So today there is a little bit of satisfaction there. One part of one chapter of Vital Signs, Vibrant Society is being implemented and, I am pleased to say, on both sides of politics, a number of its other chapters are being implemented too. There is a contest of ideas. Labor is winning that contest, but at least the government very belatedly is doing something right by those young people who choose the vocational education stream.
I want to use some of the remaining time available to me to talk about those choices. We heard the previous speaker, the member for Moreton and former minister for vocational education and training, talking about ‘highbrow arrogance’. This reminds me of a single word that the former minister for education, now the Minister for Defence, has used repeatedly in relation to Labor’s championing of university education—and that term is ‘snobbery’. He has accused Labor of snobbery and now we hear this term ‘highbrow arrogance’. It is as though there is some deadly choice to be made where, whenever Labor says that a university education is good, we must automatically be saying that a vocational education is bad.
It is horses for courses. Some people prefer a university education. They prefer the opportunity to think expansively, creatively and imaginatively—and that is good. I believe that every young person who wants to should be able to go on and do a university education. But that does not mean for a moment that Labor believes that young people who choose the vocational stream are in any way lesser. They are not. It suits them and, in many circumstances, taking on a trade provides them with a wonderful standard of living and a lot of job satisfaction. So why do we have to have this schism in the national debate about tertiary education between higher education—that is, universities—on the one hand, and a vocational stream on the other? Let us just allow young people to make those choices free of the values that seem to be imposed on the government side, in suggesting that whenever Labor talks about a university education it must be saying that a vocational education is bad. They are both good.
It is true today more than at any time in Australia’s history that good social policy and good economic policy coincide. The campuses of our preschools, our schools, our training colleges and our universities are the places where economy meets society. It has been the persistent Labor argument that the best investment we can make as a country in sustaining and improving prosperity is in education. But it is also socially right. It is a good thing to do in terms of fairness. So, if we want, as I do—and I am sure the member for Gorton and all Labor members and, I hope, coalition members do—a prosperous and fair society, then the one investment can achieve both: investment in quality education, whether young people decide to go into the vocational side or the university side.
A major report was released today and was the subject of much debate and heat in question time. It was the 2007 edition of the OECD’s annual report on these matters, called Education at a glance. By the way, it runs to about 500 pages, so it is perhaps inappropriately titled! But the point is that the early part of that report released today talks about the value of investing in higher education. For the edification of the Prime Minister, who has been very critical of Labor’s approach to all of this over the last 20 years, I point out that the average unemployment rates amongst early school leavers are compared with those of year 12 completers, people who have undertaken vocational education and people who have undertaken university education, and the results are very clear. The greater the level of education that you undertake as a young person, the more the average unemployment rate falls. That is why it is so important. But the Prime Minister in March 2005 on the Sunday program lamented what he called an obsession with staying on till year 12. He said: ‘What’s all this fuss, what’s all this obsession, with finishing high school? People should be able to leave early and go and get a trade—all this stuff about universities.’ Well, last year’s Education at a glance report and this year’s report expose that as being wrong. The greater the investment that you make in education and the longer you stay in the education system—other things being equal—the better off you will be.
Labor understands—far more than the coalition, I think—that these decisions need to be made at a very early time. It is good policy today that we are debating. But what really keeps young people from disadvantaged backgrounds out of university and out of TAFE is much more than the fees that are applied. It is much more the fact that, from a very early age, they do not often get the basics of literacy and numeracy and the whole ethic, if you like, of learning. The reason for that—and I am being very direct here—is that the children of parents who have had a very bad education experience themselves, parents who do not have great literacy or numeracy skills, parents who do not have books at home, are far more likely to follow the same pattern. Take, for example, a single mother who has not had the opportunity of a good education and perhaps got pregnant at the age of 14 and had to leave school. She is trying to cope as best she possibly can. Her partner may well have disappeared. How can you expect her to even have the resources to ensure that when the kids come home from school they have that extra support at home, that thirst for knowledge, when perhaps the single mother has had a bad education experience herself?
Where does this take us? Right back to the beginning, to early childhood development, even before preschool. The member for Jagajaga outlined in this parliament today that more than 100,000 four-year-olds miss out on a preschool education in Australia every year. Most of them are disadvantaged, and there is an enormous representation of Indigenous kids in that number. But it goes back. The problem does not start at four years of age. Often it can start in the womb. If, when mothers fall pregnant, they do not have a home environment where they can nurture that child, then things go very badly very early on. Fortunately for the United States, there is a program that has been running there since the early 1970s called Nurse-Family Partnership. The Blair government, and now the government led by Gordon Brown, have picked this program up in the United Kingdom, where they have initiated 10 pilot programs. The idea is to get to an at-risk mother as early as 16 weeks into her pregnancy and to have a nurse caring for, advising and encouraging that mother—encouraging the mother if she is a heavy smoker to get off smoking, if she is a heavy drinker to get off drinking, if she is a drug user to get off that—and helping her to bring that baby into the world with a decent opportunity. The nurse supports that mother, not for a day or a week or a month after birth but right through to two years after birth and then comes back again and gives support wherever that is needed.
That is the sort of program that James Heckman, a Nobel laureate, has been talking about—investing very early in the young. They have a full lifetime over which that investment is returned. It is great for the kids, it is great for society—the best investment that we can possibly make. Yet in this country—and I am not just going to score some sort of cheap political point here off the government—we have really a very badly organised early childhood development system. The Commonwealth invests virtually nothing in it. The state systems are improving but they are all trying different schemes and basically the refrain is that you cannot have these sorts of arrangements like nurse-family partnerships where you have a nurse looking after one mother with one baby all the way through from 16 weeks of pregnancy to two years and coming back again, because it is so expensive.
The answer that is given in policy terms is often: let us do something cheaper. Well, you get what you pay for. If you are not prepared to put much of an investment into early childhood development, then in disadvantaged communities, you will not get very much early childhood development. This is the big debate, the coming debate, of this part of the 21st century. Whoever is in government must make a total commitment to early childhood development in this country for the good of the country and in the interest of what is good and fair in our society.
How does that relate to this bill tonight? The answer is: if we had a far fairer system, a bigger investment in early childhood development, there would be a lot more kids who would say, ‘I am going on past year 10. I am going to year 12 and I am going to university.’ Or, alternatively, they would complete year 12 but at the same time do some vocational education along the way. There is nothing wrong with two streams from year 10 through to year 12—a vocational stream and a higher education stream—with kids switching from one to the other as their taste or experience dictates. But none of that can happen if, by the time the kids arrive at year 10 they cannot read, cannot write and have no interest in an education because their background has not given them the sort of thirst for knowledge and creativity that is so important to this country’s future. If we are going to ensure that those young people are able to have happy and fulfilling lives, that they are going to be creative, then, yes, of course these sorts of arrangements of income-contingent loans can play a part. But we have to get the fundamentals right, and getting the fundamentals right means a big investment in early childhood development. This is a good piece of legislation.
Unfortunately the OECD’s report out today, whether it has some shortcomings or not in terms of coverage and years and so on, is an indictment on the government. Any way you read it, the OECD report is an indictment on the present government that has been in power now for 11 years. This government has greatly undervalued investment in early child education. It has undervalued investment in schools and in vocational education and university education. That is why we do need a change of government. I can say with great certainty that everyone on this side of the parliament really highly values education. We know what disadvantage is. We know what needs to be done. It is no good calling people bludgers. Let us lift them up, give them a hand and make sure that every young person in this country has a flying start in life and a fair chance for a happy and fulfilling existence on this planet. I commend this bill to the House.
144
19:25:00
Henry, Stuart, MP
E0L
Hasluck
LP
1
0
Mr HENRY
—It has certainly been interesting sitting here listening to the member for Rankin, and I guess there are a number of areas where I could perhaps agree with him. I could agree with him that there is absolutely nothing wrong with having two streams of education—an academic stream and a vocational stream—and it is also good to see that this is a good piece of legislation. But some of his other remarks I find rather surprising, coming from somebody who, when previously in power, had a youth unemployment rate of 34.5 per cent. What sorts of opportunities did they provide for these people? Given his compliments about this legislation and the value of quality vocational education, he might well even support Australian technical colleges, which quite clearly provide a quality vocational stream for young Australians in high school. It is that sort of quality that will ensure that they have the opportunity of going on and creating careers and opportunities for themselves in their working lives.
There is no doubt that the Howard government believes it is vitally important to raise the status of vocational and technical education to signal the significance that both the government and the community attach to high-level technical qualifications which in turn raise the self-esteem and improve the career paths of those students undertaking such qualifications. Again, referring back to the member for Rankin, it was interesting to hear his criticism of the government. Many state Labor governments at the moment oppose the introduction of Australian technical colleges. They have done very little about apprenticeship and trade training and allow TAFEs to continue to ignore industry requirements to develop skills. Labor governments have required students to stay at high school until year 12 but have not provided a learning environment that engages the majority of those students who do not wish to pursue an academic pathway with a learning environment that allows them to learn by doing, as is created by the Australian technical colleges. In fact, the Australian technical college in Maddington, in the electorate of Hasluck, is doing a fantastic job already, having developed very quickly an automotive workshop. I have been about there recently and have seen a lot of young people taking advantage of that vocational training, working on motor vehicles in that workshop and really learning about the opportunities for careers in mechanics where they can make a very positive contribution to the community, to the automotive industry and to themselves and their families.
The Higher Education Support Amendment (Extending FEE-HELP for VET Diploma and VET Advanced Diploma Courses) Bill 2007 will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to extend the FEE-HELP scheme to students in full-fee vocational education and training diploma and advanced diploma courses with approved training institutions such as TAFE and other industry registered training organisations. This year’s federal budget delivered a number of measures including FEE-HELP to lift the status of vocational education and training in Australia. Pursuing a trade or a vocational qualification is definitely no less important than undertaking university education as a pathway to career and future prosperity. People should be encouraged to do what they can do best, and FEE-HELP is a loans scheme which lessens the burden of up-front fees and will be of great assistance to many. It helps eligible students to pay their tuition fees and can cover all or some portion of those fees. The Howard government pays the amount of the loan direct to a student’s education provider then students repay their loans through the taxation system once their income rises above the minimum threshold.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
145
Adjournment
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Federal Election
145
145
19:30:00
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
0
0
Ms ROXON
—In what might be the last sitting week of this parliament I would like to take the opportunity tonight to speak about why, in my electorate of Gellibrand, we need a Rudd Labor government. First and foremost, for the thousands of workers who live in Gellibrand, we need a fairer industrial relations system. We need a system that brings back the balance between employers and employees and restores the basic protections that Mr Howard’s Work Choices have stripped away.
For a region like mine, which has seen a steady decline in Australian manufacturing, we need to look to the future. While there are some great manufacturing success stories in my electorate, with Toyota and Quenos being just two of them, there are others that have downgraded and closed up shop, leaving behind many who work in the manufacturing industry. I want to support a manufacturing industry in Gellibrand, and Labor outlined a number of ideas for the future of industry at our recent manufacturing roundtable. Central to the rejuvenation of manufacturing is innovation, research and development—moving into new areas that provide opportunities for the community.
To support this focus on research and development—and, importantly, to give our kids the best skills in life—we also need an education revolution. I want our education system to be the best in the world, and a Rudd Labor government will invest in education to make that happen. From early childhood development to Labor’s plan for trades training centres in all local high schools, right through to tertiary education and vocational training, we will invest in the future generation. Currently, over 35,000 people in my electorate have an educational qualification of year 10 or lower. To turn that around for this generation of kids we need to provide opportunities that ensure all of our children can reach their full potential.
A national high-speed broadband network is integral to improving innovation, and the education that I have been speaking about, yet there are still broadband black spots in my electorate, in the suburbs of Altona Meadows and Seabrook, just 15 kilometres from the CBD. These black spots are hampering small and medium businesses and they of course disadvantage local students. We need a high-speed, fibre-to-the-node broadband network—which we have committed $4.7 billion towards—not a half-baked wireless proposal like the government’s.
We need to act urgently and decisively on climate change. Much of my electorate is on the coastline of Port Phillip Bay and will bear the brunt of rising sea levels and extreme weather conditions predicted due to climate change. Under Labor, Australia would join the global fight against climate change by ratifying the Kyoto protocol. This is the first step in showing that Australia is serious about climate change and ready to join the rest of the world in addressing this truly global challenge. Labor will set targets for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, increase the mandatory renewable energy target and help people become greener in their own homes through the green loans plan.
The Howard government’s only response to climate change is nuclear power, and the Prime Minster has refused to rule out Newport, in my electorate of Gellibrand, as a possible location for one of the 25 nuclear reactors he wants to build across Australia. Labor believes we can and must tackle climate change, but we will do it while keeping Gellibrand nuclear free.
We also need to end the blame game in health care and make sure that every health dollar spent by both state and federal governments is used to improve the health of our community. Labor has pledged $2 billion to kick-start this reform of our health and hospital system and to improve hospital care. This is particularly important in my electorate of Gellibrand and in the electorate of my colleague the member for Gorton as Western Health, Western Hospital and Sunshine Hospital have seen a dramatic increase in demand for their services over recent times.
To ease the pressure on the hospital system, we have to ensure that older Australians are not languishing in hospital beds because they cannot find a more appropriate aged-care place, and we have to take action to help prevent hospital admissions for preventable conditions like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The truth is that in electorates like ours these conditions are very prevalent. We know that one in three Australians—and my electorate would be no exception—have not had the medical or dental care that they need because of cost. We need to make sure that people can continue to get access to affordable health care, and we need to reduce many of the other cost pressures that families bear so they are not forced to choose between dental and health care, childcare costs, groceries or petrol prices—not to mention housing affordability.
Since 2001 there has been an increase of over 100 per cent in the number of households in mortgage stress in my electorate of Gellibrand, yet the Prime Minister tells us that ‘working families have never been better off.’ For working families in my electorate of Gellibrand to be better off we need a Rudd Labor government. We need new leadership that will take the country in a better direction. I hope this plan will be supported by my constituents in Gellibrand because, if we are successful at the election, they will benefit from the policies of a Rudd Labor government. (Time expired)
Mr Gavan O’Connor MHR
147
147
19:35:00
McArthur, Stewart, MP
VH4
Corangamite
LP
1
0
Mr McARTHUR
—My opponent in the House of Representatives for the last 14 years, the honourable member for Corio, leaves this place for pastures greener. The parliament will miss the good-humoured interjections and ongoing political combat between Corangamite and Corio. The easy flow of language from the grey-haired but very fit veteran footballer from Corio will not be easily replaced. Corangamite and Corio go back a long way, to when Gavan O’Connor first stood for the seat of Corangamite in the February 1984 by-election that saw me enter the parliament. He then recontested the seat in December 1984. At that time he was a well-known Colac boy with a bit of a chance for the big time in politics.
Gavan O’Connor worked for the highly respected Senator John Button. During that time, he came to understand market economics and lower tariff regimes. Unfortunately, he was never quite capable of reaching the intellectually correct position of his hero, Captain Zero. Gavan brought to Senator Button’s office a background of an economics degree at Monash and a Diploma of Education at the University of New England. He honed his teaching skills at Trinity College, Colac, before he became the key adviser to Senator Button. He then worked the smoke-filled rooms of the Labor Party and became the candidate for Corio in 1993 as a factionally non-aligned candidate, taking over from the Hon. Gordon Scholes, a former minister and Speaker.
Gavan O’Connor is the only Labor member in the parliament who has dirt under his fingernails and understands rural issues. In his role as shadow minister for this portfolio, he brought to bear a genuine understanding of rural people’s attitudes, their trials and tribulations and what might be good for them in the longer term. He even had a sympathetic view of dairy deregulation, which was somewhat contrary to his more socialist attitudes towards statutory marketing. He argued these rural issues responsibly from the opposition benches.
Gavan O’Connor comes from an old DLP family in the Alvie district near Colac. Since a young age he has been debating political and philosophical issues around the dinner table. His cousin, Allan Woods, of Camperdown, was probably Australia’s most famous buckjump rider. Allan Woods rode Curio in 1949 and that epic feat is recorded in the Stockman’s Hall of Fame at Longreach as well as there being a statue at Warwick, Queensland, where this historic ride took place. Allan Woods’ father worked at my family’s property, Meningoort, Camperdown.
Gavan’s exploits as a veteran rising 59-year-old footballer are well known to all members of the House. Hamstring injuries and other combat woes have often restrained him from reaching his full potential as one of Australia’s outstanding veteran AFL footballers. However, he lives the glory days of his youth at Alvie and Monash, not to mention his fanatical support for the Richmond Football Club, the mighty Tigers, which he now conveniently hides under the shadow of Red Rock, Alvie.
The publication of his memoirs will contain exchanged notes with Corangamite, which record contemporary political events, the imminent demise of Corangamite over 14 years, the Tammany Hall activities of the Geelong city council and the Labor Right, the rise of yet another Labor leader and the Geelong Advertiser reports on branch stacking by Labor members in the seat of Corio. These original literary works will record the genuine political assessment of day-to-day politics in the House of Representatives over the past 14 years and will be deposited in the National Library for posterity.
Corangamite and Corio travelled overseas to Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia, and the Vietnamese were able to hear Australia’s No. 1 karaoke singer. His performance in Hanoi would present a challenge to Shannon Noll as Australian Idol.
Gavan’s contribution to the parliament was cut short by a branch-stacking operation never before seen in the Geelong region. Politics is a ruthless business, but Gavan O’Connor and the genuine, long-serving Labor Party members of Geelong who supported him, have been badly let down. Gavan O’Connor’s commitment to the Labor cause has never been in doubt. His articulate and genuine passion for the cause on the floor of the House of Representatives has been first class. His cheerful disposition and genuine consideration of others has earned him a reputation on both sides of the parliament as a straight shooter and a person without rancour or bitterness.
He leaves the parliament with the good wishes of all members, in particular the member for Corangamite, who will feel lonely during the debates without the good humour but sharp heckling to ensure that the member for Corangamite will be kept in line. We wish Gavan and his partner, Toni, every success in this next stage of their career together.
Police Integrity
148
148
19:40:00
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
0
0
Mr BEVIS
—In the course of the last two weeks we have seen two occasions on which members of the government have seen fit to use this parliament to attack the integrity and independence of the police force in Australia and in different states. Last night in the parliament, the member for Indi made quite outrageous and scurrilous attacks upon the Victorian police force, referring to what she claimed was an ‘endemic corrupt culture within the police force’. She went on and said:
What sort of confidence and cooperation do the Victorian government and the Victorian police force expect when people know ... that there are criminals dressed up as policemen in Victoria.
What an appalling comment to come from a member of the House of Representatives about the police force in one of our major states, or indeed in any state.
But it was not the first occasion that we have seen this in the last fortnight. She was following in the footsteps of the member for Moreton, who a week earlier, on the 11th, impugned the integrity and independence of the Australian Federal Police, somehow trying to claim that the Labor Party in Queensland were pulling the strings of the Australian Federal Police. That, as every member of this parliament knows, is an absolute nonsense; it is an affront to the men and women in the Australian Federal Police to suggest that.
But it got worse because, after the feigned indignity of the member for Moreton in that address to the parliament last week, it transpired that he would have been better advised to keep his counsel and his head tucked in. As it turns out, the weekend press tells us that, contrary to his often repeated statements that he was cooperating fully with the AFP, he had in fact not cooperated with the AFP in their inquiry.
I want to go back to the start of this year, when there were investigations announced into the activities of three members of the government. The ABC at the time referred to Mr Hardgrave, the member for Moreton, by name:
He says he cooperated with the AFP when they accessed his office on Friday and took documents.
Mr Hardgrave says he will continue to cooperate with the police.
Around the same time, the Queensland Liberal Party leader made similar comments. The ABC said:
A Liberal Party spokesman says the trio is cooperating fully with the investigation, which it is believed centres around the possible misuse of electoral and printing allowances.
For what its worth—and probably not much, even to the Liberals on the other side of the chamber—Mr Flegg, for those of you do not know, is actually the Liberal leader in Queensland. He was quoted as saying:
I would expect that there would be absolute and full cooperation with that police investigation.
His Liberal Party colleagues took as much notice of him on that as they do about everything else; poor old Mr Flegg is in a terrible state of affairs. But this is now more worrying because, not content to make those protests, the Australian on the weekend reported:
Dumped minister Gary Hardgrave and fellow Queenslander Ross Vasta—informed this week they would not face charges—refused requests by the Australian Federal Police for interviews.
I had made no comment prior to last weekend about this in any forum, because it is the proper course of action in these matters for the police to be able to go about their business. It is certainly not proper for any investigation to be under the influence of this parliament or anybody in it—or indeed anybody outside the normal chain of command within the relevant agencies. I remember many occasions when this was in the media, where the member for Moreton regularly protested his innocence, which he is more than entitled to do, and said that he had cooperated and would continue to cooperate fully with the inquiry. It was a commitment he gave the people of Queensland; it was a commitment he gave the constituents in his own electorate. Yet on the weekend we were advised that the opposite is in fact the case and that requests from the AFP for interviews had been declined.
I do not know what the member for Moreton regards as ‘full cooperation’ but, as I said on the weekend, I suspect his constituents have a pretty clear idea about what it means. There is a simple English interpretation of that; you do not need a lawyer—cooperation has not been forthcoming. The member for Moreton stood in this place a week ago and impugned the integrity of the Australian Federal Police quite improperly. Last night the member for Indi went even further and quite outrageously attacked the integrity of the Victoria Police. They were both out of order. (Time expired)
World War I Soldiers
149
149
19:45:00
Scott, Bruce, MP
YT4
Maranoa
NATS
1
0
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—I rise tonight in the adjournment debate to speak about the recent discovery of the bodies of two missing World War I soldiers in the battlefields of the Western Front, almost 90 years after being killed in action. The remains of Sergeant George Calder of northern Victoria and Private John Hunter of southern Queensland were found last month by a stroke of luck when authorities in Belgium were digging up a road to install a gas line.
I would like to focus on the story of Private Hunter, who was from the town of Nanango in the South Burnett, which is now in my electorate as a result of the recent boundary redistribution. John Hunter was the oldest of seven children and was affectionately known as ‘Jack’ by his family. He moved to Nanango in his late teens with his mother and father, Henry and Emily Hunter, to help run their new timber business. With the help of his younger brother Jim, John put bullock teams together for the family business. He was very involved in the local community and played for the Nanango football team. The Hunter family’s story has it that he even had a girlfriend or fiance from the local area before he went to war.
On 20 October 1916, Jim Hunter enlisted and was closely followed by John, who enlisted five days later. This was against their father’s will, but I am sure Henry would have given them his blessing before they left on HMS Ayreshire in 1917. Both brothers made their way to the Western Front in Belgium and, on 25 August 1917, became part of the 49th Battalion. Private Hunter was fighting on the front line for just over one month when he was killed in action. He was among 38,000 young Australian men who were killed or wounded in the battles of Passchendaele.
It was on 26 September 1917 that Private John Hunter’s life was taken during the battle of Polygon Wood. Putting aside any fear for his own life, Private John Hunter volunteered to be a runner and to go over the top of the trench to clear a piece of tin that was shining in the soldiers’ eyes. In this tremendous act of courage, he was tragically shot in no-man’s-land and, as the Hunter family history has it, died in his brother Jim’s arms. He was only 28 years old and had been serving in the Australian Army for 11 months. During the heat of the battle, Jim wrapped his fatally wounded brother’s body in a groundsheet and hastily buried him in a temporary grave. However, the Battle of Polygon Wood was so fierce and the country became so destroyed that later it was impossible for Jim to find his brother’s body. On Jim’s return from the war, he made sure that the memory of his older brother John was never forgotten. He told many stories and loved remembering the good times they had had together. They were not only brothers but mates. Until the day he died, Jim lived with the regret of not being able to find his brother in those battlefields. In fact, his last word spoken before he passed away was ‘John’.
Thanks to good fortune and modern science, Private John Hunter’s body has been positively identified through DNA from the maternal line of John’s family. After over 90 years of being at rest in a makeshift grave, Private John Hunter of the 49th Battalion, 4th Division, will have a proper burial, just as his brother Jim had intended. A ceremony will be held at Buttes Military Cemetery at Zonnebeke in Belgium on 4 October this year and will be attended by Australia’s Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffery. Two of Private Hunter’s family members will also be present to bury a young man whom they never knew but whom they certainly never forgot. On 4 October, Private John Hunter will rest in peace with the other 564 Australian soldiers who are buried at Buttes Military Cemetery in Belgium. So too will his younger brother, Jim Hunter, in a grave on the other side of the world. May we never forget those who lost their lives defending this great country. I bring this matter to the adjournment tonight to ensure that the lives of these two wonderful people, particularly Private John Hunter, will not be forgotten but will be recorded permanently in the Hansard of this parliament.
Hindmarsh Electorate: Italian Community
151
151
19:49:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
0
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—I rise to speak tonight on behalf of the many Italian constituents within my electorate of Hindmarsh who have made Hindmarsh in the western suburbs of Adelaide their home. I acknowledge the member for Petrie, Ms Teresa Gambaro, who is in the chamber and who is also of Italian descent. There are more than 100,000 Italian migrants and their descendants in South Australia, and approximately 9,000 live in the federal electorate of Hindmarsh. The Italian migrant community has become an important part of the South Australian community and has played a huge role in enriching not only South Australian culture but also Australian culture.
Australia and Italy have a close and longstanding relationship that is underpinned by strong ties through trade, investment, cultural and educational links. The ties have continued to grow stronger over recent decades. In 2006, Australian exports to Italy grew by 21 per cent, to $1.82 billion, and imports from Italy grew by three per cent, to $4.49 billion. As well as the Italian community, there are 15,000 Italian citizens who are in South Australia on temporary or permanent resident visas or who have dual citizenship. Italian migrants have played an important part in Australia’s history and in forming modern Australia, and Italian migrants have contributed to our nation’s population and to the workforce—especially in the early 1950s, through the 1960s and early 1970s.
At a local level we have many Italians living in the western suburbs in Adelaide. I attended school with many Italian children at Cowandilla Primary School, and then when I continued on to Underdale High School I played soccer and football with Italian kids. Many of the children that I went to school with went on to become businessmen, academics or politicians. My own personal good friend and neighbour, Grace Portolesi, is now the Labor member for the state seat of Hartley. Her parents, who migrated to Australia from the village of Plati, in Reggio Calabria, and made their home in the western suburbs of Adelaide, were neighbours of ours for many years in Mile End. We both grew up and went on to bigger and better things. Both our parents came to this country back in the early fifties with very little education, very few skills and very few language skills—in reading and writing in their own language—and worked in factories and labouring jobs.
What Australia offered to those people back in the fifties was a sense of security in terms of equal pay, regardless of how long they had been here, regardless of their race, regardless of their religion and regardless of their gender. We saw migrants who prospered because they were able to work side by side with people who had been here for four or five generations, but the terms and conditions were exactly the same. Today we have seen a turnaround of that particular egalitarian system that enriched our country, and we see people coming in on 457 visas on lesser pay and on contracts that are nowhere near the same as the contracts of people they may be working side by side with. It is unfortunate that we have come to that.
I have lived my whole life in Adelaide’s western suburbs, and over the years I have been part of many different Italian celebrations that I grew up with. Since becoming the federal member for Hindmarsh I have attended many different functions hosted by the Italian community within the Hindmarsh electorate. Most recently I attended a feast in honour of Our Lady of Perpetual Grace and the festival of Saint Eufemia. Both events allowed me to learn more about Italian tradition and the Italian community of Hindmarsh. These are feasts and days of celebration that have a long history in the Calabria region, and now those traditions have been brought to the western suburbs of Hindmarsh. I am very grateful for those great religious festivals that are held by the Italian community in Hindmarsh.
The Italian community in Hindmarsh and in South Australia has added to the diversity and cultural richness of our country. The establishment of Italian communities has exposed Australians to the foods, festivals and cultural traits of one of the most historically rich cultures in the world. The South Australian Italian community has played a great role in community building by creating partnerships between local people, government, businesses and education. By developing these strong communities, we are able to find local solutions to local problems, increase social participation and develop networks within and across communities. Australia is a culturally diverse country and it is built upon the many migrants who came to this country and the waves of migration that occurred during the early 1900s. One of the largest influxes of migrants came from Italy, many from the Reggio Calabria region. (Time expired)
Wakefield Electorate: Projects
152
152
19:52:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
0
Mr FAWCETT
—I rise tonight to report to the House about some developments in the electorate of Wakefield in the suburbs of Smithfield Plains and Davoren Park—collectively known as the ‘Peachy Belt’ in South Australia and soon to be known more generally as Playford North. I came into this House after a career in the military, working at the adjacent RAAF Base Edinburgh. When I first left the military and became a candidate, I spent a great deal of time getting to know this community. People like the Peachy Belt Leaders Collective, including folk like Don Hardy and Shaun Barby and others, helped me to understand some of the issues in the community. Through working alongside them and getting to know different agencies such as Anglicare, the Service to Youth Council, the Smith Family and various schools in the area, I got a feel for some of the concerns and issues in the community.
As I go back and review the first speech I gave in this House, I recognised that there was a great deal of need and a desire for change within that community. I recognise that many, while they wanted to work, had become dependent on welfare. Some did not see enough incentive, while others lacked the confidence or skills to take the risky and uncertain move into the workforce. In my first speech I talked about the need to work with the community and with the government to bring about changes in the way that we work with the community and with business in the community so that welfare is not a handout but a hand-up to enable a better future for those people and their families.
I am glad to report to the House tonight that, over the three years, we have made a difference. Working with a number of agencies, we have seen the unemployment rate in some of the pockets of this area go down from over 24 per cent to over 18 per cent. That is still far higher than the national average and far higher than it should be, particularly when employers in the area tell me that they are struggling to find enough workers to work in their factories, workplaces and horticultural areas. There is a whole range of employment opportunities there.
Collectively, we have been able to work with people in the community and the government to look at a better way to bring people together with the opportunities that the government can provide. The government provides opportunities for people but sometimes the framework does not work. As an experimental test pilot, my role was to look at an aircraft or a system that was not working and identify the failure modes and say, ‘How do we address those?’ Taking the same sort of approach—that systems engineering approach—it became obvious that, despite the framework that presented a range of employment, education and support opportunities, there were groups who did not have either the confidence or the skills to take those up or, because of, for example, poor public transport, could not take up the opportunities. But there are also overlaps and gaps in the way that services are provided.
I am happy to report to the parliament tonight that, over the last 18 months or so, I have worked with and listened to a number of agencies on the ground—and I mention particularly the Playford council. I received advice from a number of the elected members on the council as well as staff—people like Ken Daniel and Silvana Cusack. I also received comments from local people, such as Max Davids, who have been involved in business; people who work within Centacare and Anglicare and government departments on the ground; Aiva Atrens from Davoren Park Primary School; Michael Dunn from Smithfield Plains Primary School; Sandy Richardson at Smithfield Plains High School; and Madeline Brennan at St Columba College. These people have actually helped to bring about a new proposal which the government has now funded, with $1.9 million going to Anglicare.
Next Monday will be the first time that we get together with those schools and Smithfield Plains Junior Primary School, and other stakeholders in the area, to bring about a new way of working with people such that welfare is not a handout but a hand-up, a way of helping people to connect to the services that are available so that young children have a better start to their education, teenagers have better opportunities to remain in school and people have the opportunity to make the transition into the workforce so that they can break the cycle and have a better opportunity for the future. Not everybody in the area needs this help—there are many successful people and successful families in the Peachy Belt area—but this is a way of working with those people who need the help to make our help as a government more effective.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 8.00 pm, the debate is interrupted.
153
20:00:00
House adjourned at 8.00 pm
NOTICES
153
Notices
The following notices were given:
A8W
Pearce, Christopher, MP
Mr Pearce
to present a bill for an act to give effect to the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, and for related purposes. (Cross-Border Insolvency Bill 2007)
WN6
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
Mr Ian Macfarlane
to present a bill for an act to amend the Tradex Scheme Act 1999, and for related purposes. (Tradex Scheme Amendment Bill 2007)
2K6
Brough, Mal, MP
Mr Brough
to present a bill for an act to amend laws in order to respond to the Northern Territory’s national emergency, and for other purposes. (Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2007)
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr Billson
to present a bill for an act to amend the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, and for related purposes. (Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Disability, War Widow and War Widower Pensions) Bill 2007)
XH4
McGauran, Peter, MP
Mr McGauran
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: RAAF Base Amberley Redevelopment Stage 3, Queensland.
XH4
McGauran, Peter, MP
Mr McGauran
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: CSIRO co-location with Queensland Government on the Eco-Sciences and Health Food Sciences Precincts in Brisbane, Queensland.
XH4
McGauran, Peter, MP
Mr McGauran
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: C‑17 Heavy Airlift Infrastructure Project.
2007-09-19
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley) took the chair at 9.30 am.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
155
Statements by Members
Health
155
155
09:30:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
0
0
Mr ADAMS
—Health policy is an issue that is very strong among the communities of Lyons at the moment. The Howard government have failed the people of Lyons on this matter—in fact, they have failed the people of Australia. They continue to blame the states for the result of their handiwork. We see the Liberals blaming the states for hospital waiting lists yet there are an estimated 2,000 older Australians waiting in hospital wards who have been assessed for residential aged care. The average daily cost of a hospital bed is $967—nine times the cost of a residential aged-care place. Residential aged care is fairly and squarely the responsibility of the federal government. Labor recognises this, and a Rudd Labor government will examine whether additional transition or step-down care would assist, along with other measures, to increase the speed at which aged-care bed licences are made operational.
Recently the Tasmanian government announced as part of its health plan the closure of aged-care beds at the Ouse hospital. On 12 July 2007 the Acting Tasmanian Minister for Health and Human Services, Steve Kons, announced:
The State Government has been effectively subsidising each aged care bed at Ouse—last financial year by $114,000, which is well over twice the Australian Government bed subsidy.
This is an appalling circumstance and one wonders how this can occur when the Prime Minister is boasting about his skills in economic and financial management.
Labor has a $2 billion national health reform plan. This compares with the doubling of out-of-pocket costs to see a GP since 1996. This compares with figures that show that 65 per cent of Australia has a health workforce shortage. This compares with the policy on the Mersey hospital—and we still do not know if this is a one-off or part of a planned national takeover. The Howard government are running scared in the lead-up to the election and so they have no policy but to apply bandaids in whatever seat they seem to be in trouble in on the day.
Labor has a plan for health infrastructure. Recently Labor announced it will reform the Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund, which is clearly not working under the present Howard government. Many regional communities are facing difficulty in accessing health services. The Howard government promised $15 million at the last election for this fund, but since 2004 only $3.5 million has been spent. Promises, promises, promises. It is time to have some delivery, is it not? Haven’t communities suffered enough? It is time for new leadership on health care and new leadership for Australia—it is time for a Rudd Labor government. (Time expired)
Fisher Electorate: Projects
155
155
09:33:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
1
0
Mr SLIPPER
—The honourable member for Lyons, who just spoke, has clearly misled the chamber because it is obviously not time for a Rudd Labor government, as we all know. However, during the time I have been the member for Fisher I have been very pleased to be able to deliver a large number of positive outcomes for the people on the Sunshine Coast. More recently I have been able to continue progress for our local area and we have had quite a number of achievements on the Sunshine Coast and in the electorate of Fisher in particular.
I was pleased to be able to obtain a Medicare office in Maroochydore while retaining the offices at Kawana Waters and Caloundra. We were able to score the ex HMAS Brisbane as a dive wreck off Mooloolaba. This project is currently delivering some $40 million a year to our local economy. Over $33.5 million has been spent on capital funding for the University of the Sunshine Coast, including $5 million for the recently completed sports stadium. We have been able to attract more than $34 million in funds specifically for local school projects and capital works to improve the learning environments for our young people. As we all know, young Australians are our nation’s future.
The new family relationship centre at Maroochydore will assist coast families to work out the best possible outcomes for their children, and they will be able to get all the necessary advice. Over $14.6 million has been obtained from 2003 to 2006 for local small business operators to assist apprentices. We have been able to attract countless Work for the Dole and Green Corps projects for the regions. We have just recently been able to announce $2.9 million for a major broadband project with the Maroochy Shire Council and the University of the Sunshine Coast.
These are social dividends as a result of excellent economic management during the period the government has been in office, since 1996. We have repaid Labor’s debt and now, instead of spending money on paying interest the way Labor had to, we are able to deliver positive social outcomes. This superior economic management has resulted in unemployment at a record 33-year low, lower personal and company taxes and significant superannuation reform.
It is not time for a Rudd Labor government. There is more to be done. The coalition government deserves to be returned at the election, whenever it is held—it is pretty clear that it will be held soon. When you look at the quality of the team behind the Prime Minister and the Treasurer compared with that of the team on the opposite side, it is clear that the Labor Party is extremely thin on the ground when it comes to experience and competence. It would be extremely dangerous were Labor to be elected later this year. (Time expired)
Annandale North Public School
Housing Affordability
156
156
09:36:00
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
83M
Sydney
ALP
0
0
Ms PLIBERSEK
—I wish to speak today about Annandale North Public School, a wonderful school in my area that has been celebrating over the weekend and early this week the centenary of the school. The school was established in 1907. At the weekend they had a wonderful fair and invited students from the past to revisit Annandale. They had visitors from all over Sydney and all over New South Wales, coming from far afield to return to their school. They have done a magnificent job of getting photos of past classes and past students. Their beautiful library was covered in photographs of students from every era of the school, old school reports, documents, and advice to teachers about what they were allowed to do and what they were not allowed to do. It was a fantastic historical trip. It also included a book, A Century of Reflection, by Mary Hare. There was a cocktail party in the evening. On Monday they had student performances about every decade of the school’s existence. I am so sorry to have been in Canberra and missed that, because I know that the Annandale North Public School students would have done a marvellous job in those performances. On Tuesday, yesterday, they were wearing clothes of different periods of the school.
The school has an enormous amount of parent involvement. They have done a fantastic job of expanding the playground into the neighbouring street after many years of campaigning. They have also started a campaign for a hall for Annandale North Public School and, with the support of the parents, the local community, the teaching community of the school, their local government representative, the Mayor of Leichhardt, Alice Murphy, their state representative, Verity Firth, and, of course, me, I am sure that they will eventually be successful in their campaign.
Just before I finish, I want to comment on the fact that we are told in a marvellous article by Patricia Karvelas in the Australian today that 50 government MPs in a marathon policy debate yesterday said that housing affordability is an issue that this government should be tackling. I am pleased that MPs are listening. I hope that eventually the Prime Minister and the Treasurer will stop ignoring this. We know that both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have said that housing affordability is not a big issue. In fact, the Prime Minister says it is great—he has never heard people complain about the value of their homes going up. That is true. They are pretty worried about their kids and their grandkids ever being able to afford a home. We know the ordinary family cannot afford the ordinary family home anymore, and that is a shocking state. (Time expired)
Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council
157
157
09:39:00
Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP
00ANF
Dobell
LP
1
0
Mr TICEHURST
—I rise today to convey my continued support for the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council in my electorate. The Darkinjung are a proud people who have been working towards self-reliance, but they were unfairly targeted by the New South Wales state Labor government when it decided to appoint an administrator over the land council. The administrator was appointed by the disgraced former state minister for Aboriginal affairs, Milton Orkopoulos, under the guise of concern over their financial situation. Mr Peter Hillig, a mate of Orkopoulos and state Labor, is bleeding the funds dry.
A few years ago the Darkinjung land council contracted for a sale of land for $42 million in two lump sums. They set up trusts to create a number of companies to provide ongoing community support for their local people. Through hard work, some good fortune, astute investment and excellent management, they were able to become independent of government grants and move away from welfarism to become a model of self-determination. The Darkinjung people have shown they are able to successfully operate a diverse range of innovative programs, including the establishment of a funeral fund and a housing scheme, as well as investing in a cattle company. This cattle company sold more than $1 million worth of cattle a year to Japan and was in the process of negotiating contracts with Canada and North Korea. However, the New South Wales state Labor government’s interference and the decision to take over the land council has caused these vital initiatives to cease, with the administrator freezing assets, and now he is actually conducting a fire sale.
The state member for Terrigal and I have been meeting with the representatives of the Darkinjung because we are deeply concerned by the damage state Labor is doing to the local Aboriginal group. State Labor is quickly reducing the Darkinjung land council from a financially independent, multimillion-dollar corporation to a debt ridden organisation surviving hand to mouth on New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council funding. The local Aboriginal land council is premised on helping people to help themselves, but the Labor state government is penalising it for delivering this independence. The former state minister for Aboriginal affairs justified his decision to appoint an administrator by stating that it was in the best interests of Darkinjung.
I call on the New South Wales state government to conduct an inquiry into this matter. The Premier needs to get involved because some of his cronies and hangers-on are really causing heartache for these people. Considering that the former state minister for Aboriginal affairs is currently facing 36 child sex and drug charges, his decision to appoint an administrator over Darkinjung must be reassessed as a priority. They are bleeding the funds dry, and they are destroying the bloodline of the cattle that had been built up over 20 years to produce the high-quality beef that was able to be sold internationally. The cattle are now being put to market and sold for hamburger mince. It is an absolute disgrace. I call on Morris Iemma to get in there and sort it out. (Time expired)
KU Starting Points
158
158
09:42:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
0
0
Mr HAYES
—Since becoming the member for Werriwa I have had the distinct pleasure of working with a range of different groups that do nothing other than help serve our community. On Saturday night I attended KU Children’s Services charity night for KU Starting Points—Macarthur. Starting Points is an organisation that services communities from Liverpool through to the Southern Highlands. It provides child care and respite care for families with children with disabilities that range from mild to severe. When I see the work that is undertaken by this organisation I think our communities are very fortunate to have the committed professionals, such as Dr Freelander and other paediatricians in our area, and the various volunteers who act in these programs.
KU Starting Points was formed by KU Kindergartens and Macquarie University some 13 years ago. At the moment the organisation is involved with 50 to 60 kids whose disabilities range from mild to severe and include down syndrome, autism and Asperger’s syndrome. Their families have received the benefits of this organisation. Those benefits are not just child care. This organisation goes about setting up various support groups for families, including fathers groups and mothers groups. In other words, it is out there catering for the interests of the families, including the siblings of the kids with disabilities. I would not necessarily say this is a unique organisation but it is certainly staffed by very good and conscientious people, such as Lorraine Brown, who is the CEO. By the way, Noelene Brown is the patron. The organisation serves the community in south-west Sydney, which, unfortunately, has an overrepresentation of people with disabilities.
As a member of parliament, I feel that it is incumbent on me and my colleagues to do as much as we can to support people who dedicate so much time and effort to looking after their communities. We are indebted to them for their efforts and to the professionals—paediatricians, psychologists, counsellors and speech therapists—for their assistance. All these people give a significant amount of their time, and their motivation is to serve the community. I have great respect for this organisation. (Time expired)
Paterson Electorate: Health Services
158
158
09:45:00
Baldwin, Robert, MP
LL6
Paterson
LP
1
0
Mr BALDWIN
—Forster-Tuncurry is a community in my electorate that is without a public hospital. So dire is the situation that years ago the community set about raising money to build a hospital, and build a hospital they did. The state government refused to lease that hospital to provide services to the people of Forster-Tuncurry. They were forced to put it out to a private contractor. So what we have is a hospital built and funded by the community and run by a private interest. They do an outstanding job. Karen Devenish, the CEO, does a tremendous job. On 3 September it was great to announce an after-hours GP service that will be established at that hospital. This program provides funding of $600,000 over three years and will provide great community benefit, particularly during the holiday season, when the town grows.
For a number of years I have been lobbying New England Health—now Hunter New England Health—in particular, their CEO, Terry Clout. I had meetings with him on 9 July 2004, 20 September 2005 and finally on 13 July this year, which was when he let me know that, after all the lobbying by the community and me, 20 beds would be leased to this hospital for the provision of services to the public. That was reinforced on 3 September in a telephone call from the Acting CEO, Nigel Lyons, who stated that those beds would be available. There is a sting in the tail for the community in Forster-Tuncurry—that is, those beds will not be provided until the end of the financial year.
This is a community from which people have to travel some 34 kilometres to Taree to access a public hospital. This is an ageing community, and the transport links between Forster-Tuncurry and Taree are marginal at best. I say to the state government: ‘You have now made the commitment to lease these beds. Provide those beds now. We are ramping up services and the federal government is committing more funds, but we need you to provide those beds now.’
There is no difference in cost between providing a bed in Taree Base Hospital and leasing that bed in the community in Forster-Tuncurry. But what we see is a continual dragging of the chain. I will not believe that these beds have come to fruition until they open on day one. The community demands and, more importantly, deserves these beds as part of their health care. The community is continuing to raise funds. There are further expansion plans for the hospital. Indeed, it was only a couple of years ago that the second floor of the hospital was built so that it could cater for further patients. We have had no real response. It was only because Reba Meagher, the New South Wales Labor Minister for Health, was cornered that she had to admit that the beds would be made available. (Time expired)
Badgerys Creek Airport
159
159
09:49:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—Somewhat novelly, I would like to talk about a federal issue, as this is the federal parliament—
HM5
Georgiou, Petro, MP
Mr Georgiou
—You’ve used that line twice in the last week and you were wrong last week.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—Honourable members opposite hate to talk about federal issues, for understandable reasons, but on this side of the House we do like to talk about federal issues. Today I am going to talk about an issue which is very important to the people of Western Sydney. I am delighted that the Chief Opposition Whip is in the chamber, because he has been campaigning against Badgerys Creek airport for the last 25 years.
Today again I want to raise this government’s intention to build Badgerys Creek airport. In May I reported to the House on this important issue, which is important to people in my electorate in Kemps Creek, Mount Vernon, Cecil Park and Horsley Park as well as Bossley Park, Minchinbury and St Clair. I noted a letter to the editor in today’s Fairfield City Champion from Peter Cork of Horsley Park. I know Peter quite well. I served on the Fairfield City Council with him. He is certainly no supporter of the ALP and we certainly had our differences over the years, but he has been a very strong and powerful campaigner against Badgerys Creek airport. He starts his letter by saying:
It seems absolutely remarkable that the Liberal Party could allow Badgerys Creek airport proposal to remain on the books.
He goes on:
When Mr Vaile quarantined the Badgerys site until 2009 he and John Howard effectively placed a ‘poison’ sign over our land and our local community.
This is an issue which will not go away for the government because they will not rule out building an airport at Badgerys Creek. As I reported to the House previously, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services had written to Western Sydney councils confirming that there would be another review. The government apparently do not like reviews, but when it comes to an airport in Western Sydney they embrace them. There will be yet another review! The last review was done in 2005—it has been and gone. Now we have another one coming in 2009 and they say they cannot make a decision until the 2009 review.
Furthermore, it gets worse. I am sure the Chief Opposition Whip will be very disappointed to hear that the Prime Minister’s principal private secretary wrote to the Western Sydney Alliance Chairman, Councillor Mark Pigram, this month saying an inquiry into the deeply unpopular second Sydney airport would reopen in 2009. He went on to say:
[The] Australian Government is retaining the Badgerys Creek site as a contingency for possible development of an airport should one be needed in the future as there are no other suitable sites within 80 kilometres of Sydney.
So this is the true view of the federal government from the Prime Minister’s principal private secretary. The members opposite from Western Sydney masquerade around town saying that they will oppose an airport—the member for Lindsay has made an art form of it—and yet we all know that this government will not rule out building an airport at Badgerys Creek if it is re-elected later this year. We hear constantly about state issues. Why don’t members opposite stand up on a federal issue which affects Western Sydney, oppose Badgerys Creek and rule it out? A Rudd Labor government will not build an airport at Badgerys Creek. (Time expired)
Queensland Government
160
160
09:52:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—The Howard government believes strongly in sharing the dividends of the strong economy that we have been able to create for the benefit of all Australians through hard work and effort and without any assistance from the Australian Labor Party over the last 10 or 11 years. Recently I had the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources visit Graceville State School and we told the students there about the fact that they as a school are able to access up to $50,000 in green vouchers to help them install solar hot-water panels, water retention systems or water tanks. Given that the Queensland government had in fact abandoned its rebate on solar hot-water panels and this government has doubled its rebate, it is pretty obvious who has the greater commitment to the environment. Sherwood AFL have already made full use of the Commonwealth water grants, installing a 200,000-litre tank system. Yeronga Bowls Club have done the same thing. Graceville Croquet Club want to do it as well and I am fully supporting Jim Bakker and his team there in their efforts.
But of course the big concern I have—and given that something like 80 per cent of the year 6 and year 7 students who met Minister Turnbull and I put up their hands when we asked the question: ‘Do you have a water tank at home?’ and there would be a lot of people in my area who would be very concerned about this too—is that the legal opinion is very straight. The Queensland government can seize the water that comes off people’s roofs, store it in water tanks and use it as they see fit. There is no clear guidance from the Queensland government about the ownership of the water. The legal advice is that it actually does come under government control, so it is absolutely important that Anna Bligh, the new Queensland Premier—never elected but nevertheless anointed—in fact clarify very quickly what is going on there.
The other failures of the Queensland government to properly invest in our local schools are breathtaking. I now have schools seeking money to expand their administrative blocks because the Queensland government will not do that work. We have already had things like the covered walkways installed at Graceville State School for $136,000. Sherwood State School received $150,000 for air conditioning. Tennyson Special School, which looks after kids with difficulties and disabilities, received $132,000 for special learning areas. Rocklea State School, a country school in the middle of the city, has received the best part of $100,000 for everything from upgrading their sporting facilities to computer equipment and air conditioning—and this is a school of only 70 kids. Parents would never have been able to contribute that money. Milpera State High School received $149,000 for air conditioning and fixing up their canteen facilities. Yeronga State School received $73,000, and the Yeronga State High School received $135,000 for air conditioning. Money also went to ICT.
The point I make is that the money that has come from the Australian government’s Investing in Our Schools Program is being invested in our schoolchildren, invested in our future. As the federal Labor Party plans to expand the road network and put more trucks and traffic on Oxley Road and Fairfield Road, I am going to stand very firmly in the corner of local residents against Labor’s stupid plans.
Grandparents
161
161
09:55:00
Price, Roger, MP
QI4
Chifley
ALP
0
0
Mr PRICE
—Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, I want to shock you but, firstly, I want to praise an aspect of a state government’s program and highlight concerns that I have about the national government. Parents as Teachers have provided some funding for grandparents who parent. I have met with the group a couple of times. They meet at the Madang Avenue Public School, and it is a great little group. What is unusual about them? It is just not that they are parents of orphans. Often these grandparents are in their twilight years and are accepting very young grandchildren and the responsibility for bringing them up. Why is this so? It is mostly because of alcohol abuse, substance abuse or domestic violence and sometimes because these children have been sexually assaulted. They often have very complex behavioural problems.
I would be critical of DOCS—I think DOCS could be doing a lot more to support these grandparents—but I also think that there is a role for the Commonwealth. This is a hidden group in our community that is doing a sterling job. But they are old, they get tired and they need a break. Often, respite is not available or they cannot afford to pay for it. They are doing a sterling job but it is very hard for them. Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I are grandparents and it is a joy. We have all the time and patience but we know that our grandchildren will go back to their parents. These grandchildren stay with their grandparents and I think the grandparents should be supported. The federal government needs to look at giving them additional assistance.
In my electorate some of the grandparents have worked but, unfortunately, they are now all dependent on social welfare. I do not think social welfare is meeting their needs, much less their grandchildren’s needs. I say to the federal government: let us put politics and the argy-bargy of an election aside. This is a very small but growing group in our community who are taking on a huge burden. The government should be grateful for the good work they are doing, but they need more assistance. I have mentioned respite, but these grandparents also run up all the sorts of bills that parents do but without the income of parents. (Time expired)
Education
162
162
09:58:00
Bartlett, Kerry, MP
0K6
Macquarie
LP
1
0
Mr BARTLETT
—I rise again to express my concerns about the activities of the teachers unions peddling political propaganda in our public schools. They are doing this at the school gate by handing out political material. In some cases they are doing it in schools by putting the ‘Your Rights at Work’ posters up as well as other political information and, in some cases, by even spreading this material inside schools.
There are three fundamental problems with this. The first is that our teachers ought to be promoting critical thinking and presenting both sides of every argument, not taking a deliberately and blatantly party political line on any particular issue. They should not be using their position in the classroom or the schools to support the Labor Party or to push any political view. The second problem I have with it is that their activities are unfair to other teachers who are professionally doing the right thing, are committed to the education of their children and are not abusing their position in the classroom to push a particular political point of view.
The third and perhaps the greatest problem I have with this is that the campaign by the Teachers Federation, supported by the silence of the Labor Party, is blatantly dishonest. Their argument that the Australian government has somehow cut funding for public schools is blatantly and clearly wrong. The facts are these: in the last 11 years, the Howard government has increased direct government funding to state schools by 120 per cent—in real terms, by 70 per cent—despite an increase in student numbers of only 1.2 per cent. So there has been a real increase—70 per cent—in funding despite an increase in enrolments of only 1.2 per cent. The Australian government has increased direct funding for state public schools far faster than state governments have increased funding for their own schools. Look at the New South Wales budget in the last year alone. In the last year, the Australian government increased direct funding for state public schools by 10.7 per cent; the New South Wales government increased funding for its state schools by a miserable 3.9 per cent. If state governments had matched the rate of increase the Australian government has delivered, our schools would have a lot more funding than they currently have.
Where is Labor on all this? Have we heard Labor criticising the dishonesty of the Teachers Federation’s campaign? We ought to have. Have we heard the Labor members of parliament criticising Labor’s and the unions’ hit list of non-government schools? This government is committed to choice in education—it is committed to supporting our public schools as well as our non-government schools. The Teachers Federation and the Australian Education Union should be ashamed of themselves for politicising the schoolyard in the way that they are doing, and the Labor Party should be ashamed of their silence on this. (Time expired)
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CHILD SEX TOURISM OFFENCES AND RELATED MEASURES) BILL 2007
163
Bills
R2877
Second Reading
163
Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Ruddock:
That this bill be now read a second time.
163
10:01:00
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
0
0
Mr BEVIS
—I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sex Tourism Offences and Related Measures) Bill 2007. There can be few offences that are more harmful to the fabric of our society, to our families and to the things we all hold dear than child sex offences. I have no doubt that every member of parliament, whatever their political persuasion, regards offences of this kind as the most the egregious and is supportive of any effort that the parliament can make to protect the innocence of young people, whether they are Australian citizens or young children elsewhere in the world. Sadly, we know that in some parts of the world there has been trade in child sex activities. This bill goes, in some measure, to addressing that. The bill has the support of the Labor Party, and I would anticipate the support of all members of parliament.
The bill amends the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, the Crimes Act 1914, the Criminal Code 1995, the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access Act) 1979. The bill will amend the definition of ‘serious and organised crime’ in the Australian Crime Commission Act to expressly include child sex carriage service offences. It will repeal parts of the Criminal Code that deal with child sex tourism. It will insert those provisions into the Criminal Code, with some updating of the language and the structure of the offences. I am pleased to say it adds a preparatory offence to capture the behaviour of people who are preparing to commit a child sex tourism offence. It adds new child sex tourism offences to capture the procuring and grooming of a child for the purposes of child sex overseas. It improves the operation of carriage service offences for grooming persons under 16 years of age for sexual activity. It adds a new offence that would make it illegal for Australian citizens and residents to possess, control, produce, distribute or obtain child pornography and/or abuse material while overseas, and it addresses a gap in the current legislative regime by providing for the forfeiture of child pornography and child abuse material and equipment containing such material that is used in the commission of a child sex offence.
Child sex tourism provisions that are currently in the Crimes Act are being moved in line with the general transfer of criminal offences from the Crimes Act to the Criminal Code and the modernisation in the drafting of those offences. The notes on the clauses in the explanatory memorandum identify the corresponding Crimes Act provisions to be replaced, and this is a modernisation process which Labor supports.
The new preparatory offences capture the behaviour of people who are preparing to commit an offence under the proposed division 272. The offences capture a wide range of preparatory behaviour. The inclusion of an offence of this kind will enable a person to be arrested prior to a child under 16 being harmed. The offence of engaging in preparatory acts applies both inside and outside Australia and addresses a gap in the coverage of the existing child sex tourism offences. It is important for all Australians to comprehend that the will of the parliament on this is strong and that whether offences are committed against citizens here in Australia or against children overseas is of no account. This bill quite rightly does not only allow people in one country to be prosecuted with child sex offences; it also makes it an offence for these activities to be undertaken outside of Australia.
Currently the Crimes Act prohibits a person from benefiting from or encouraging conduct which would amount to a child sex tourism offence being committed overseas. These offences are targeted at child sex tour operators. It is a sad reflection on circumstances that we actually do have what I would loosely describe as an ‘industry’. They are targeted at people who think they should be able to profit from operating child sex tours. At present it is an offence for those operators rather than the child sex client. There is nothing in the current offence provisions which clearly prohibits any preliminary steps being taken by a person who wishes to participate in a child sex tour. This bill will address that issue.
The object of the new grooming and procuring offence is to capture people who groom or procure a person under 16 with the intention that the person under 16 will engage in or submit to sexual activity. These offences will capture the grooming of a young person in a foreign country as well. The proposed amendments address that existing gap in our legislation. They are modelled on existing provisions within the Criminal Code which deal with the use of a carriage service to procure or groom a person under 16 for sexual activity. However, the new offences are not limited to conduct involving the use of a carriage service.
The new provisions will make it an offence to possess, control, produce, distribute or obtain child pornography or child abuse material whilst overseas. The proposed offences will apply to Australian citizens or residents of Australia who may be living, travelling and/or working outside of Australia. This too closes a gap in the existing legislative framework and makes clear again the view of the parliament that this activity is abhorrent and unacceptable wherever it may be perpetrated. The conduct is clearly offensive and, if it occurred within Australia, it would be captured by either Commonwealth or state offences. These proposed new arrangements cover the situation where a foreign country does not have specific laws to deal with this behaviour or is unwilling or unable to prosecute. It should be clear that the Australian parliament will ensure those people are prosecuted.
I want to make reference to a couple of items in the bill more specifically. Item 2 amends the Crimes Act to provide a scheme for the forfeiture of child abuse and child pornography material or an article that contains material that is used in the commission of a Commonwealth child sex offence. At present, child pornography or child sex abuse materials or articles containing such material can be forfeited after following the full processes under the Proceeds of Crime Act. Such material is clearly inappropriate to return to the owner under any circumstances, so the amendments create a streamlined process for the forfeiture by order of a court either immediately after a conviction or following a separate hearing.
Items 3 to 7 in the bill are also worthy of comment. They ensure that special protections for children in proceedings for sexual offences that are set out in the Crimes Act will continue to be available under the provisions of the Criminal Code. The special provisions will also apply to proceedings for offences against the proposed division 273.
Items 10 and 11 deal with section 474.27 of the Criminal Code and make it an offence to use a carriage service to groom a person under the age of 16 for sexual activity. Currently, an element of the grooming offences is that the person uses that carriage service to transmit a communication to a second person and that that communication material is of itself indecent. That is a limiting factor in the pursuit of cases of child sex abuse. The requirement that the communication include material that is indecent does limit the types of communications that can be captured for the purposes of making a charge of grooming offences. Indeed, grooming activity may well involve the transmission of other communications designed to capture the confidence of a victim or a potential victim. Items 10 and 11 amend section 474 to ensure that these provisions operate as effectively as possible to capture persons who groom children for sexual intercourse or indecent contact by removing that requirement that the communication itself includes indecent material. This will make the offences consistent with the proposed grooming offences elsewhere in this bill. Again, the opposition—the Labor Party—supports those measures.
Item 18 of the bill enables a law enforcement officer to apply for an emergency authorisation for the use of a surveillance device where there is a risk of loss of evidence in relation to the investigation of an offence against these provisions in the Criminal Code. The parliament and the public quite rightly expect tight controls on the use of surveillance devices in our community, and that is appropriate. In a society such as ours we do not lightly give to the authorities and the government the right to interfere with what we would otherwise regard as our right to privacy and liberty; but we do acknowledge, in a range of areas, the need for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to be able to gather intelligence through the use of surveillance and interception devices. The changes that are proposed in this bill are, I think, consistent with what the public would regard as a fair and proper thing in order to ensure the safety of young people here and abroad.
Similarly, there are amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. These amendments ensure that the warrants that are issued under this act may be issued in relation to new child sex tourism offences and dealing in child pornography overseas. The act currently refers to child sex tourism offences in the Crimes Act. As these offences are being repealed, it is necessary to repeal various references to them as consequential amendments. As a result of the changes that are being made in the bill, telecommunications interception warrants will be available for the investigation of a child sex tourism offence or overseas child pornography offences without any further requirement that the offence have an element of organisation or planning. This is different to the current arrangements, in which such warrants are only available for the investigation of a child sex tourism offence where the offence involves, amongst other things, two or more offenders and substantial planning and organisation. I think the government proposal in this area is also correct: there is no reason for that restriction to apply.
As I said, we on this side of the House support this bill. I anticipate all members of the parliament would support the bill. As a parliament, though, we do need to also be confident that the resources are available within the policing and other agencies to properly implement the powers that are set out here. Previously, as shadow minister for homeland security, justice and customs I raised my concerns about the resourcing levels available, particularly to the Australian Federal Police. We have seen a number of media reports about the Federal Police being unable to pursue child sex cases. Indeed, we have seen reports about the Federal Police having to pass on requests to state police to pick up the investigation of these matters because of inadequate resourcing. It is one of the reasons why Kevin Rudd and Labor have committed to the employment of an additional 500 sworn police officers should we win the election. My attention has been drawn to an article only a couple of months ago, on 18 June this year, in the Herald Sun. It said:
In one alarming case, a NSW man who “groomed” a 14-year-old boy in the US for sex on the internet and confided he had molested 100 children was not picked up by NSW Police until four months after the case was handed over by the AFP.
“This matter was originally referred to an operational area of the AFP, however due to operational and resource issues, no investigational activity was able to be commenced at the time,” an agent from the AFP’s online child sexual exploitation team wrote ....
The article went on to quote the Police Federation of Australia Chief Executive Officer, Mark Burgess:
“These delays—or in some cases failure to investigate—are unacceptable and the public expects crimes where children are involved to be a top priority,” ...
I agree with Mr Burgess. I think the whole parliament would agree with Mr Burgess. We do expect the investigation of crimes involving children and the abuse of children, particularly sex offences against children, to be of the highest priority. There are resource implications. It is not good enough, though, for us in this parliament just to give impassioned speeches and vote for legislation which may be good and proper. That is of little consequence if we do not also ensure that the agencies charged with implementing these laws have the resources they need to do that properly. Clearly, the Australian Federal Police have found challenging the range of duties that they have been asked to perform both here and abroad, and their resources have not enabled all of those important tasks to be done. Sadly, what we now know is that in some cases child sex offences have been the ones that have fallen off the bottom of the list. We should make sure that does not continue. We should make sure that the Australian Federal Police and the other agencies involved in these matters are fully resourced to properly implement these laws. Child sex offences are abhorrent to all people in our society. It is not good enough that their priority is so low in the system that policing resources are not available to deal with them. It is not satisfactory that any child suffers sexual assault because there are inadequate resources within our policing agencies to do the task.
These laws are an improvement. They close a number of loopholes. They extend the reach of current laws to make it clear that Australian residents and citizens who behave in this way, whether here or overseas, will fall foul of the law. They make it clear that we will not allow people to bring back into this country child sex abuse material. That is all good and well. We need to ensure that we couple that intention with equal vigour in resources to have the job done properly. Whomever happens to win the election some time over the next couple of months, I think it falls to them to very seriously and earnestly address this issue and to ensure that the Australian Federal Police and the other policing agencies are well resourced to address this problem, to stamp it out and to make it clear that it is unacceptable here in Australia. They should ensure Australia is a leader in the world, stating forthrightly that we will not tolerate child sex abuse, whether it is perpetrated here or abroad, and that we will use every avenue available to us to protect young people.
Debate interrupted.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
167
Distinguished Visitors
167
10:19:00
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)
—Before I call the next speaker, could I welcome visitors from the Thai parliament to the Main Committee of the Australian parliament. Welcome.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CHILD SEX TOURISM OFFENCES AND RELATED MEASURES) BILL 2007
167
Bills
R2877
Debate resumed.
167
10:19:00
Hull, Kay, MP
83O
Riverina
NATS
1
0
Mrs HULL
—I rise today to support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sex Tourism Offences and Related Measures) Bill 2007, as I am sure every member of the Australian parliament will do. It is a particular passion of mine and I have been doing this for some time. It is a shameful fact that children are being brutalised every minute of every day due to child trafficking both into the sex industry and into the slave labour industry. It was interesting to note in my involvement with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, my involvement on the international Coordinating Committee of Women Parliamentarians and my liaison with UNICEF that, in many of the countries that have a national plan of action against commercial sexual exploitation of children, child sex trafficking is at its highest level. So it is not good enough for any country, including Australia, to have in place obligations and legislation if this legislation is not going to be enacted and people are not going to be provided the opportunity to take legal action against those who would perpetrate crimes against children.
In particular through the Inter-Parliamentary Union forum, my colleague Judy Moylan and I decided that we would be instrumental in forming a committee. It was initially going to be called ‘Women Against Abuse of Children’. We then decided, because there was a lot of interest from our male colleagues in that forum, that we would call it ‘World Against Abuse of Children’. We have had some 25 parliamentarians from different countries register their interest in being part of this committee that we are trying to pull together at the moment. The committee is to determine what legislation is available in countries, but my specific interest is in how people can access legal retribution for the abuse of children.
When I was in Cambodia and Indonesia recently, I went around the communities where significant child sex trafficking is taking place for the purpose of getting money into the family. I found—and it has been demonstrated by UNICEF many times in their publications—that in many parts of the region, usually in more traditional areas, children, and girls in particular, may be viewed as a commodity by their family. I quote from a UNICEF brochure, Child Protection:
This makes it seem acceptable to some families that they “sell” their children into the sex industry, and acceptable for men to purchase children for sex. Moreover, sexual activity is often seen as a private matter, making communities reluctant to act and intervene in cases of sexual exploitation.
That is the way many of the communities described things when I spoke to them both in Cambodia and in Indonesia.
In my visit to the Asia-Pacific region with UNICEF, representing the women’s coordinating committee, I went to Lombok, where parliamentarians were exposed to a variety of different issues that were confronting islands such as Lombok. It was an emotionally enlightening visit. I met with the Mataram Children’s Council. There was leadership in young children. Some of these young children had been exploited; some of them had been involved in prostitution through the sale of their bodies by their families and some of them had great promise. Many families are given inaccurate information. They are told that their child will get money for their family by doing house duties and duties that would be acceptable, and yet, when they are taken from their family, they might go into begging. They can be deliberately maimed and disfigured, have acid burn out their eyes and have their figures and faces distorted by acid and burns. They can have limbs physically removed. These things are in order to make them more appealing to the general tourist, who will provide more money for a child with more deformity in their looks. This is being done purposely by traffickers of children.
On this visit with the Mataram Children’s Council, the young people were absolutely inspirational. It was up to me to provide a report to the IPU general assembly in the closing ceremony. In it I talked about the Martaram Children’s Council and how these young children aged 15 to 17 were an inspiration in their articulate delivery of the issues that were confronting the children on the island of Lombok, but they were representative of islands and areas all over the world.
I was drawn to the children’s drawing on a child’s tree of life. It was a mind, body and soul map. Let me tell you: there was not one out of the 14 parliamentarians on this visit that could deny what this child’s body was screaming. It said: ‘When you beat and abuse my body, you are not only leaving scars and broken bones on my physical self; you are destroying my mind and my soul. They were saying to me that my broken bones and my bruises may heal. But my mind and my soul are lost to me forever.’
The plea from this youth group to the visiting parliamentarians in such a passionate and articulate way was memorable and will never leave my mind. They said: ‘We want to be children. We want to play as children. We do not want to be afraid of being sold into slave labour or being sold into the sex industry. Just let us be children, please. Please listen to us speak and then go back to your parliaments. Be the voice of the children in your parliaments.’ It is up to all of us to do that: be the voice of children in the parliaments of Australia, in the parliaments of the world.
This is a fabulous initiative between UNICEF and the Italian parliament. It is a joint cooperation building walls of protection. It is a collaboration between governments—fabulous, and I cannot speak highly enough of it. Here is a typical ad that is on many of the buses. This one in particular shows the situation in Indonesia and talks about the commercial sexual exploitation of children. This little girl is saying, ‘Although I’m still alive, in reality, I’m dead inside.’
That is what takes place in the lives of not 10, not 20, not 100, not 1,000, not even 100,000 children. We are talking about millions of children across the world who are being used and brutalised in an ongoing fashion. That is why it is important to stand up and support the ever-increasing vigilance and powers of cooperation as an Australian citizen and as an Australian member of parliament, to improve the operations of the AFP and other bodies in cross-border agreements and ensure that governments, departments, agencies, police, protection can work together to outmanoeuvre those who would abuse our children.
It is not good enough to put in place MOUs or national plans if we are not prepared to provide access to legal aid and legal services for these children and their families. In those significantly poverty-stricken islands and other areas, you can have 1,000 laws in place. You can have every piece of legislation laid out and put on the table, but if those families and those children cannot access legal aid to legally prosecute the perpetrators of crimes against their children then what will we have achieved? We will have achieved a feel-good and a do-gooder inspirational piece of legislation, but some countries are not prepared to enable people to prosecute through providing legal services. As most of these people are in such poverty that they cannot even put one meal a day on the table for their children—a simple meal of rice—how are they going to access legal aid and legal services to prosecute somebody who told them that their daughter was going to be helping in a household and instead was placed in a brothel?
When we were in Cambodia we met the inspirational Sister Bernadette at a CARITAS program. While there, we also met men and women with HIV. We spoke with a 21-year-old young girl who weighed about 40 kilos. She had been trafficked into the sex industry and into a local brothel at three years of age. She then became infected with HIV and developed AIDS. Of course, she then had no opportunity to earn money for her pimp—her owner—so she was thrown out onto the street. She had been in that place since she was three years old. This is the plight not only of one little girl but also of thousands and thousands of little girls and little boys across many countries. This girl went to the CARITAS centre and they were able to help her, but this is happening every day. This insidious crime is being perpetrated not only by Australian men but also by men of many nationalities. You see it time and time again when you are doing this kind of work in this area. This is taking place on a day-to-day basis.
This young lady needs to be provided with access to legal action against the person who ruined her life. If there is a rigorous legal prosecution process in place to make examples of the people who commit these crimes, then you will start to get to the bottom of the situation. I have been trying for some time now—and it is gaining momentum—to get a group of international lawyers together who will do pro bono work to make examples of the people who commit these crimes. Unless we provide access to legal services and legal aid, then we are simply not going to overcome this problem.
Many national plans of action against the commercial exploitation of women have been put in place and this issue has led to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sex Tourism Offences and Related Measures) Bill before us today. I give credit to UNICEF because they do a magnificent job in child protection, but governments need to recognise and respond to the problems. UNICEF’s Child Protection report says:
Governments need to show commitment to creating strong legal frameworks—
and that is the point I am making—
that comply with international legal standards, policies and programmes, and to enforcing and implementing them to protect children. Laws that adequately punish people who sexually exploit children need to be in place and enforced. Organized crime, corruption and bribery need to be properly addressed. A legal framework that protects the survivors of sexual exploitation also needs to be in place.
The hideous fact is that when an eight- or nine-year-old child is trafficked from Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia or one of the islands into another country—such as Thailand, the Philippines or wherever—when that child is found it is the child who is put into detention. It is the child who is locked up because they are in the country illegally and so they most often become the victim again. This child has had no choice in life. It has been taken away, brutalised, used in a fashion that is abhorrent to every upstanding Australian and world citizen—and so it should be—and become a victim because it is in the country illegally and will be treated as such.
Honestly, that hideous thing is taking place in the world today. That shameful experience for children is going on every day across the world. We are a country trying to combat every move that a predator might make on a child. This bill starts to move onto the child pornography issue. The statistics on the commercial sexual exploitation of children show that child pornography occurs on a lesser scale than prostitution or general trafficking but is becoming more aggressive, more prominent, more likely to be taking place.
There are countless stories of men travelling to countries, paying young children to come back to their accommodation, committing indecent sex acts on these children, photographing and videoing themselves whilst this is taking place and then selling these off to the world in porn-ography. In the many years I have been looking at the internet I have wondered how healthy the internet is for the people of the world. It seems that perverted, sick and twisted-minded people who commit shameful acts on children can now, with the flick of a switch, get in touch with millions of other perverted, sick individuals who want to do the same. It then becomes almost normal or almost acceptable because there seems to be so many of these people.
The more power, the more influence and the greater the ability to prosecute these perpetrators of crimes on children, let it be, so be it. Whatever the crime, let there be a punishment that fits the crime of taking a child’s mind, soul and body, and leaving that child walking around totally dead inside. Does anybody in this world have a right to do that to a child? No. People are standing up now and being counted. There are fabulous organisations providing child protection but they need support—they need support from the Australian people, from governments and from international law enforcers and they need the support of the international legal framework in order to do their job properly.
We intend to, every time we can, put something forward in the Australian parliament that demonstrates that we are there monitoring and coming to get those who commit these crimes against children. I congratulate the minister and support this vitally important bill, as I am sure everybody in this parliament will. I would like to see more bills come in in order to block any avenue or effort that anyone might go to to exploit or abuse a child.
170
10:39:00
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
00AMU
Indi
LP
1
0
Mrs MIRABELLA
—I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sex Tourism Offences and Related Measures) Bill 2007 and follow that very passionate speech by the member for Riverina. Child sex tourism, in anyone’s language, is a contemptible practice and it is a particular problem in Third World countries which—perversely—do not have effective laws in place to deal with the problem nor the capacity or inclination to enforce such laws. It should be of no comfort to parents in Australia that paedophiles go overseas to satisfy their perversion—they are only emboldened when they return and, arguably, pose an even greater threat to children on our own shores.
It is no great comfort that a significant number of Australians, I would argue, play a part in the child sex industry overseas, notably in Asia and the Pacific island countries. More than a decade ago, the Crimes Act was strengthened to provide jail terms for Australians who engage in sexual activity with children in foreign countries. Since these changes, a number of prosecutions have been successful; in fact, there have been more than 20 prosecutions, with some 15 convictions. It simply shows that, by strengthening our legislation to deal with these appalling offences, we can more effectively combat the problem. With this in mind, we debate this amendment today.
The bill enhances the Australian government’s ability to deal with child pornography or other child abuse material overseas. Importantly, it creates new child sex offences to augment existing child sex tourism provisions. Furthermore, the legislation ensures that Australians who do commit child sex offences overseas will be prosecuted, even when a foreign country does not have in place specific legislation to deal with this contemptible behaviour or is unwilling to prosecute. Some other components of the bill include amending the child sex tourism offences to add a preparatory offence to capture the behaviour of people preparing to com-mit child sex tourism offences, adding to and introducing new child sex tourism offences to capture the grooming of a young person for the purposes of sex acts overseas, improving the operation of carriage service offences for grooming a child for sex, addressing a current loophole in the legislative framework by forfeiting child abuse or child pornography material used in the commission of child sex offences and repealing part IIIA of the Crimes Act 1914, which deals with child sex tourism, by inserting these provisions into the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Child sex tourism, child sex offences and related matters are not edifying subject matters for debate but, as unpalatable as they are, it is necessary to debate the issues and to confront them in legislation. These abuses are not limited, as we well know, to children overseas; they also affect those children living within our own borders. Quite often we hear that children are our greatest asset and that children are the future. Yes, that is true, but such motherhood statements need to be backed up with actual and real protection. Anything that governments in the Western world can do to strengthen legislation and to provide assistance to rein in some of the preparatory activities and the industry of using and abusing children not only is most welcome but also is a fundamental responsibility of a great Western democracy such as our own.
I am very proud to be part of a government that has a very strong record in protecting children from predators. We have done much as a government to protect and shield children, both in Australia and overseas, from the evil perpetrated by child sexual predators. It is not just about the recognition of the basic evil of such activities but also about the recognition of the damage—the physical, emotional and mental damage—to those victims and also their families. That damage cannot be calculated in any real or monetary terms but it is enormous. All we need to do to understand that is to speak to or read some of the stories of some of the victims of child sex offences.
Only this month, many local members would have participated in the activities of National Child Protection Week. It was great to see local communities embrace this campaign. It was a great opportunity for local communities to break the silence and encourage people to speak about these issues, because speaking about them within particularly small communities is often the first step in helping those who have been victims and in addressing related social problems. White balloons, carrying a powerful message against child sex abuse, were on display in many communities, including Wangaratta and Wodonga. I was privileged to help the volunteers, who had put in so much time, distribute material and the white balloons with their message. I congratulate those who gave their time and continued to pioneer this new campaign. This important week aims to increase individual and community awareness and responsibility for the prevention of abuse and neglect of children, which may still often be a taboo subject in some communities or within some families. That is something we need to work on within our own country to ensure that we break down the walls of silence and encourage people to speak out.
The Australian government takes child abuse and neglect very seriously and makes a significant contribution by focusing on prevention and early intervention strategies in a very real and practical way in local communities. We have the $490 million Stronger Families and Com-munities Strategy, which is a major commitment to early intervention and prevention initiatives.
Returning to some of the other amendments in the bill, the definition of ‘serious and organised crime’ within the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 will be amended to include existing child sex carriage service offences. This will enable the Australian Crime Commission to conduct necessary operations regarding such offences. These important amendments, we are told, have no financial implications for the Commonwealth, but they quite correctly enhance and strengthen our ability to more vigorously deal with child sex tourism offences along with matters pertaining to child pornography. They ensure comprehensive coverage of child sex offences in areas of traditional Commonwealth responsibility. They are most welcome.
I commend the minister and the department for continuing to reform our laws to ensure that we can do whatever is in our power as a nation in this part of the world to try and assist those who are in the most vulnerable position, not only those in Third World or developing countries but also those without an advocate, without any assistance. While assisting those who are incapable of helping themselves—children—we should also turn our minds to those who are the perpetrators—those in privileged positions who have the wealth and the ability to travel and to exploit children sexually—and ask how we deal with this particular problem within our own communities and within our own country. How do we deal with the mind of a person who could seem quite ordinary, quite normal and quite successful and who could be a participant in various communities around the country yet be so systematically abusing children? Unfortunately, those are questions that we will need to deal with for as long as we are on this earth, because this problem is very difficult to eradicate. What we can do is do everything in our power to provide legislation with real teeth to try and bring some of these people to justice. Surely that is the first step, instead of allowing them to have a relatively free rein for their perversions. I commend the minister and I commend the bill to the House.
172
10:49:00
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
0
Mr RUDDOCK
—in reply—I thank my colleagues the members for Brisbane, Riverina and now Indi for their support for this measure. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Child Sex Tourism Offences and Related Measures) Bill 2007 does make important amendments to the law by enhancing the existing child sex tourism regime, including the creation of new child sex tourism offences, particularly extraterritorially. The amendments introduce new overseas child pornography offences and provide a mechanism for forfeiture of child pornography and child abuse material used in the commission of a Commonwealth child sex offence. In relation to the matters raised during the debate, the government welcomes the opposition’s support for the measure. The bill does deserve widespread support. There is no higher priority, of course, than protecting children from predators, particularly serial predators.
Concern was raised that the AFP may not be adequately resourced to investigate child sex tourism offences. Let me put that beyond doubt, if I may. The coalition has massively increased AFP resources, particularly during its recent budget. Over time, it has essentially doubled the AFP resources, which has many challenges, particularly in relation to counterterrorism as well as child sex matters, and it is dealing with new issues in relation to copyright piracy and related questions, for which it has been specifically resourced. Only last month, as part of the Protecting Australian Families Online initiative, we announced a further $43.5 million for the AFP to deal with online child sex exploitation and to establish a special team to deal with those matters—and that funding is for four years. It will allow the employment of an additional 90 new AFP officers in the team by 2009-10. The announcement also included increased funding for prosecutions. It is important to recognise that, if investigations produce evidence that warrants prosecutions and leads to an increase in prosecutions, the DPP be adequately resourced to follow up on these matters. I think this is an illustration, just one of course, of our funding commitment to fighting these very important crimes.
I thank my colleagues the members for Riverina and Indi because in their comments today they highlighted their personal commitment to dealing with this issue, and I thank the member for Riverina for her promotion of the stronger efforts internationally. Her firsthand experience of the nature of the problem, along with the Australian parliamentary delegation that visited South-East Asia, strongly informed the government’s approach in relation to this matter. The central purpose of these laws is to ensure that we have capacity to prosecute in Australia where there are no frameworks to do that in the country where the crime may have been committed. I support my colleague’s efforts to encourage legal practitioners to act pro bono for child victims in poorer countries.
The question of international trafficking and abuse was also raised. The government is dealing with these issues internationally as well as domestically. In 2003, the government provided $20 million to combat people trafficking, including trafficking of children. In 2007, it provided a further $38.3 million to this cause, and this included specific funding to enhance AFP capacity in investigating these matters. I thank my colleagues for their comments and interest in this matter—I think it is important.
By advancing this bill, we are ensuring that Australia has strong and comprehensive laws on sexual offences against children overseas. Enhancements to Australia’s existing child sex tourism offence regime will ensure that our laws comprehensively and effectively target those who travel abroad to engage in child sex tourism. It is something that is totally abhorrent, I think, to any sensible and well-meaning person. Those who organise such activity for others are equally reprehensible in their conduct. New offences relating to child pornography material overseas will prevent Australians who travel to countries lacking effective laws to deal with child pornography from escaping prosecution.
Further, forfeiture orders will provide an important mechanism to prevent child pornography being returned or retained by those who have had it in their possession. The government is committed to the protection of children from the threat of sexual abuse. The bill will complement other current initiatives by the government in relation to the protection of children, including the measures in the Northern Territory, which have been commented on in the debate on other legislation that has been supported, as well as our efforts to protect children online. This is part of a comprehensive approach in dealing with these issues and, I think, confirms our commitment, particularly to children both here and abroad. I commend the bill and thank members for their support for it.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
DEFENCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2007
174
Bills
R2860
Second Reading
174
Debate resumed from 15 August, on motion by Mr Billson:
That this bill be now read a second time.
174
10:55:00
Griffin, Alan, MP
VU5
Bruce
ALP
0
0
Mr GRIFFIN
—It is probably the last occasion I will get to do this, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Hatton, so I wish you all the very best in your post-parliamentary career and I look forward to keeping in touch. As much as you can enjoy this many years in opposition, I have enjoyed serving with you over that time.
10000
Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Hatton)—Thank you. I have enjoyed serving with you, too.
VU5
Griffin, Alan, MP
Mr GRIFFIN
—I rise today to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2007, which amends the Defence Act 1903 and the Defence Force Discipline Act 1902 to implement reforms to the summary discipline system. In 2003, Labor initiated a Senate inquiry to hear evidence from ADF personnel and their families about the military justice system. The current process of military justice reform is largely a result of the inquiry’s report, tabled in June 2005, the Howard government’s response to it, and other reviews thereafter. In respect of the summary justice system, the original inquiry report stated its importance to the daily operation of the ADF and criticised its lack of impartiality, which it found threatened service personnel’s rights to fair tribunals. It said:
The committee considers that reform is also needed to impart greater independence and impartiality into summary proceedings. Summary proceedings affect the highest proportion of military personnel. The current system for prosecuting summary offences, however, suffers from a greater lack of independence than courts martial and Defence Force Magistrate processes. The committee therefore recommends an expansion of the right to elect trial by court martial before the permanent military court, and the introduction of the right to appeal summary decisions before the independent permanent military court.
This bill goes some way to addressing those concerns. It represents the next stage of reform, following on from reforms such as the establishment of the Australian Military Court, due to begin on 1 October 2007, and reform to the administrative processes for the handling of grievances. The bill reforms the summary discipline system, which relates to a range of minor offences and matters affecting the operational discipline and efficiency of the services.
Labor’s view is that this bill is a step in the right direction and is supported. The bill provides some key reforms, such as establishing a right in all cases to appeal a summary authority conviction, order or punishment to a military judge of the Australian Military Court and establishing a right to elect trial by a military judge of the AMC for all but a limited number of disciplinary offences. For the remaining offences, the bill would limit available punishments, provide a right of appeal and ensure an automatic review. It also provides an automatic review by a reviewing authority of proceedings that result in conviction of a service offence.
However, while these are positive and important measures, the bill falls far short of a full response to the need for reform to the summary discipline system and, therefore, Labor’s support is not without caveat. For example, the bill seeks to simplify proceedings by allowing that the summary authority is not bound by the rules of evidence, on the justification that this will enable the more expeditious conduct of military justice. Labor supports this in principle, noting that various safeguards will complement this provision, but cautions that the devil is in the detail. We will need to scrutinise carefully the regulations once they are drafted, and monitor and review their implementation. I will come back to Labor’s concerns and, indeed, concerns raised by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Law Council of Australia in a moment.
Labor’s approach is to ensure that the military justice system competently balances dual objectives. First, it must ensure that the ADF’s operational needs for effective and efficient discipline are met and, second, it must uphold objective and independent standards of justice that the public has confidence in. These high standards are required to protect the rights of defence personnel and ensure their fair treatment. Thus, in respect of this bill, Labor is prepared to be both principled and pragmatic. This, I believe, would be the approach of a Rudd Labor government. I refer to the explanatory memorandum of this bill, which states:
A summary discipline system, by its very nature, will not have the status, level of independence or the judicial attributes of the AMC, established by the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 2006. However, while a summary discipline system should have as many of those attributes as practicable, its primary purpose, as discussed above, is to facilitate operational effectiveness and, through the maintenance of discipline, support ADF operations. Consistent with the British and Canadian systems, the ADF summary discipline system forms one part of the military discipline system which, taken as a whole, must provide the safeguards necessary to protect the interests of ADF members. The Bill’s comprehensive system of elections and appeals in respect of summary authority proceedings provides a direct link to the statutorily independent AMC and in so doing enhances existing safeguards.
I note that the committee’s view was likewise realistic. The committee noted the need for the bill’s speedy enactment, concluding that concerns about the bill need not impede its passage, subject to an amendment to the rules of evidence provision, which the government will move today, although not in the exact form proposed by the committee.
The committee made three recommendations. The first was to strengthen the recognition of the rules of evidence by providing statutory guidance that the summary authority rules should simplify but not depart from the fundamental principles contained in the rules of evidence. This is mostly met by the government’s amendment. Labor supports the intention of this amendment, which is to reinforce the application of the fundamental principles of the rules of evidence in summary proceedings. The second recommendation was that the government comprehensively consult on any future proposed legislation that makes significant changes to the military justice system. This includes consultation with the Law Council of Australia. On this point the committee observed the need for close monitoring of the legislation and of the operation of the Australian Military Court. These are important points supported by Labor. If this government is serious about reform and about doing it well then it will take this recommendation on board. It is not in the interests of defence personnel for the government to speedily cobble together legislation and rush it through parliament without proper consideration. The third recommendation was that, subject to the first recommendation being implemented, the bill be passed.
Labor will continue to be vigilant about a range of concerns in this bill. The provision that states that the summary authority is not bound by the statutory or common-law rules of evidence is the most problematic. The government is introducing today an amending note to proposed section 146A that the summary authority must comply with the rules of natural justice and other basic principles of the rules of evidence. The Law Council understandably is concerned that this note in the bill does not go far enough. However, for now, Labor is prepared to offer careful support, noting that complex rules of evidence being carried out by often non-legally trained summary authorities is not an ideal balance of the two objectives I referred to earlier: efficient operational discipline and fairness for the individual. There are also procedural safeguards—namely, the automatic review by a reviewing officer and the right of appeal to the Military Court. Labor is committed to monitoring this issue. There will be a couple of bites at this cherry, and further down the line we will need to review how effective the simpler evidence framework has been in practice.
It has been suggested that a future reform could be to consider whether the full evidence framework should again apply upon appeal to the Military Court. I would suggest that this holds some merit. The Law Council has also expressed concern that the bill does not provide a right for the Director of Military Prosecutions to appeal an interlocutory judgement or order to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal. Mr Willee of the Law Council has said that this is ‘a simple thing’ and would ensure procedural fairness. This proposal is also worthy of future consideration, and relevant, in light of the issues raised in August this year in the case of the senior army officer charged over the alleged loss of highly sensitive Commonwealth Games security plans. The Federal Court refused the government’s application for a declaration that would reverse an earlier ruling by a court martial judge advocate that the officer’s record of interview was inadmissible because it was conducted by civilian investigators. There is also a concern that some disciplinary offences will remain outside of the right to elect trial by the Australian Military Court.
I want to briefly discuss the committee’s findings so far on the progress of military justice reform. The second progress report, tabled on 29 March 2007, noted some progress with reform of the ADF discipline system, including the establishment of the Australian Military Court and improvements to the redress of grievance process, but criticised some continuing problems that were brought to light by reports into the ADF’s investigative capability and the learning culture in training establishments and by inquiries into the sudden deaths of Private Jacob Kovco and of Trooper Angus Lawrence. The committee’s third progress report, tabled very recently, in September 2007, found that some longstanding problems continue but allowed that these will require time to address. It also commended some progress on complaint management systems.
I flag these progress reports for two reasons. The first is to emphasise that Labor recognises that there is still much more to be done and this bill is just one step along the way. Arguably it could have gone much further. The second is to draw the House’s attention to additional comments by Labor committee members in the committee’s most recent progress report about a broader aspect of Defence Legal’s conduct that has so far escaped proper examination. The growing tendency of the Department of Defence under the Howard government has been towards protracted and expensive legal proceedings. Its litany of litigation is in disarray, and opinion is growing that the government is pursuing a vexatious approach to Defence litigation cases.
The third progress report highlights a number of cases that grossly fail the government’s own so-called common-sense test, such as the discrimination case involving the suicide of Eleanor Tibble, where the government’s cost as at 6 February 2007 had exceeded $1.24 million, or the case involving the Albany Port Authority whereby, after a long and drawn out dispute, Defence admitted liability and agreed to pay $5.25 million to the authority for the cost of removing unexploded bombs plus $1 million towards the authority’s legal costs. Justice Templeman in the Western Australian Supreme Court expressed strong concern about the Commonwealth’s conduct, noting that it was unacceptable that the Commonwealth ‘should be profligate with public funds’ rather than seeking to resolve a practical problem efficiently.
In another area, there has been some recent media attention about HMAS Melbourne cases relating to the naval collision in 1967 of the HMAS Voyager and HMAS Melbourne which killed 82 people aboard Voyager. It is considered the worst peacetime naval accident in Australia’s history. A court recently awarded a HMAS Melbourne claimant $1.24 million in damages. A firm that is currently acting for 29 plaintiffs recently estimated that the average length of trials to settle matters is seven years, and the total legal costs of these trials are between $750,000 and upwards of $2 million.
This is a significant and unacceptable budget risk and frankly an area where the government is failing to meet its responsibilities to the public as a model litigant. In February 2007, approximately 65 per cent of Defence’s litigation cases had been active for more than one year. More than 140 cases had lasted for more than five years. These cases involve such matters as asbestos litigation and F111 deseal-reseal compensation. Yet, when asked at Senate estimates in February 2007 to report on the average cost of litigating matters and the percentage of cases finalised before judgement, Defence replied that it was unable to devote the time and resources to collect this information. Surely resolving these compensation cases in a fair and timely fashion is in the public interest.
In short, Labor remains vigilant about ongoing reform to the military justice system. There is still much to be done to provide a best practice military justice system and the onus is on the ADF to implement these reforms effectively and swiftly, and to demonstrate that military justice can and will be conducted in a transparent and fair way. A Rudd Labor government would be committed to continuing this process of reform and making adjustments as the need becomes clear.
As a broader issue, Labor is concerned that Defence dispenses justice in a range of ways that impact upon the lives and wellbeing of former and serving Defence personnel. All of these processes must be open to rigorous public scrutiny. Defence personnel deserve no less; the public deserves no less.
177
11:08:00
Kelly, Jackie, MP
GK6
Lindsay
LP
1
0
Miss JACKIE KELLY
—It is with great interest that I speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. As a former legal officer in the defence forces I have watched a number of Defence matters now from both sides, within the military and subsequently from within the government. To give you one example, when I was first elected I was on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, and at that time that committee was finishing off a performance audit from the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 31 of 1995-96, looking at the environmental management of Commonwealth land, site contamination and pollution prevention.
I had actually been working at the coalface on a number of those issues in terms of paint shops that had spilled over onto neighbouring land and various other issues where the Commonwealth could have been liable. What we wrote up as legal officers and what was eventually presented to the committee to me as a member of parliament were extraordinarily different. Obviously, in the chain of command, a lot of things happen in order to mitigate blame within the Defence Force.
The Defence Force has a culture of ‘can do’. It likes to be permanently right. It is very difficult for someone in uniform to say that an error was made, and I think the member for Bruce iterated a number of those cases where there are still some outstanding matters. In fact, one of the outstanding matters is in respect of Russell Vance. Just to give you a picture of this, I will quote from a Bulletin article from 2005:
Vance was once a high flier. The son of a distinguished naval officer, Vance did what came naturally and joined the Royal Australian Air Force as an apprentice Scientific Instrument Maker at 16. He was Apprentice of the Year, later matriculated and, at 24, proudly became a commissioned officer. His career trajectory continued steeply skywards until in 1993 he was appointed executive officer (second in command) at the RAAF’s 10 Squadron (P3C Orion base) at Butterworth, Malaysia. He soon became acting Commanding Officer.
RAAF colleagues recall Vance as a “tough bastard” and a stickler for defence rules and regulations, though honest and brutally straightforward. He could be abrasive and his style was not for the faint-hearted. But that’s why his superiors valued him. Indeed, they had sent him to Malaysia to sort out 10 Squadron, which had gained a reputation as something of a “holiday camp”.
Having served at Butterworth myself, I can say that it was not exactly a holiday camp but it certainly had a large surge capacity in terms of the work available for the people deployed there.
The extraordinary thing in the Russell Vance case was that, outside of the chain of command—coincidentally—his subordinates made a complaint to a social worker, which somehow made it to his superior officer without his knowledge and he was counselled. He took objection to that and said: ‘I don’t know what I’m being counselled for. Can I see the allegations made to the social worker?’ Lo and behold, after that tiny incident, we ended up having a board of inquiry, which at last count cost something like $6 million.
In my capacity as the squadron legal officer at air command, I remember being astounded when the fees for the legal officers exceeded $50,000. This matter went on. Even after my election, I appeared before that board of inquiry again, in 1996, and it was still ongoing years later. That high-profile case and a number of others iterated by the member for Bruce brought about the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the effectiveness of the Australian military justice system. The committee did a major inquiry, and that report was tabled in June 2005.
This government made some substantial changes to ensure the independence and effectiveness of our service tribunals. The Defence Force magistrates and the court martial systems were abolished and the Australian Military Courts were introduced. These are outside the chain of command. They have five-year appointments and there has been a real effort to get some independence into the military justice system.
This bill constitutes a second major step in restructuring those service tribunals, and it reflects the government’s commitment to a fair, transparent and accountable disciplinary system. I welcome the member for Bruce’s monitoring of this system because, on my departure from the parliament, I am happy to know that someone is still watching this issue. Rest assured that our very effective minister in this area will be ahead of the Labor Party, on most counts anyway.
It is an interesting piece of legislation for me because a lot of my constituents have said to me over the years: ‘In my day, we used to put all of these vagrants and graffiti artists and all of these young people with criminal records who go in and out of juvenile detention centres into the Army. Put them in the Army. There should be compulsory military service. Sign them up.’ In fact, a lot of the crotchety old warrant officers that I know openly admit that they have saved many a young man from himself and from a criminal career by beating some sense into him in the military. When I was in the Air Force we had 15,000 people. Today we have 11,000 people. The entry requirements to get into our military today, with the equipment that we use, mean that every one of them has to be highly skilled.
This government has finally fitted out this Defence Force with equipment that will sustain them in defending Australia. One of the real motivating factors of my election into parliament was the standing joke in the Air Force in 1996, when I was elected, which was: ‘Don’t let the war be longer than three days because we are fitted with but not for.’ I think today we have probably gone for the reverse—we are fitted for, but not quite with, so we might have to have a look at our Defence personnel numbers. Every single one of those personnel has to be fully trained, fully capable and really highly skilled. The Defence Force is not a reform school. It is not a place into which, as my constituents say, to put our vagrants and knock some sense into them, and give them a good career and the ability to pay a mortgage and raise a family.
Consequently, the ‘behind-the-hangers justice’ that used to happen—that clip over the ear by the warrant officer—is just not on. If you are asking someone with a university degree or a trade or that sort of thing to serve in the Defence Force, military justice has to move on, has to get with the professionalism of a modern defence force. So, too, must its disciplinary system because, at the end of the day, the chain of command must still work. The chain of command is fundamental to the functioning of any military.
So how do you discipline someone for a breach of that chain of command? I think it starts out with major education, right from recruit training, in the following: ‘What is an order?’, ‘What is a lawful order, an order that must be obeyed, and what is an order that does not have to be obeyed?’, and ‘What is an order outside of the rights of your commanding officer?’
We have heard, for instance, the story of young British soldiers patrolling a border to Ireland. On seeing a car on approach to the checkpoint, one of the soldiers fired at the car—and that was perfectly legitimate under the rules of engagement. The minute that car went through the checkpoint, the bullet he fired, which killed a young person in the car, came from the rear—and that was against the rules of engagement. That young soldier was consequently charged and had to defend himself. That is the split-second difference between right and wrong in a military situation.
Our young people need to be aware of their rights and the obligations that go with the awesome power that they wield. We hope that the military justice system is never used. But, if it is used, it may be on the unique ground of ‘disobeying a lawful order’, to which there is no civilian equivalent. I do not think you can ask a civilian court to even understand the culture. When someone in a superior command position says, ‘Jump,’ you say, ‘How high?’ It is not a situation in which one might question; it is not a situation in which one might get legal advice.
We are looking for a tribunal that can deploy. It must be able to respond to the needs of the military, whether they are going to Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq or wherever. Wherever we are putting our people, this court needs to be able to go with them and act effectively.
One of the amendments that we have made is to have a new time limit, of up to three months from the time a member is charged to the date of trial by summary authority; that is to avoid delays. You have a three-month window in which to charge and try people. I think that is a huge improvement on what used to happen in my day. I used to see some matters that would take up to two years to go through the system. At the end of the day the person charged might have been found innocent, but by that time they would have put in their discharge and be separating from the Defence Force and would have been very browned-off with the services.
In this day and age, where we are looking for our recently exited Defence personnel to be part of our reserve forces—they have the training, they have the capability, they ought to be part of our defence of the nation—we do not want people separating from the Defence Force in a state of anything other than good humour and affection towards their old employer, such that they would come and help out should the need arise. As it is, far too many of our defence people, as the member for Bruce pointed out, separate very acrimoniously. That is something that, by working through our grievance and disciplinary procedures, we certainly hope to remedy and thus reduce the angst over time taken, transparency, fairness and the way they see they have been dealt with. It is important that they see that it is accurate and that they feel they have had justice. Then, even if they do subsequently separate from the Defence Force, it should be with good will.
The member for Bruce named a number of cases, but I will take him to task on one—that is, the Voyager versus Melbourne incident. I think the Commonwealth is on very strong ground there. I am appalled at the legal company that induced one of my constituents to run a case. At no time was he told he would be liable for all of the legal fees. This law company convinced this fellow to go all the way to the High Court, where he lost, on a case that is 40 years old. He had to get over the initial problem of the delay of 40 years. That was very unlikely to happen. The legal company has told my constituent in writing: ‘Don’t you worry about it. You’ll die before the Commonwealth chases you for that debt.’ There are some lawyers out there who add to the angst and financial detriment of ex-defence personnel. This person was a self-funded retiree. He had his own home, and he and his wife were managing independent of the government. Since this legal matter they have become quite destitute, and they are beyond the age of ever working again. He is over 65. Some of the examples of the member for Bruce need to be taken with a grain of salt, but others we could have dealt with a lot faster.
One case I mentioned earlier is that of Russell Vance. I just cannot believe that matter is still going on after all this time. If Russell had had the opportunity, under the current AMC system, he would not have separated from the defence forces in such an acrimonious circumstance. Also, you would have seen these procedures enhancing his right to command rather than substantially undermining it. With the vagaries of everything that went on, we had a situation in Butterworth where P3C Orion operational aircraft were unable to function. A functional, operational part of the Defence Force was not able to operate in the chain of command. That can never occur. At all times there must be someone in charge making decisions and making orders, with systems in place, rather than personnel having personal issues and problems and chewing up resources and time. These matters need to be resolved expeditiously, very quickly, transparently, fairly and with everyone’s rights respected.
The member for Bruce made an interesting point about our ability to collect information on the numbers of matters that we have resolved. That is something the Defence Force should possibly look at. It will probably come through in the various progress reports on reforms over time. This is our second instalment. It is something that I have always had an interest in, although contesting three by-elections in my first term and then being a minister in my second I never really had as much time to devote to it as I would have liked. It is great now, in the twilight of my political career, to see that something is being done to remedy a lot of the conflict of loyalties that legal officers feel towards their chain of command, the uniform, the operational imperatives and making sure that their clients get a fair trial. We have gone a substantial way to making sure that this is effective.
I will go to some of the key points. There is the right to appeal to a court martial or Defence Force magistrate following a summary trial. That is one of the amendments we have made. Currently there is only a right to petition a reviewing authority. Again looking at and tightening up a lot of the offences, one of the key offences—most frequent offences—that I dealt with in my time as a legal officer was the unauthorised discharge of a weapon. That is something that has no civilian equivalent. Men are on a firing range. You are legitimately firing at targets but if you do not do so according to an order that is something that is taken incredibly seriously and you will be charged for it. I do not know that on any other firing range anywhere in Australia that is an offence or even comes close to being one. There are a lot of unique situations to our military that justify a separate tribunal, that justify something that is unique for them that also does not impede their operational imperatives or training objectives.
One of the other things that I like about this bill is the automatic disqualification of a summary authority to try offences where that summary authority has been involved in the investigation of a service offence, the issuing of a warrant or the preferring of a charge. I know in my time in the Defence Force I was frequently preparing the charge, appointing the defending officer and the prosecuting officer and probably giving advice to the CEO as well. It probably can be done a lot more transparently than that.
The other thing we have done is strengthen the rights and duties of legal officers in particular to ensure that the exercise of their legal duties is independent of undue command influence. That is another important thing, because often the commanding officer before whom your various prosecuting and defending officers are referring is also writing the officer evaluation report of the legal officer. I think that is a very important change that we have made as well. There are a number of excellent changes in the second tranche of restructuring our service tribunals to give our modern, effective, very skilled and highly effective Defence Force the similar and same military justice system that it deserves for the 21st century. I commend the bill to the House.
181
11:27:00
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence
1
0
Mr BILLSON
—in reply—I thank the members for their contributions today. The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 represents one of the most wide-ranging reforms to the ADF summary discipline system since the introduction of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. I particularly thank the member for Lindsay for her welcome contribution to this debate and the earlier debate on the Australian Military Court legislative framework. Her background as a former serving Air Force legal officer has placed her in an excellent position to add value, practical insight and experience to this process, and I commend her for her remarks and wish her well with her post-parliamentary career. I hope that it is as satisfying and fulfilling as you hope it can be. Good luck with that.
I also thank the member for Bruce for his contribution. There is a welcome air of cooperation and collaboration between the opposition and the government on this measure. His encouragement to maintain an observation about how the system actually operates in practice is well understood. We have a periodic reporting framework for the whole military justice implementation package that the government has introduced, and he can be assured we will be closely observing how it operates.
The bill introduces far-reaching reforms to the ADF summary discipline system flowing from the government’s response to the 2005 Senate report on the effectiveness of Australia’s military justice system. My colleague the member for Lindsay has touched on a few examples where it certainly was suboptimal and there was considerable room for improvement.
This bill enhances the summary procedures by introducing a number of significant safeguards such as the automatic right of appeal for summary trials to a new Australian Military Court, yet still enables commanders to maintain effective discipline while recognising the need for timeliness, which is critical in operational circumstances, and the need for fairness to protect the rights of individuals. Again, the member for Lindsay has accurately characterised those unique demands within the military context and the regimental demands of service—a very helpful insight again.
I also alert members to the fact that I will, at the conclusion of this speech, in the consideration in detail stage, move an amendment to further enhance the compliance with the rules of natural justice and other principles of the rules of evidence in proceedings before the summary authority. That has been alluded to by the member for Bruce, and I welcome his support for that amendment.
As I said when I introduced this important bill, commanders use the summary discipline system on a daily basis. The system is integral to their ability to lead the people for whom they are responsible in order to ensure their welfare and safety. It is fundamental to the Australian Defence Force’s success in operations, success of which every Australian can be rightly proud.
In addition to the right of appeal to the new Australian Military Court on conviction and punishment, the bill also introduces an equally important reform in the right of a defence member to elect a trial by a military judge of the Australian Military Court for all but a limited number of certain disciplinary offences.
If the right of election were completely discretionary on the part of the individual member, it is not too difficult to imagine circumstances in which the exercise of that right could have the potential to affect the operational effectiveness of a unit. It is therefore necessary for some limitation to be placed on those circumstances in which such a right can normally be exercised. This has been done by listing in schedule 1A a number of offences, essentially disciplinary in nature, in relation to which a member has no initial right to elect trial by the AMC and which must be dealt with by a summary authority in the first instance. For example, it would be anomalous if an absence of two hours could not be dealt with by a commanding officer on the spot. That absence has implications, particularly when there is scope to deal with the issue on the spot. This recognises the imperative that discipline must be maintained within Australia and overseas, in peace and in war, and that relatively minor matters of a disciplinary nature ought to be dealt with as speedily as possible. The list of offences to which this provision will apply meets the requirements of the services and recognises that summary discipline, by its nature, has to be quick, fair and as simple as possible, while at the same time providing the safeguard of an unlimited right of appeal should a member convicted under this arrangement wish to exercise it.
Additional safeguards have been included for these offences, such as limited punishments and a requirement for summary authorities to offer a right of election if, prior to making a finding of guilt, they determine that the more severe punishments that are available to them might apply. If there is a very profound impact of the likely action then the process provides further avenues for the accused person. These additional safeguards for the accused will be further supported by the right of a convicted member to appeal a conviction or punishment to the Australian Military Court and the automatic review of all summary trials.
The review of the proceedings of summary authorities not only is a means of ensuring accountability but provides additional safeguards for members of the ADF. Where there has been a technical error, such as the imposition of a punishment which is not authorised, the reviewing authority may refer the matter back to the summary authority for it to be reopened and corrected within the authority. This is an important safeguard and will further protect the rights of defence members who are tried and convicted by a summary authority and who may not exercise their right of appeal to the Australian Military Court. Certain more severe punishments will also not take effect until approved by the reviewing authority, which may quash a punishment or impose a less severe punishment, which will then be subject to an automatic right of appeal.
The bill also introduces a number of other significant enhancements to ensure the right balance is struck between maintaining effective discipline and protecting the rights of individuals. I canvassed all of these enhancements when I introduced the bill, but I would like to quickly touch on and emphasise a number of them, which include: enabling service tribunals to deal with offences in respect of a more contemporary range of illegal narcotics up to the trafficable amount in Australia, to support the enforcement and the application of the ADF’s no drug policy; allowing the suspension in whole or in part of a greater range of punishments under the DFDA, which will enable the part suspension of detention where the circumstances of a case or mitigation establish that this is appropriate; removing the separate and more severe scale of punishments for the Navy, which is no longer relevant and which will provide for consistency with the other two services; providing that the status of a summary conviction is expressed to be for service purposes only so that members of the ADF are not unduly affected by disciplinary infringements long after they have left the services; and having a new time limit, which the member for Lindsay touched on, of ‘as soon as practicable within three months from the time the member is charged to the date of trial by summary authorities’ to ensure the timely handling of summary trials.
Another major reform is the introduction of a simplified evidence framework. The evidence regime currently applicable to summary trials is overly complex and not easy to apply by persons without formal legal training. It includes both Commonwealth and ACT evidence legislation, in addition to extensive policy guidance. The bill will make it clear that a summary authority will not be subject to the same formal rules of evidence that apply to the Australian Military Court but must not depart from the fundamental principles underpinning the rules of evidence.
The new evidentiary framework is based on the successful system which has been in use for many years by the Canadian forces. The requirement in the Commonwealth Criminal Code—as applied by section 10 of the DFDA—dealing with the principles of criminal responsibility, including the burden and onus of proof, will remain applicable in summary trials. The very important protection against self-incrimination is also being enshrined in the DFDA to avoid any doubt about its continued application, notwithstanding the exclusion of the formal rules of evidence.
The summary trial process must be fair and be seen to be fair. Although summary authorities are not courts in the ordinary sense, it is important that the requirements of natural justice and procedural fairness are adhered to. These include the absence of bias and the ability for a person to know and be able to answer a case made against them. To further strengthen the recognition of the rules of evidence, and as I have already stated, I will be introducing an amendment to the bill today, as recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in its recent report on the provisions of the bill. As recommended by the committee, the amendment will strengthen the recognition of the rules of evidence but not mandate their application.
Additionally, the bill provides for the making of the Summary Authority Rules, which will be ‘legislative instruments’ as defined in the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the registration and disallowance provisions in that act. In proceedings before a summary authority the summary authority shall act in accordance with any rules made by the statutorily independent chief military judge. The safeguards provided by the rules may include the compellability of witnesses, the manner of taking evidence and such other matters as considered necessary or appropriate by the chief military judge. The overriding safeguard, however, is that nothing in this proposal will affect a member’s appeal or election rights to the Australian Military Court from a summary trial.
In summary, the bill, together with the proposed amendments, introduces significant enhancements to the ADF summary discipline system that give effect to the agreed recommendations of the 2005 Senate report while allowing it to operate quickly, to be as simple as possible and to be capable of proper, fair and correct application by commanding officers where it is necessary to deal with misconduct that could undermine command authority and impinge on successful military operations. I commend the bill and the proposed amendments to the House. I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
185
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
185
11:38:00
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence
1
0
Mr BILLSON
—by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2):
(1) Schedule 3, item 8, page 32 (after line 17), at the end of subsection 146A(1) (before the note), add:
Note 1: The summary authority must comply with the rules of natural justice and other basic principles of the rules of evidence.
(2) Schedule 3, item 8, page 32 (line 18), omit “Note:”, substitute “Note 2:”.
These amendments strengthen the evidentiary protections available to an accused person in a summary trial, as reflected in the proposed evidence provisions in new section 146A of the bill. Amendment (1) will insert note 1 to section 146A to state that a summary authority must comply with the rules of natural justice and any other basic principles of the rules of evidence in proceedings before a summary authority. This amendment will further reinforce the application of the principles of the rules of evidence in summary proceedings. Amendment (2) changes the existing note to section 146A to note 2 to reflect the proposed amendment. I commend these amendments to the Committee.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House with amendments.
COMMITTEES
185
Committees
Family and Human Services Committee
185
Report
185
Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop:
That the House take note of the report.
185
11:40:00
Elson, Kay, MP
6K6
Forde
LP
1
0
Mrs ELSON
—I am very grateful to be given the opportunity to speak about The winnable war on drugs and the impact of illicit drug use on our families. Firstly, I would like to sincerely thank the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, Bronwyn Bishop, for her valuable time and expertise in taking a down-to-earth and honest approach towards a genuine attempt at winning this growing and serious war, which involves our vulnerable Australian drug addicts. All members of the committee were committed right from the beginning to having a workable position and making recommendations that could make a real difference in winning this enormous battle. We are all very grateful to the hardworking, efficient secretariat, who were so dedicated to reaching such a positive outcome. A big thankyou to each and every one of you.
We received 188 submissions, and I personally want to thank all the people who made those submissions for their contribution to the positive outcomes of this report. It was a very humbling experience to listen to the witnesses who gave evidence at our hearings. I have great admiration for the many family members and reformed and current drug addicts who bared their grief and real-life experiences so we could see firsthand the enormous struggle they have each and every day. We owe it to them to ensure that this report makes a real difference in helping them to win this battle. I will do all I can to see the government of the day adopt all 31 recommendations.
In taking evidence, we found there was clearly an issue that has to be addressed very urgently, and that is the need to have a nationally based helpline so that family members, when they know they need help urgently, can ring a given number and be given a list of help groups within their own area. As it stands now, when you want to make that first phone call, there is not too much positive information about where you should go next and who can help you. Having a national helpline would help those families who need to access urgent support straightaway. People who want to get off drugs may only have a window of opportunity that lasts 24 hours. If they do not get help within the first 24 hours, they may go back to their drug taking because there was no-one there to give them instant help and say, ‘Go here and get this done straightaway,’ or, ‘Here are the numbers that you should access to get that important assistance immediately.’
An important recommendation of the report is the call for medical studies of babies of drug-using mothers. We have never had any extensive studies that show the ongoing health and mental effects of drug taking on our next generation—innocent young babies who are brought into this world by mums heavily on drugs. Another important recommendation is random breath testing to check for people driving under the influence of drugs. We have had an enormous increase in accidents on our roads, and evidence has proven that we need to take this issue of drug use and driving very seriously, so I highly commend that recommendation to the House.
An important aspect of this inquiry was that there were a lot of submissions and a lot of words spoken on harm prevention. I am 100 per cent certain that all across Australia we have to send a very clear message from our governments to our children about the importance of harm prevention. We do not want to send the mixed message of harm minimisation, because a lot of young kids think that means that you can take drugs on weekends but not through the week. They think that, if you try drugs, especially party drugs and recreational drugs—those awful terms we hear—you can actually leave them alone through the week. But we all know that that is the start of being a full-blown drug addict. So I highly recommend that we look at that.
Some rehabilitation centres have a policy that you cannot rehabilitate an addict and you cannot let one come into your facilities unless they want to be rehabilitated. Anyone who has had drug problems within their family knows—and we heard this evidence before our committee—that those poor addicts do not have a mind of their own. They are being controlled by a drug, so they do not really know whether they want to be rehabilitated or not. We should be giving them the opportunity of being drug free for a couple of weeks while they regain some of their thinking, not denying them access to drug rehabilitation centres. We owe it to our young Australians not to fund a drug industry which promotes harm minimisation. We should be sending a very clear message that harm prevention and treatment are the ultimate aim for making a person drug free.
The most potent messages from this report are the personal stories submitted to the inquiry, and they reflect the struggle, the hurt, the damage and the hope. Today I want to reflect on some of those personal messages because I think they tell the real story. It hits home that it is not politicians giving a message but people actually crying out for help. This one young drug addict mum, when talking about her six-year-old daughter, said:
She must have witnessed me using, she made gestures of putting a pen into her arm, like a syringe. She was found to have an old break in her right leg, broken elbow in three places, depressed skull fracture and a broken wrist before starting school.
There are the grandmothers who are left looking after their grandchildren at a time when they should be retiring and enjoying their life after raising a family. One grandmother said:
Imagine you are three years old.
You wake in the morning and your mother is in bed asleep. You cannot wake her. You are very hungry. There is no food in the cupboard or the fridge. Your brother and sister have gone to school. You eat dry dog food from the bowl on the floor. You get out all your toy cars. These are the only toys you have so you sit in your room for the next 4 - 5 hours playing obsessively with the cars.
… Your mother and her boyfriend are in the kitchen. You are not allowed in there. They are smoking dope. You do not like the smell. You play in your room with the cars. Your mother brings you some burnt food for dinner. It tastes awful but you are very hungry so you eat it. Later you will get some more dog food when your mother is asleep again. The dog food tastes good.
A teenager said:
Imagine ...
You have grown up and lived with violence since you were born. Your mother delivers drugs to people in the neighbourhood and to schools transporting them in your stroller … You watch your mother through three drug addict, abusive and violent partners. You see her bashed and abused time and again. You watch pornographic videos and see pictures of your mother and her partner naked on the walls of the house. You are forced to live in a caravan in the backyard with drug addict men, friends of your mother and her partner. They abuse you but you can’t tell anyone.
… By the time you are 18yrs you will have been expelled from three schools and have been in and out of a Juvenile Detention Centre several times. You will be addicted to drugs, petrol sniffing and alcohol. You will have a criminal record. At 18yrs old you will be treated in the Courts as an adult. No one has ever taught you how to be one.
This is from a drug addict—and this is a very clear message on harm minimisation—who said:
I survived harm minimisation, because it literally threatened to destroy my life and my family’s life through the messages that it can implant into that structure and the way it threatened to tear us apart, literally. It was almost like that was its objective; it did not want me to escape my addiction, it wanted me to stay stuck there.
I think the final quote hit home. This is from a parent—and a lot of parents go through this silently—who said:
Through conflict about the drugs and the subsequent lifestyle including some criminal activity my son chose to live away from the family home. At the time we were relieved and grateful for the peace until eventually he was brought home by friends who could see his downward spiral and knew he needed to be cared for. He weighed 45 kgs, by now the father of a one year old son who I was helping to raise. The heart break of watching his toddler son try to rouse his dad as he lay drug riddled on the couch was too much to bear. My son would slowly raise his arm and tousle his son’s hair, the deep love fighting against the grain of the addiction.
I learnt to live with my fear. I was fearful he would die; he would be bashed, hurt in an accident, attacked by other drug users, jailed, bashed by police or just disappear. My body jarred with the sound of a siren, a newsflash, a sudden thud ...
My grieving began. I grieved for his lost potential, his lost personality, his own peace, and my wants for him as a person. Constantly I have had to re-evaluate my own values, I have let go of my need to have a house with walls intact, furniture that matches, and my own career and I have peeled back the layers to value the person, to value keeping him alive at all costs.
I would like to close on that particular remark because this is what this report is all about: winning the war on drugs. I hope that all governments around Australia take the time to read this. It is a most positive report and one that could make a big difference to all families and drug addicts in Australia.
188
11:49:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
0
Mr FAWCETT
—I thank members opposite for their consideration in changing the order of speakers today. I would like to speak to this report because it is such an important issue in the community of Wakefield and in fact across Australia. I would like to make a few opening remarks dealing with the sentiments that have been raised by various witnesses throughout the progress of the inquiry but also the responses from some people looking at the recommendations from the inquiry.
First and foremost, I would like to say that the tone that came through consistently, from most witnesses and certainly the people that we talked to who have been affected by drugs, is that this is about being tough on drugs and not tough on users. It is about being tough on the dealers, the people who are pushing drugs, tough on the smugglers and tough on the people who, for whatever reason, would actually promote the use of drugs in some manner. But it is about dealing with great compassion for the people who are trapped in drug use and for those who are affected by drug use and all of the associated issues in our society.
This inquiry very clearly highlighted the fact that the effects of drug use touch so many people—first and foremost the users themselves. There was ample evidence about the destruction to their lives—not only their lifestyle but the quality of their lives, their potential for the future, their health, their mental health and their relationships, most importantly. Secondly, there are their families. This is not just their immediate family members, such as a spouse; particularly we heard from parents who are bearing the brunt of still loving their child, trapped in the addiction of drugs, and trying to balance providing support and love for their child whilst managing the, in some cases, almost unmanageable violence. There is the use and abuse of families that so often seems to accompany people who are trapped in an addiction that they cannot control. There is the effect on siblings where one child is using drugs—the effect on the remainder of the family as they seek to live a somewhat normal life while the parents are trying to fight that battle and hold that balance. Very disturbingly, as my colleague has just mentioned, there is the effect on children of drug users and the debilitating start they have to life when all of those factors start coming to bear in an environment that, while it should be supportive, nurturing and setting them up for the rest of their lives, is actually destroying the very foundation that normal, balanced children should have at the start of their lives.
At a broader level, there are many victims of crime. There is much crime that is associated with drugs, and the Australian Institute of Criminology just this year has shed some further light on that. It has highlighted that people in police detention for various offences are four times more likely to be illicit drug users than the general population. That is a huge number of people, and includes users of drugs such as cannabis. Well over half of the adults in custody have tested positive to cannabis, whereas a quarter have tested positive to methamphetamines and about 10 per cent, or just under, to heroin. There is a high degree of connection between people who are using drugs and the crimes that they commit. If you look through the range of crimes, you can see that there are crimes of violence and property theft which come from the addiction and the desire to obtain more. In some cases, particularly with ice, there is the violence that comes purely as a result of the drug. So there is a large effect on society which is directly impacted by drugs.
Lastly, there is the impact on the taxpayer, who is increasingly footing the bill that is coming from the mental health impacts on those who have been using drugs. This is even for drugs that, going back a couple of decades, many in our community were pushing and advocating as quite safe. There are even some today who are still saying that those drugs are safe, yet the evidence is clearly against that. The high proportion of people in our jails who have that link to drugs means there is an additional drain on the taxpayer for supporting the policing, the justice and the jail system. Lastly the need for rehabilitation and work on the health of these addicts means that there is a large amount of funding and resources required just to treat the results of drug use.
Before I get on to the recommendations of the report, I would like to thank the witnesses who were prepared to come forward, particularly those who were drug users themselves and families who have been affected by drug use. It is no easy thing to come before a formal committee, people who are strangers to you, and to bear your soul about the things that have affected you and your family. I commend them and thank them for being prepared to do that.
I would like to turn briefly to some of the recommendations from the report. Recommendation 1 states:
The Commonwealth Government continue its allocation of significant resources to policing activity as a highly effective prevention method.
I strongly support this recommendation. I particularly support the fact that we have increasingly seen high levels of cooperation between the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Federal Police, state police, state crime commissions, the Taxation Office, Australian Customs and AUSTRAC. I think it is important that we continue to see this high degree of combined activity across levels of government so that we can tackle the scourge which is the illicit drug trade in Australia.
It is important to see that out of that come the initiatives like the proceeds of crime funds which go back into the community to try and help overcome some of the problems. I welcome some of the money that has come back into South Australia, for example, into the Baptist Community Services, where the Westcare Drug Intervention Program has been able to train Indigenous workers to help them target people with a history of abuse and the effects that flow from that—the family breakdown, the homelessness and the mental health issues.
Recommendation 4 talks about funding going to organisations which support a drug-fee outcome versus a drug use or management outcome. There has been a fair bit of controversy around this and I think sometimes people have been in vehement agreement but have been working with different definitions of terms. The one comment I would like to make is that this recommendation is identifying in clear terms that there are some individuals and some organisations who genuinely believe that drug use can be managed. They see that management as being a long-term outcome. Some of the recommendations and some of the evidence that came through from witnesses highlighted the incredibly damaging effect on their preparedness to say no to drugs when they had a body, purportedly a professional body there to help them, telling them that they could make the choice if they wanted to use drugs occasionally or on a regular basis and that it could be managed. They provided that message and that message took away and undermined many of the other messages which are being sent out to people in our community, particularly our young people, that say drugs are damaging and they are addictive.
I think it is important that we do work with organisations that are prepared to use a range of methods. They may include some methods that provide substitutes or support for people to keep them healthy and alive, but the end aim of those organisations must be to see people come off the drugs and be drug free. I think that is the important message to come out of that.
Recommendation 5 deals with the difficult issue of care for children and the balance that has to be achieved between what is in the best interests of the children and, where possible, maintaining the connection between the biological parent and the child. There is a huge network of people in our community who selflessly give of their time to provide foster care for children. I would like to take this occasion to bring to the attention of the House Susan Buckskin and William Sansbury, people in Wakefield who have been fostering for over 21 years and have just recently been given a Foster Carer National Recognition Award.
The feedback I get from people in Wakefield and from broader South Australia, where I have been working with foster carers for a while, is that the long-term impacts of frequent moves and relocations—going back to the parents, then back to foster care and then back to the parents—is damaging for children. I have spoken to a number of foster carers who are strong advocates of reconnecting children with parents wherever possible, where it is safe and in the child’s best interests to do so. But they also tell me about the need for an acceptance of the fact that longer term foster care arrangements or indeed adoption must be considered in the mix. We must not exclude longer term care for these children, because for some of them that will be the only option that gives them a start in life that is fair and reasonable.
Recommendation 16 deals with education. I think it is disturbing when we look at reports such as the United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime report, which looks at some overseas evidence, and the Drug Advisory Council of Australia report, which looks at the fact that the use of drugs by teenagers in Australia is some four times higher than in countries like Sweden and that some 29 per cent of Australian teenagers between 14 and 19 in 2004 had tried drugs. We got evidence from young people who were witnesses saying that they experimented. There is that natural teen desire to go outside the bounds and do something that is perhaps frowned upon, and part of it is because they do not have compelling evidence that says: ‘This will damage you.’
As we look at some of the campaigns which have been run overseas that highlight issues that are important to young people—things like their appearance, their health and their ability to participate in activities that they want to participate in—that kind of very hard-hitting education campaign is something that we, as a matter of priority, need to invest in so that our young people are equipped with the knowledge that they need to make choices about their own health and their own future.
Recommendation 17 talks about a consistent message. This just builds on recommendations that came out of the ministerial council on drugs back in December 2006, where one of the resolutions adopted was to discourage the use of terms such as ‘recreational’ and ‘party drugs’. Yet I notice that as recently as last week the media in particular were still referring to people taking recreational and party drugs. I believe that this recommendation and the one following it are sound in that where we can exercise authority we should do, to constrain government funded bodies from using those terms and to seek earnestly the support of the broader media organisations to refrain from those uses because it sends a mixed message to our young people.
If we are serious about telling young people that, based on the evidence, based on the life experience of so many people here in Australia, drugs damage them then why do we accept that people in our community, particularly in the media, are sending messages that these are party drugs or recreational drugs? They are messages that say: ‘These things are okay to use because we say recreation is good for you. We say that it’s okay to let your hair down occasionally, have a party.’ Those terms are completely at odds with the facts and the outcomes that these young people will experience. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the need for the media to come on board in the interests of our young people and our community and in the interests of the children to come who will be affected by young adults who become drug addicts and then become parents—they have a role to play in this and they cannot just step back and continue in their current practice when the results of that are so clear.
I commend this report to the House. I commend it to the government and to the broader Australian community. I ask them to look at the fact that this is about being tough on drugs but it is also about having compassion—real compassion—that says we are prepared to take some action and put some resources individually, as a government and as corporations, including the media in Australia, to get a better future for young people and those who have been affected by drugs in Australia.
191
12:04:00
Quick, Harry, MP
AV5
Franklin
IND
0
0
Mr QUICK
—I, like other members of this committee, welcome the opportunity to say a few words about what has been a somewhat controversial report. At the outset, I acknowledge in the background four members of the secretariat—I should put my glasses on—who have travelled along the road with us, have been there, have heard our discussions, our concerns and our internal debates about whether this recommendation or that recommendation should be unanimous and have seen three members of the Labor Party put forward a dissenting report on six of the recommendations.
I would also like to acknowledge the chairmanship of this committee: the honourable member for Mackellar has done a wonderful job in bringing all this together. The winnable war on drugs: the impact of illicit drug use on families report has an illustration of six faces before and after. It is a bit like those cigarette packets where you have this big warning, ‘Don’t participate.’ Just looking at this and some of the other photos of people who sadly have fallen victim to substance abuse is horrific.
As the longest serving member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, having been a member since 1993 when I first entered the parliament, I have seen many excellent reports. This is another one of those. This committee has a wonderful reputation for dealing with issues that are important for and to Australian families. Despite our different experiences and backgrounds, the 10 members of the committee have worked cooperatively to produce this fine but somewhat controversial report.
We heard extensively from witnesses, received I think 188 submissions and travelled not quite the length and breadth of Australia. As I said, I have been on this committee longer than anybody and I was there when it produced the Road to recovery: report on the inquiry into substance abuse in Australian communities, an inquiry which went across two parliaments. To her credit, the chairperson said: ‘That report was about drugs, licit and illicit, and the impact on Australian society. Why don’t we look at the impact of illicit drug use on families?’ We saw it, warts and all.
Sadly, I think people on both sides of politics have recognised that the government’s response to the Road to recovery report was a pretty pathetic response to an issue that governments of all persuasions, both state and federal, are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on. It is not an easy issue to resolve, because, once you are addicted, quite often you do not succeed in getting off the drug the first time. You are a repeat offender in the nicest way. As someone who has dealt firsthand with many families of drug addicted young people and, in some cases, drug addicted parents, I have seen them wanting to get off, trying and failing. Sadly, in my state we have the great number of six detox beds for the whole state. If you do want to get off drugs, you cannot get into a detox bed, let alone get into rehab.
In the 31 recommendations, we are urging all the participants, both state and federal, the agencies and the NGOs that are involved in picking up the pieces of these people—there were some wonderful ones that we received evidence from—to work collectively and collaboratively to ensure that those who do want to get off drugs can enter a service as soon as they want to try, rather than be told, ‘Come back in three months and perhaps there will be a detox bed for you,’ or where you may have done your detox, but you cannot get into rehab for another couple of months and you re-offend. I think it was in Darwin that we had someone come in off the street—a young chap if I remember rightly—explaining just how hard it is to succeed.
I guess there are two sides to every story, and we have heard evidence about the arguments between the zero tolerance and the harm minimisation advocates. As the chairperson has said, there is a bit of an industry out there, and it is interesting to see both sides of the spectrum. One of the things I have tried to do in my almost 15 years here is to listen to both sides of the argument, because we are arguing about people’s lives. If we are going to expend a huge amount of money, we need to ensure that that money is spent wisely. I would like to think that none of us have all the answers. We need to work to ensure that not one child in the future decides to pop that pill or to stick that needle in their arm. We need to provide the resources to ensure that those young people—in many cases, young adults and mothers and fathers—do not try those things, because, once you are addicted, it is a huge battle for you to get off drugs.
We heard some horrific evidence in Western Australia—from people who work in the King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women in Perth—about young drug addicted babies. The chairperson and I were the only two members of the committee to go over and hear that evidence, of hundreds of babies born to drug-addicted mothers. I could never imagine anything worse than a helpless child being brought into this world drug-addicted because of drug abuse by the mother. I think that is about the worst case of child abuse you could ever have—a child being drug-addicted from its first breath in this world.
One of the good things about being on this committee is that you hear things firsthand. I would like this report to be in most people’s bookshelves so that, when they think the whole world is going along swimmingly, they can just pick it up and have a read of some of the evidence.
One of the contentious issues is the default option for adoption of children of drug addicts. We heard some wonderful evidence. If people read nothing else in this report, they should read the last 23 pages of the report, and the evidence from Mrs Rowe, one of those people who pick up the pieces and try and give these young children a start in life. All credit to her—someone who has not just done it once or twice but has fostered in three states as she and her husband have moved around.
I would like to read a couple of quotes from our report. The first is from page 79, where a grandparent—another group of people who pick up the pieces—says:
Our daughter fell pregnant and gave birth to a still born child 16 months ago at 20 weeks gestation… During this pregnancy I tried to alert welfare officers at [a medical centre] of my concerns as to the suitability of the couple as parents given their lifestyle however I was reminded of the privacy act and the fact that it was none of my business… My daughter once again was pregnant and gave birth to a premature baby three weeks ago. This child is still in intensive care and all medical expenses are being covered by the public health system. Once again an attempt was made to make welfare aware of the situation and concern as to suitability as parents. This time they did give us a hearing as they too had been building up their own picture at regular check ups and were also concerned. However, the matter was reported by the hospital welfare officer who was told that not enough evidence was available to raise concerns at this stage. I am assuming therefore that until some physical evidence of abuse is available nothing will be done. This child is extremely small and our concern is that a death may occur.
On page 81 there is evidence from Dr Judith Cashmore of the University of Sydney Law School, who states:
Unfortunately, what tends to happen is a lot of children get lost in the foster system. Unless the birth parents relinquish their rights to the child, many children end up in foster care, going from one foster home to another, because the parents do not want to sign on the dotted line to give up their rights but do not want the kid, either. These children would do amazingly in a permanent family but there is such a ‘blood is thicker than water’ mentality out there…. I do not know if it is blatantly anti adoption or just pro blood relation. I personally feel that some of this may be a swing back from the stolen generation pendulum. It was so extreme 40 or 50 years ago—I have a close friend who was one of the stolen generation—and, to me, it is like it has swung so far the other way. Now you put the kids back with their biological parents regardless of the child’s safety.
Mrs Rowe, also on page 81, states:
They just think blood is thicker than water, that the kids should be with their parents. I think they need to know their history. It is not necessarily good for them to be there; in most cases it is not. I cannot see that it is good for children to be with parents in a situation that means you do not know when you come home from school if you are going to be fed or not.
This default option is a contentious issue but I—unlike the other three Labor Party members—agree: I think the child’s interests are paramount. I have seen it firsthand, in my former life as a teacher and now, as a federal member who has an electorate office in what I lovingly call the ‘ghetto’ in Bridgewater, a pretty low socioeconomic area. I have seen firsthand the intergenerational impact of neglect and abuse of children, especially in this area, and I think it is incumbent upon us as members—national legislators—to get it right.
Sadly, in a way, this report is being tabled at the end of a three-year term when we are about to have an election. This probably will not be one of the key issues on the front pages of the papers or on television or radio, but I would like to think that whoever comes back as a government after this election will look seriously at this. I know the honourable member for Mackellar and other members of the committee who will return—I know they will—will ensure that, whoever the minister is, either Labor or Liberal, this report will be addressed, its 31 wonderful recommendations will be taken on board seriously, and discussions with the state governments and the agencies will see that fewer and fewer of our young people and our families are impacted on by the scourge of illicit drugs.
This will probably be my last speech in this place. I would like to thank, once again, the wonderful members of the secretariat, who have been there a long time; they are the unsung heroes. To the other members of the committee: I thank you for your generosity and your support. As I say, I look forward with interest to seeing that lots of these 31 recommendations are implemented. Thank you.
194
12:17:00
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
SE4
Mackellar
LP
1
0
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—I seek leave to speak again without closing the debate.
Leave granted.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—I would like to begin by thanking the members of the committee, including Mr Quick, who has just spoken so passionately, and by acknowledging that the majority of the committee who worked on this report are speaking to it. It is a report that is full of some of the saddest stories I have ever heard.
The secretariat have worked very hard on this. I think the report we have produced is one that is going to have a long life, because it has truly exposed issues that I think governments themselves would not necessarily raise. During a committee meeting this morning, we heard Mr Quick’s words, but also those of Mr Cadman, the member for Mitchell, who said that perhaps part of the value of the work of these committees is that we tackle issues which governments and oppositions might like to leave behind, and we put the spotlight on areas which are, indeed, very upsetting to individuals but which, nonetheless, must be addressed.
I would like to begin by reading an extract from one piece of evidence given to us. Many of the other members who have spoken have quoted what witnesses have told us, because no-one can tell their story better than they can. This one begins:
She started doing ice and the effect of the psychotic drugs over the past three years has been devastating. Paranoia, delusions, madness. I wasn’t living too far from the Cross then and I’d be [walking] in the street and there would be my daughter, my daughter in this crazy out of her head state digging in a park. With a shovel digging for buried treasure …
That is a daughter who has been lost to a mother. In the evidence to the committee, the strains put on the families of drug users came up again and again. What we found is that much of the drug debate up to this point has put the accent on the drug user, the drug addict, without properly assessing the impact and the collateral damage to families and, particularly, to small children.
We heard evidence in Western Australia which Mr Quick mentioned. We heard that out of 5,000 births in that particular hospital 350 children were born to drug addicted parents. We heard that something like 120 of them were heroin addicts and were fed methadone through the course of the pregnancy. So when the children were born they were addicted to methadone—25 of those children did not go home with their parents and another 30 of them were taken back three months later. But there is no longitudinal study to see what the impact on those children is. Nobody knows what has happened to them. I will quote again from Anne Bressington, who gave evidence to us. She said:
... five years ago I took over the care of a little boy who was born addicted to drugs. His mother was a chronic drug addict and prostitute ... She came to me knowing she was unable to care for this child. ... He is now five years old and the first nine months of his life were absolute hell, absolute hell. We do not hear about how many babies are born addicted in this country. Now he was not just a heroin baby; he was a methamphetamine baby, a methadone baby, a dope baby, a pill baby. God knows how he turned out normal. ... He is five now and twice a year now he still wakes up with his sweaty little hands and feet and he does not feel well: his appetite changes, his behaviour changes and do you know what? He has learned to manage that. He says to me, ‘This is not one of my good days.’ At five!
There is evidence from the United States that we really need to get access and circulate here that these children are genetically changed, that their DNA now is different. They will not have the opportunity of their parents to muck around with these drugs for a little while before they become addicted; they are born addicted. They live with that central nervous system disorder. If he has one cone when he is 12, 13 or 14, he is gone. If he has one drink, he is gone. If he has one shot of heroin, he is gone. What are we creating?
We heard stories of children who come home not knowing whether they are going to eat, whether they are going to be fed—stories of children who go to foster parents and the foster parents have to teach those children that it is normal to have three meals a day, to eat at a table and to have a shower once a day. There are children who knew none of this. We heard of the child who would come home and look after its parent who was a drug addict and of children who are forced back to those drug addict parents because within the bureaucracy there is an aversion to adoption and there is this ‘biology first’ principle that somehow children must be forced back into these circumstances.
We took evidence from one foster carer of some 24 years experience who is foster caring for two little children who have disabilities. These are two of six children born to a drug addicted mother, with five fathers. The eldest child is 15; the youngest is one. They are cousins because two of the fathers were brothers. One of the children is dead—the mother fed it methadone. The court said there was sufficient evidence to prosecute but no prosecution came. In November that mother will reapply to get those two children back because the magistrate has the power to grant it. The fact of the matter is that these two children have been in and out of care—to and from the mother—any number of times. It is always the children who suffer.
When those children were last put into care, through the network of foster carers the foster carers who have them now sought to find them because they wanted continuity in the children’s lives, and they managed to get those two children, to foster them again. She told of seven children who are in foster care where the foster care parents want to adopt them. There is a caseworker in the department who is very sympathetic and who is going to try and let that happen, but she knows she will come up against this bureaucratic attitude that adoption is bad, that biological parenting is the best. It is not.
When we were doing our inquiry into overseas adoptions, we took evidence about what was the case in the United States in some states, where, if it was shown on the best evidence available that the parent was never going to be able to parent their child properly, the child was surrendered for adoption. So we have recommended that, where a child is so identified by child protection agencies, there should be a default position, which is that the child should be surrendered for adoption—unless the protection agencies can come up with a plan which can be shown to give a better outcome for the child. In other words, we really need a policy which is in the best interests of the child.
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr Danby
—Children first.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—Children first. But every individual child has to be thought of not as a prop to help the addicted parent get over the addiction or have a better life but as deserving to have some hope of having a good life and not becoming part of the future generation of addicts.
We found that there is out there what we have called the drug industry elites, who have captured those terms ‘harm minimisation’ and ‘harm reduction’ and think it is okay: ‘Drugs are here. Get used to it—and if we reduce drug usage that is an end in itself.’ They say that by doing this you remove the moral judgement about whether drugs are good or bad. They promote an amoral system where they can have counsellors or other folk who advise people that they can have drugs; just manage them better. It is in their evidence to the committee. It is in the Hansard. What we are saying is no; there needs to be a harm prevention policy, and the prevention policy needs to prevent young people becoming addicted in the first place. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has shown that 77 per cent of people who first start on drugs do so out of curiosity. But, up until the recent spate of commercials that the government has put to air, where has been the counteradvice to kids to say it is not okay?
One person who is part of the drug industry, Mr Dillon, is an advocate who goes around talking to schools, even in my electorate, giving the soft option message. It has got to stop. Kids have to be informed that what they are risking is their mental health, their appearance, their teeth, their skin, their very fibre and indeed their DNA. They have to know the truth of it.
The Lancet, which wrote in 1995 that cannabis, no matter how much you smoked, would not affect you, have now finally said that they were wrong. On 28 July this year they wrote:
In 1995, we began a Lancet editorial with the since much-quoted words, ‘The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health.’
They say:
Research published since 1995 … leads us now to conclude that cannabis use could increase the risk of psychotic illness.
They say now:
… governments would do well to invest in sustained and effective education campaigns on the risks to health of taking cannabis.
People who advocate the legalisation, taxation and regulation of cannabis are stuck, like Dr Wodak, back in 1991, when he wrote an essay talking about available heroin and that you can best deal with things by regulation and taxation. Stuck in that old thinking, he was still giving it to us in his testimony before the committee. It is wrong. It is the people who are prepared to admit they were wrong in the Lancet who are the people who are prepared to give kids a break.
We know that kids who are lost from overdose, kids who are lost because of drug use, are loved by their parents. On Friday, when I went back to the office, I did not leave until quarter to seven in the evening because I was returning calls to heartbroken parents who were saying, ‘Thank God the message will go out.’ We have a moral obligation. These policies that we have put forward are based on higher principles. They are morally based. We have a moral obligation to let people know what will happen to them. For those who do slip, we need to have access to detox and to rehabilitation in a timely manner. So often, they will ring up and be told, ‘Ring us back in a fortnight or three months,’ and it is too late. So we have advocated that we set up a one-stop number, an 1800 number. It is modelled shamelessly on the system I put in place in aged care called Carelink, where you break the country into regions and task an NGO with keeping alive all the services that are available in that region. When you ring up, you say where you live and you will be transferred to the person who is responsible for that information, and you get immediate contact.
We have recommended that naltrexone go on the PBS. We visited Dr George O’Neil’s clinic. It is a way of detoxing quickly with an implant, not tablets, which allows people to then go into rehabilitation, because you cannot have rehabilitation unless you are detoxed, and the two have to be put together simultaneously. We know that parents continue to love their children but we know what impact a child who is a drug addict has, not only on the parents but on their siblings, and the appalling effect on babies just has to stop.
This report is a plea from the heart. This report is very specific about what needs to be done to prevent harm—not just to reduce it or minimise it but to prevent it, with the ultimate aim of always making the individual drug free and not sentenced to a lifetime of methadone, which will probably take 46 years off your life expectancy, and not turned into a hag with their teeth falling out. If you think the mouth of a tobacco-smoking person is hideous, look at the mouth of a methadone user. We need an anti-drug campaign—which we recommend—which is of the same reach, intensity and spend as the anti-tobacco campaign. We must get that message across. This is a report which has a life and must live, whoever wins this election.
197
12:32:00
Markus, Louise, MP
E07
Greenway
LP
1
0
Mrs MARKUS
—The title of this report The winnable war on drugs: the impact of illicit drug use on families by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services is apt, because I believe that the war on drugs is winnable. The recommendations from this report provide a frame of reference for changing the future direction of how we tackle the challenges of individuals and families as a result of addiction to illicit drugs.
I stand today with a degree of credibility, having worked as a social worker for 25 years in Western Sydney. For 10 of those years, I spent a considerable amount of time visiting prisoners on a voluntary basis. I worked face to face with families and individuals who had this challenge. Over the course of the inquiry, what became evident was that the rhetoric, the language, the communication of many people who are trying to help people get off drugs—‘harm minimisation’ and so on—is setting a bar that does not place value on individuals and families across this nation.
We had a young man by the name of Ryan present to us his story. After a 12-month rehab program and long support by his family—and the broader family of his church—he is now living a healthy lifestyle. He is married, he is working and he has a great future ahead of him. But he told us about the number of times that he had tried to access services—hospital, detox or rehab—and time and time again he was told: ‘Methadone is an option. This is an option. Try this.’ He was basically told, ‘This is not something that you’re going to break.’ We need to recognise that people actually have a future and there is hope for every individual and family. No-one ought to be put on the scrap heap. No-one ought to be told that there is no way for you to become free of your addiction and develop a healthy lifestyle and a healthy future, where you can work, have a family and enjoy all the benefits that most of us take for granted.
I want to focus on a couple of the recommendations, starting with recommendation 2. I think a longitudinal study is definitely overdue, particularly focusing on the comparisons of outcomes for alternatives to methadone, including buprenorphine, naltrexone and supervised detoxification and withdrawal, with regard to which options are in the best interests of the child.
When this inquiry was beginning, I had the opportunity to speak to some policemen who work in my local community. One of them, a homicide detective, brought to me a story of a baby that had died as a result of drugs—and it was not the first incident that I had had related to me. That four-month-old baby did not make the choice to ingest those drugs itself. A four-month-old baby cannot do that. An adult, a parent, gave that child the drugs. That baby is dead. Its future, its potential, is completely removed off this planet. That is the most important thing: our children. What are we going to do? Are we going to continue to relegate our children to this lack of future?
Recommendation 3 focuses on the need for the Minister for Health and Ageing to disallow the provision of takeaway methadone through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for drug users who are parents and have children living in their household. I heartily agree with that. It needs to happen as soon as possible. We need to save our children. We need to give them an opportunity for a future.
Recommendation 4 focuses on the Department of Health and Ageing, as part of the next funding round for the Non-Government Organisation Treatment Grants Program, giving urgent priority funding for residential treatment services to provide for children to live with their mothers. I hear from so many single mothers that have challenges fighting addiction to drugs. They desire to come off drugs and there are very few places available. In fact, in Sydney there is only one place, Jarrah House, and the waiting list is very long. I may have a single mum in my office or be visiting them, and I ring Jarrah House and it takes months to get them in. In many cases when that person has come in, they want help, they are ready to do something there and then, and that is when they need the help. The help needs to be available at that point in time.
Many of the recommendations here focus on the importance of a one-stop shop. I think there should be an integrated service, where people not only come and ask for help but then get the detox. There are not enough detox places. We need to have sufficient places. From the detox, people need to be linked directly into rehab. Right now it is just a battle for people to get any kind of help when they want help. It is just not good enough.
Recommendation 6 says that the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs should include in the legislative instrument covering the implementations of the income management provisions of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Act requirements that the child protection authorities must notify Centrelink when a child protection substantiation detects any illicit drug use by a parent and that this notification shall activate the income management regime provisions.
I think this is critical. While I have a great deal of compassion for many parents who are struggling to get off drugs, I think it is not good that their income support is used to supply their habit and the child is left without food or a roof over their head. I think it is important that we make sure that the child and their needs are a No. 1 priority.
Recommendation 8 includes the following:
The Commonwealth Government develop and bring to the Council of Australian Governments a national illicit drug policy that:
-
replaces the current focus of the National Drug Strategy on harm minimisation with a focus on harm prevention and treatment that has the aim of achieving permanent drug-free status for individuals with the goal of enabling drug users to be drug free;
It is about setting goals for the best possible future. That has to be the goal of every funding contribution we make. The goal has to be for them to be drug free, not drug dependent for years. Recommendation 10 is to:
-
amend the National Pharmacotherapy Policy for People Dependent on Opioids to specify that the primary objective of pharmacotherapy treatment is to end an individual’s opioid use; and
-
renegotiate funding arrangements for methadone maintenance programs to require the states and territories to commit sufficient funding to provide comprehensive support services to meet the revised National Pharmacotherapy Policy for People Dependent on Opioids objective.
While for some methadone is a form of treatment that helps them to maintain their lifestyle and then be able to step off drugs, for many that is not the case: after a decade or, in some instances, two decades or longer, they are still taking the same high dose of methadone: 110 millilitres. I have had so many people like that in my office over the years and there has been no sign of reduction. Having talked to their treatment supervisor or to the clinic, I have noted there is no plan in place for that individual to actually reduce their dose. While they are on methadone, often they engage in use of other illicit drugs and this further erodes not just their health but the health and lifestyle of their family and the safety of their children in many instances. So I think it is absolutely critical that we focus on encouraging, where there are methadone programs, those programs that actually focus on reducing a person’s dependence on the drug and providing them with those additional services and support, including those from their family, so that they can reach the goal of a drug-free lifestyle.
Looking at further recommendations, recommendation 22 focuses again on strengthening families through treatment:
The Department of Health and Ageing include, as part of the next round of illicit drug treatment funding agreements, requirements that:
-
treatment organisations collect and report data on their success rate in making individuals drug free after they have completed their initial treatment; and
-
give priority to funding those treatment approaches that demonstrate their success in making individuals drug free.
I acknowledge here that, for many people who have managed to secure that drug-free lifestyle and have to fight and work for it, it takes great determination and an incredible amount of support and resources. For many of those people it has required more than one attempt. The first attempt does not always work, but I think there needs to be some measure to ensure that, through the programs that are supported and funded, that is their goal.
Finally, I would like to make a comment about recommendation 5. Having worked in the child protection area for a number of years, I think the statement needs to be made that the state is not the better parent. In many instances, permanent care orders are not effective. With permanent care orders, the parent can take the state department or the foster family back to court, and time and time again the child gets moved in and out of care, from a stable family environment back to their parent and back to the state. If you talk to any foster care body, whether it be a state or non-government organisation, you will find there are not enough foster care placements available for all the children who are impacted by their parent’s use of illicit drugs. I think that the option of adoption needs to be carefully looked at. Obviously, we need to be certain, as much as possible—as much as anybody can be certain—that the parent will not be able to provide a long-term, safe, secure, healthy environment for their child and that it is in the best interests of the child that an adoption be pursued. That is a good recommendation that focuses on the child.
Every individual and family can live free of the impacts of illicit drug use. These recommendations provide an opportunity for us to set a framework for the future that will improve the chances for individuals and families to achieve that outcome of a drug-free lifestyle. If even some of these recommendations are implemented, it will head in the right direction. We cannot sit by. After all my experience, I think we cannot remain silent. Families, individuals and children do deserve much better. (Time expired)
Debate (on motion by Mr Danby) adjourned.
Economics, Finance and Public Administration Committee
200
Report
200
Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Mr Baird:
That the House take note of the report.
200
12:48:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
0
0
Ms GRIERSON
—I rise to speak on the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 2006, which deals with the public hearing held in August on the Gold Coast. It was our second public hearing with the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Glenn Stevens, who was frank and open with the committee and also, to the regret of some of us, very adroit at avoiding the politically partisan questions of the committee. However, Governor Stevens took the opportunity at that hearing to strongly reinforce some important principles of the Reserve Bank’s operation. When asked if he would increase interest rates during an election, the governor stated his independence and reinforced the independence of the Reserve Bank from the government when he said:
If it is clear that something needs to be done, I don’t know what explanation we could offer the Australian public for not doing it, regardless of when an election might be due. I don’t think there is any case for the Reserve Bank board to cease doing its work for a month, in the month the election’s going to be.
Governor Stevens also reinforced the Reserve Bank’s strict adherence to an inflation target of between two and three per cent in applying monetary policy. He said:
My statement is a statement of long run tendencies. Our job is to anchor inflation at two to three per cent. I think both sides of politics agree with that. We are independent to do that. If we are successful in doing that, the nominal interest rate would be driven by that.
Again he said:
... as a long run proposition, the rate of interest goes with the rate of inflation.
Interestingly, his comments reflected the bipartisan approach to monetary policy—and I think that was strongly welcomed by all parties. His statements certainly dispel any election myth about returning to the very high interest rates that were experienced by both major parties in government prior to the economic reforms of the Hawke-Keating era. When asked if it was fair to say that we were unlikely to see those types of very high interest rate rises and that end point again, Governor Stevens responded:
I would not promise that every increment will be 25 points, but it strikes me as not that likely that we will have 100 point increments any time soon. Something very dramatic has occurred if that needs to be done.
The hearing with Governor Stevens took place at a very interesting economic time following, as it did, the Reserve Bank’s decision in August to increase the cash rate by 25 basis points to 6.5 per cent—the fifth interest rate rise since the 2004 election. In the context of our August public hearing, problems had also emerged in the US subprime lending market. I had the great fortune of being in America at the time when those problems emerged. It was fascinating to watch that play out and to see the very cautious comments of the Federal Reserve, the US equivalent of our Reserve Bank of Australia. It was interesting to see the confident comments of President Bush and the speculation by economic commentators on just what might happen in terms of credit risk and what impact that might have on the US economy. To be reading about it in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times et cetera was an amazing experience.
That aside, Governor Stevens took the opportunity to explain the interest rate rise by saying that it was due to strong economic conditions putting increased pressure on inflation—in spite of the dampening effects of the higher exchange rate and indeed other factors. He said that:
... ongoing strength of demand in a fully employed economy might leave us with inflation pressure that is harder to manage than expected.
He continued:
If you face an economy in our circumstances, we are clearly very fully employed. We are getting a stimulus from the rest of the world which is quite powerful and which is, I would say, beyond in some sense the normal cyclical ups and downs of our terms of trade. So there is quite a big set of forces at work there. I think you would have to be feeling that, in that world, you have got to be on the look-out for inflationary pressures. So, if that is the world we face and that is the world we are assumingly facing in putting these forecasts together, we are at a point where we are certainly more worried about inflation being too high than we would be about growth being too low.
Of course that was the situation then. A month is a long time in economics as well as in politics. When discussing the possible dampening effect of the US subprime market then he also commented that if the US economy slows then it could be anticipated that that slowing would be counterbalanced in the global economy by the continued increased growth of China and other major economies. Interestingly, though, he also made the point—and I thought this was an amusing one:
As I have said to many people in the past year, if you took a selection of central bank governors, supervisors, securities regulators and people responsible for stability around the world, put them in a room and asked them, ‘What is it that you keep awake at night about?’ it would have been that people are underappreciating risk and taking more risk than they realise and at some point in time that will do some damage
I suppose we are at that point in time right now.
Governor Stevens also said that, if the subprime pressure were to have a dampening impact on Australia’s economy, it would be due to a decrease in the availability of credit. At that time, it was the very early days of the subprime situation. He said:
I doubt that we are likely to see a big impact on the confidence of mainstream businesses from this financial volatility in the near term. The longer term risk would be if there were a serious tightening of credit conditions globally that then led to a withdrawal of credit provision in the real economy. I do not think that is happening at the moment. Clearly, that is a risk one has to be on the alert for, and we are.
Certainly, he is alert to that risk and his comments yesterday suggested that he is considering a heightened risk at the moment. He commented yesterday that the risk has increased and that credit has tightened. A report released yesterday on mortgage stress said that mortgage stress was rising at alarming rates, with eight per cent—or 600,000 households—likely to experience at least mild mortgage stress by the end of the year. I take this opportunity, then, to recommend to the House the economic committee’s recent report on housing and lending. But, clearly, risk or credit is being repriced.
We have witnessed just this week a run on the Northern Rock bank in England and some speculation in our own media about the position of regional banks regarding their liquidity and assets held. Interestingly, the governor has suggested that the big Australian banks disclose—he actually called on them to do so—the degree of their exposure to the risk from the subprime fallout. I think it is terribly important that the governor is making that statement. It suggests that both the market and the public have a right to know if there is a risk and what that level of exposure is. Those disclosures would be welcomed.
In reflecting on the latest RBA interest rate rise, the governor detailed the constraints on our domestic economic growth, noting that labour shortages continue to be the single most important factor constraining further economic growth in our current economic situation. The Reserve Bank governor acknowledged the bipartisan approach to labour market priorities, in answer to a question that I put to him, when he said:
My view is that the Australian labour market is very different from the animal we saw in the episode that Dr Emerson referred to in the late seventies and early eighties. I think it is obvious that two successive governments of differing political persuasions have moved things in the direction of less centralisation, more flexibility, more focus on productivity and so on. I do not think an objective observer would conclude differently.
The governor highlighted the constrained economy, and the inflationary effects of that, when he pointed to the current situation with labour shortages. It is a tradition of advice that our governors have adhered to, during this term of parliament at least, pointing out the constraints on growth brought about by a lack of attention to skills, infrastructure, housing and land release policies, the productivity dilemma and now of course the shortage of labour. But these are elements of fiscal policy that require the government to respond and intervene. Unfortunately, when you consider the constraints on growth that we are presently experiencing, the government’s response has been clearly inadequate.
I take these last moments to conclude and thank the Reserve Bank governor and his team for the excellent interchange. I congratulate the secretariat, which deserves a special recognition for its excellence in supporting our committee. And, lastly, I give my best wishes to the chair, Mr Bruce Baird, on his retirement and thank him for the professional approach he has always taken to the economics committee of parliament.
Debate (on motion by Dr Southcott) adjourned.
203
12:59:00
Main Committee adjourned at 12.59 pm
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
204
Questions in Writing
Defence: Electricity and Water
204
204
5218
204
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 7 December 2006:
-
For each financial year since 1 July 2004, what sum has the Minister’s department spent
on (a) electricity and (b) water.
-
Since 1 July 2000, what measures has the department instigated to reduce electricity and water usage.
204
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The expenditure recorded by the Department of Defence financial system under the account codes for ‘light and power’ and ‘water’ for each of the periods specified is:
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-May 2007
Electricity:
$74.3m
$76.0m
$75.2m
Water:
$10.4m
$11.1m
$11.3m
The expenditure shown in the table above does not include the following:
-
Defence is pro-actively addressing water and energy management through the Defence Environmental Management System, site Environmental Management Plans, the Defence Sustainable Water Management Strategy and the Defence Energy Strategy. These Strategies have been in place since 2004 and were updated in late 2006.
-
The key objective of the Defence Energy Strategy is to consume the least amount of energy necessary while maintaining the capability to defend Australia and its national interests. Defence is committed to:
-
minimising energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and demand;
-
achieving enduring cultural change in energy management across the entire organisation;
-
meeting obligations under the Commonwealth policy Energy Efficiency in Government Operations; and
-
demonstrating to all stakeholders continual improvement in energy performance against appropriate targets and benchmarks.
To achieve these objectives Defence has:
-
The key objectives of the Defence Sustainable Water Management Strategy comprise:
-
maximising the efficiency of water use;
-
eliminating losses through leakage and waste; and
-
reducing potable water use by substituting lower grade sources of water where they remain fit for purpose (for example collection and use of rain water and storm water, recycling of grey water and waste water).
-
To achieve these objectives Defence has:
-
identified 45 high water use sites across the Defence estate;
-
commenced the identification of opportunities at these sites for reducing potable water consumption and increasing the use of rainwater and stormwater, and the recycling of grey water and waste water;
-
set a 30 per cent water saving target in potable water in new buildings and major refurbishments;
-
specified water efficient fittings, fixtures and appliances which have a minimum AAA rating or equivalent water efficiency labeling and standards scheme star rating; and
-
developed regional and site water management plans for the Defence estate.
Examples of water efficiency projects that have been implemented across the Defence estate include:
-
the implementation of waste water recycling for irrigation of the sports ground at the Royal Military College Duntroon and the Australian Defence Force Academy;
-
the installation of recycled water washpoint facilities at Gallipoli Barracks and Lavarack Barracks;
-
rainwater harvesting for HMAS Cairns redevelopment and Oakey Army Aviation Centre;
-
the installation of waterless urinals at RAAF Richmond and Enoggera Army Barracks; and
-
the installation of dual flush toilets in various facilities.
Defence: RAAF Base Darwin
206
206
5711
206
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
0
Mr Danby
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 May 2007:
-
Is he aware of previous restrictions upon the operation of air-conditioners by service personnel resident at RAAF Base Darwin; if so, has action been taken to address this issue.
-
Has he taken action to ensure that the families of service personnel are not disadvantaged by the potential negative impact of the introduction of the Remote Locality Allowance upon Family Tax Benefit entitlements; if not, why not.
-
Does the Remote Locality Allowance provide for varying entitlements according to severity of climate, as did the air-conditioning allowance; if not, why not.
-
Are there any service locations where the Remote Locality Allowance has not resulted in a net increase in entitlement following the discontinuation of specific allowances such as the air-conditioning allowance.
-
Has the discontinuation of individual allowances in favour of a Remote Locality Allowance made administration easier for his department, at the expense of service personnel’s net salary and entitlements.
206
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
In 2005 the electrical system on RAAF Darwin required an upgrade to enable it to meet the increasing demands of modern households. During this period, the base experienced a number of planned and unplanned power outages. In an attempt to avoid unplanned outages, residents were requested to manage their household electrical loads during peak usage periods.
-
The allowance that compensates Service personnel living in remote locations is known as Australian Defence Force (ADF) district allowance and is considered by the Australian Taxation Office to be income. Accordingly, receipt of the allowance may reduce a member’s entitlement to Family Tax Benefit in the same way that an increase in taxable income will affect the entitlement to Family Tax Benefit of any other Australian taxpayer.
-
Yes. ADF district allowance is paid in accordance with a scale based on the isolation of the location and the severity of its climate. Locations are graded into five levels.
-
With the exception of a small number of ADF members working in Shoalwater Bay Training Area near Rockhampton, ADF members in all remote locations received an increase in ADF district allowance. A component of the increase in some locations was an amount to compensate for the discontinuation of air conditioning allowance and was calculated based on the average amounts of air conditioning allowance previously claimed. This figure was then ‘grossed up’ at the top marginal tax rate to negate the effects of the ADF district allowance being subject to income tax, while air conditioning allowance was not. Individuals who were extremely high users of air conditioners may not have had a net increase in entitlement.
-
No. The discontinuation of the air conditioning allowance in favour of an increased ADF district allowance has made administration marginally easier for Defence and for ADF members. Air conditioning allowance was discontinued, and ADF district allowance increased, to better compensate Service personnel for the rigours of living in a remote location. Conditions in the north were reviewed to make service there more attractive. The total package, including the increase in ADF district allowance, cost Defence an additional $35 million per annum.
Human Services: Information Technology
207
207
5838
207
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
Ms Burke
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 29 May 2007:
For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of outsourcing information technology services for each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio.
207
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
—The Minister for Human Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
The Department (excluding the Child Support Agency and CRS Australia)
The Department of Human Services was created in October 2004.
Financial Year
Cost
2004-05
Nil *
2005-06
$209,091
2006-07
$980,000
The sharp increase in the cost of IT outsourcing from 2005-06 to 2006-07 is attributed to the rapid growth in staff numbers of the Department. At 30 June 2006 ongoing and non-ongoing staff numbers totalled 94 and at 30 June 2007 staff numbers had increased to approximately 230. However, with secondments from other agencies and contractors, active users on the DHS network had exceeded 350.
* No IT Outsourcing charges were directly incurred or charged to DHS in the 2004-05 financial year. The DHS IT environment at that time was hosted within the AGIMO environment and no separate breakdowns on costs for that period are available.
Child Support Agency
Financial Year
Cost
2000-01
$17,892,893
2001-02
$18,501,234
2002-03
$17,453,479
2003-04
$23,961,361
2004-05
$23,204,871
2005-06
$21,663,653
2006-07
$21,338,655
CRS Australia
Financial Year
Cost
2000-01
$3,163,124
2001-02
$3,012,012
2002-03
$3,260,002
2003-04
$1,803,400
2004-05
$2,117,954
2005-06
$2,435,335
2006-07
$1,953,106
Centrelink
Centrelink’s IT infrastructure is primarily operated and managed in-house. With the exception of the mainframe computers (which are leased from IBM) and the majority of desktop printers (which are leased from Xerox), Centrelink has purchased all hardware and licences software directly from its various suppliers. Some services to support the IT Infrastructure are also provided by a number of suppliers.
Medicare Australia
Financial Year
Cost
2000-01
$60,981,662
2001-02
$59,759,539
2002-03
$67,045,700
2003-04
$70,796,864
2004-05
$79,074,537
2005-06
$87,298,347
2006-07
$87,796,632
Australian Hearing
Financial Year
Cost
2000-01
$1,305,675
2001-02
$1,513,027
2002-03
$1,773,622
2003-04
$2,177,745
2004-05
$1,565,515
2005-06
$1,546,919
2006-07
$1,641,052
Health Services Australia
Health Services Australia has not outsourced its information technology services in any year since 1 July 2000.
All costs are GST exclusive.
Tourism Australia: Travel Website
1
1
5885
1
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
Mr Martin Ferguson
asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 31 May 2007:
In respect of Tourism Australia’s new-look travel website Australia.com, which she launched on 28 May 2007:
-
what was the cost of the upgrade
-
was the upgrade carried out internally or by an external contractor; if the latter
-
which agency upgraded the website and
-
how was the agency selected
-
was industry consulted about the website upgrade prior to launch
-
were State/Territory tourism organisations consulted about the website upgrade prior to the launch
-
were State/Territory governments consulted about the website upgrade prior to the launch
-
how was the upgraded website launched; and
-
what are the
-
timeframes and
-
estimated costs of anticipated future site upgrades
1
Bailey, Fran, MP
JT4
McEwen
LP
Minister for Small Business and Tourism
1
Fran Bailey
—The answer to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:
-
The cost of the improvement to the Australia.com website is $2.6 million.
-
The upgrade was carried out by One Digital Pty Ltd.
-
The agency was selected via a tender process.
-
Industry was consulted about the website upgrade prior to the launch.
-
The State and Territory Tourism Organisations (STOs) were consulted about the website upgrade prior to the launch.
-
The State and Territory Tourism Governments were consulted by their STOs about the website upgrade prior to the launch.
-
The upgraded website was launched in English and Japanese by the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, the Hon Fran Bailey MP at the Australian Tourism Exchange in Brisbane on Monday 28 May 2007, with other language versions (French, Italian, German, Korean, Simplified and Traditional Chinese) subsequently released.
-
-
The site is designed to be adaptable and evolving supporting new content and functional releases
-
There are no plans for a major ‘upgrade’. The site is designed as a platform for future enhancements to support ongoing campaign communications.
Defence: RAAF Base Tindal
1
1
6194
1
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 August 2007:
Does his department intend to make operational changes to RAAF Tindal, Katherine, Northern Territory; if so, (a) what reduction in staff numbers, if any, will this entail, (b) what is the reason for the changes and (c) when will the changes take effect.
1
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
to (c) The Government is committed to the future of RAAF Tindal and there will be no downgrade of facilities at the base.
In fact, on 21 June 2007, a $64.2 million project to build facilities at RAAF Tindal for the Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Public Works.
The project will provide a range of new facilities at RAAF Tindal such as taxiways, aprons and shelters to enable the Wedgetail aircraft to operate from the base.
This project clearly demonstrates that RAAF Base Tindal remains a very important part of Air Force’s network of bases.
In late 2006 there was a small reduction of 30 maintenance personnel at the base as a result of a more efficient F/A-18 Hornet maintenance structure. The current number of uniformed Air Force personnel on the base is 607, with a further 119 Defence civilian and contractor staff.
Climate Change
1
1
6199
1
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 8 August 2007:
-
Which person, or persons, at the ABC made the decision to screen the program The Great Global Warming Swindle.
-
Prior to screening The Great Global Warming Swindle, did the ABC receive any approaches from government advisers or departmental officials suggesting that it screen the program; if so, (a) from whom and (b) when.
1
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr McGauran
—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
The Director of Television, in consultation with senior Television division personnel.
-
The ABC advises that no approaches were received from government advisers or departmental officials concerning the screening of this program.