2008-02-20 42 1 1 REPS 0 0 2008-02-20 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers. 829 Miscellaneous 829 09:01:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —On 14 February the honourable member for Sturt drew to my attention concerns that had been expressed about whether parliamentary privilege would attach to the sittings of the House scheduled to be held on Fridays. On 18 February he drew to my attention the case Marquet v Attorney-General (WA) (Supreme Court of Western Australia and High Court), and copies of the judgements have been obtained. The honourable member referred to legal advice that had been mentioned by the Leader of the House. I can advise the honourable member for Sturt that I have not seen that legal advice but I have consulted the Clerk of the House, as I told him I would. The amendments to the standing orders made last week provide that, if attention is drawn to the state of the House during a sitting on a Friday, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House following the conclusion of grievance debate, if the member who has called the quorum then so desires. The Clerk is not aware of any case concerning parliamentary privilege in respect of either house which has been decided on the basis of whether a quorum had been present when words were spoken or actions taken. Standing order 54 requires that the Speaker cannot read prayers to commence a meeting of the House unless a quorum is present. This provision will apply on scheduled sittings on Fridays. The provisions for the counting of the House during sittings on Fridays are set out in standing order 55, paragraph (c). These provisions reflect the concept embodied in standing order 55, paragraph (b), which has applied in respect of the counting of the House on Monday and Tuesday evenings. Certainly no relevant cases in which privilege has been an issue have arisen since those provisions have been operative. Members will be aware that the House often conducts proceedings when a quorum is not present. Unless a division is required neither the votes and proceedings nor the Hansard record will show whether a quorum has been present when a decision has been made—for example, on the third reading of a bill. The Clerk is not aware of a case concerning either house when a decision made in such circumstances has been held to be invalid on the ground that a quorum was not present when the decision was made. The Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 provides for the continuation of the provisions of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1688. Subsection 16(2) of that act provides, in part: For the purposes of the provisions of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1688 as applying in relation to the Parliament, and for the purposes of this section, proceedings in Parliament means all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to the transacting of the business of a House or of a committee ... It is clear that words spoken and acts done in the course of proceedings of a house are protected, and it may be held that words spoken and actions taken from the commencement of a sitting until the adjournment of the House form part of ‘proceedings in parliament’. However, even if this view was not accepted as applicable in some circumstances—such as if a quorum was not found to be present when the House was counted—it is not easy to see that words spoken by members or actions taken by them during such proceedings would be found not to be covered by the phrase ‘for purposes of or incidental to the transacting of the business’ of the House. Naturally, it would be my hope as Speaker that it would never be necessary to adjourn the House on a Friday because it was found that a quorum was not present when the House was counted following the conclusion of the grievance debate as required by the standing orders. If this hope is realised then members will not have cause for concern. 830 09:05:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I thank you for the effort you have gone into in responding to my genuine request for information. I look forward to reading the statement in greater detail and I am sure you will understand if I might return to the subject later today, perhaps after question time. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I hope that is not necessary. 830 09:05:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP 0 0 Mr RUDDOCK —On indulgence, I raised this matter in the debate and I used the words ‘more abundant caution’. I did so very deliberately because in my experience, when there is possible doubt, one ought to act in a way which will protect those who may be exposed. I have listened very carefully to the words chosen, which indicate to me that the Clerk cannot give definitive advice. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —I say to the minister: the words may, when you are addressing the question of whether coverage would be there, were the words I heard. I would like to think that some further consideration might be given to the protection of members. While I note the Speaker’s desire that nobody would seek to draw attention to a lack of quorum at the end of the sittings after the grievance debate, that seems to me to be an aspiration, a hope, that that point might not be taken. I think there are distinct possibilities that such points could be taken and I think it is a matter on which there should be further reflection in order to protect members. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I think that on careful reflection the member for Berowra might have adopted a different construct of the words that I used. I think I indicated that I hoped it would not be necessary. The standing orders allow for certain actions. I call the Leader of the House on indulgence. 830 09:07:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, I thank you for your diligence in getting back to the House in response to the questions that have been raised. In response to those questions: it was never the intention of the government to question the fact that quorums needed to be formed in order for the parliamentary session to begin. We accept that it is the government’s responsibility to do that; however, I note that there was considerable discussion in December and January—prior to any objections to the proposed Friday sittings being raised by members of the opposition—that the opposition would also play a cooperative role in forming a quorum at the beginning of the Friday sessions. I note also that that would be consistent with the fact that there has been a generally cooperative relationship, since Federation, from both sides of the chamber when it comes to dealing with private members’ business; that on Mondays, since I have been here, there have not been quorums called; that in the Main Committee, since I have been here, there have not been quorums called; that in both those chambers— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Why are we debating the issue? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —You raised it. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Now we are debating the issue— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —You had two speakers— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I’m going to get a piece of paper and move a suspension of standing orders. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt! I call the Leader of the House on indulgence, briefly. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —It is just as, from 6.30 to eight o’clock, without exceptions, based upon the standing orders moved by the then government, supported by the then opposition, there have been no quorums called and no divisions called. That is the situation. MT4 Broadbent, Russell, MP Mr Broadbent —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is this: the Leader of the House is claiming indulgence and he is now clearly debating the issue—going over old ground and debating the issue. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —This just goes to show that there is a bit of a grey area about indulgence; that is all it proves. I have tried to be generous to both sides. I will allow the Leader of the House to complete his statement. I ask him to do so quickly. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —In conclusion: I am happy to be the only speaker on our side in response to the two speakers on that side of the House on this matter. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I call the Clerk. 10000 The CLERK The Clerk —Government— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Sturt from moving the following motion— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. I simply say to him that I had called on the order of the day and the Clerk has the order of the day. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I will just do a little bit of a tutorial. The calling on of the order of the day means that there is business before me. 831 Bills R2940 831 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Garrett. Bill read a first time. 831 831 09:12:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 0 Mr GARRETT —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This government places a very high value on a creative and viable Australian film and television industry. Our film and television industry has world-class facilities and punches well above its weight with its award-winning and highly regarded productions, cast and crew. We can all be proud of the industry’s international reputation for excellence, hard work and dedication. Beyond its contribution to our cultural life, the sector’s input to the Australian economy is also significant, contributing some $1.5 billion annually to GDP and employing more than 50,000 people. In a global entertainment environment, the challenges facing the industry have been well documented. In particular, the industry has lacked sufficient private investment to provide a strong capital base. Production levels and box office returns continue to fluctuate and filmmakers are unable to build strong creative businesses. The government recognises its responsibilities to support the industry in meeting these challenges. Without strong government support, Australian voices on our screens would be considerably muted. The government is committed to providing a framework within which the industry can grow and prosper and establishing Screen Australia is part of that framework. This bill establishes a merged film agency, Screen Australia, as the key direct funding body for the Australian screen production industry. The bill facilitates the merger of the majority of the functions of the Australian Film Commission, the Film Finance Corporation Australia and Film Australia Ltd into a single statutory agency. Whilst in opposition and as shadow minister for the arts, I called early for consideration to be given to creating, through merging, a single screen authority—a body such as this. The government committed to establishing Screen Australia in its 2007 election policy, New Directions for the Arts. And as further evidence of its commitment to the Australian film and television industry, the government has identified the development of a globally innovative and competitive film industry for consideration at the Australia 2020 summit to be held in Parliament House on 19 and 20 April. The new agency will have a strong focus on cultural objectives while also pursuing the growth of a more competitive screen production industry. The synergies created by combining the resources of the three agencies will enhance coordination, facilitate strong national leadership for the screen production industry, and enable a fast response to changing national and international opportunities and challenges, such as technological innovations and changing audience preferences. It will free up resources which can be directed towards new industry priorities. The bill outlines the proposed functions and powers of the new body, together with the proposed governance and accountability arrangements. The functions largely reflect the combined functions of the existing agencies, with the principal exception being due to the establishment of the National Film and Sound Archive as a separate statutory authority, the legislation for which is also being introduced today. The new agency will have a strong emphasis on cultural objectives and artistic merit. Its functions also emphasise the importance of improved commercial sustainability for the industry, which will continue to face significant challenges due to its small size, relative isolation and difficulties in competing with imported product, notably of course from the United States. Screen Australia is to be an agency with a strong cultural mandate and one which also understands the importance of filmmakers relating to their audiences and developing their businesses. The bill provides Screen Australia with the following functions: Support and promote the development of a highly creative, innovative and commercially sustainable Australian screen production industry; and Support or engage in the development, production, promotion and distribution of Australian programs and the provision of access to Australian programs and other programs; and Support and promote the development of screen culture in Australia. In performing its functions, Screen Australia will have a continuing responsibility for the development of areas of particular public interest and cultural merit, such as documentaries and children’s programs. The government’s expectation is that the agency will continue to emphasise programs of real national significance in all fields. In particular it is expected that the National Interest Program undertaken by Film Australia will continue, and even be broadened beyond documentaries where appropriate. I expect that the agency will have an important role in promoting the work of emerging filmmakers. As well, our Indigenous filmmakers have carved out a special place in Australia’s cultural life and it is critical that Indigenous voices, and Indigenous stories, are seen and heard on Australian screens, and brought to Australian audiences. The government is keen for the screen production industry to move beyond a cottage industry and for it to provide ongoing work for the many highly talented Australians who currently either have to work overseas for long periods or have to find employment in other industries to supplement their incomes. It should also seek to provide opportunities for world renowned Australians eager to come home to work to be able to do so. To this end, Screen Australia will be expected to realise its cultural objectives while also being acutely conscious of the need to promote the development of commercially focused screen businesses. While funding will be available for single projects and individuals, significant funding will also need to be directed to sector capacity building and supporting industry professionals willing to build businesses rather than move from one project to the next. The continuing trend of rapid technological, cultural, social and political change means the Australian industry in coming years is likely to be a different industry to the one we have now. The recently introduced producer offset will provide a significant avenue for funding for many films and television projects and will enable producers to retain equity in their projects while, at the same time, attracting higher levels of private investment. This provides opportunities and challenges for Screen Australia. Because the producer offset can be the primary vehicle of government support for many productions, Screen Australia will be able to invest more funding in activities not directly associated with production. These include individual and project development activities, and those activities which provide the wider Australian community, including regional Australians, with access to Australian audiovisual product. Many have advocated the need for more government support during the development phases of projects to ensure that those films which go into production have the best chances of success. The extent to which Screen Australia should support marketing and distribution is also an important issue. I expect the debate on how Screen Australia will evolve from its predecessors will pay a great deal of attention to identifying new priorities. The degree to which Screen Australia should provide investment funding to projects which also receive the producer offset also needs close attention. It is important that the agency respond to this new incentive in a way which ensures better cultural outcomes and does not result in the agency simply replacing funding which should be provided by the marketplace. With the introduction of the legislation, I call for an active debate to start now, from all interested in this sector, on how Screen Australia should best be positioned to meet these challenges, to ensure that the new organisation has clarity of purpose, a genuine sense of integration and the ability to respond quickly to industry priorities. These new directions for the screen production industry have been warmly welcomed by the industry. The establishment of Screen Australia is a key plank in the strategy to revitalise the industry, restore investor confidence and deliver exciting productions to Australian audiences and beyond. Debate (on motion by Mr Farmer) adjourned. 834 Bills R2939 834 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Garrett. Bill read a first time. 834 834 09:22:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 0 Mr GARRETT —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In 1935 the government established a National Historical Film and Speaking Record Library. This was the first recognition of the importance of maintaining a collection of our film and sound heritage. The National Film and Sound Archive was established as a separate collecting institution in 1984 and until 2003 it was administratively part of the relevant government department responsible for the arts. In 2003, it became part of the Australian Film Commission. The national collection now contains over 1.4 million items. Recently, the archive restored what is possibly the world’s first feature-length film, The Story of the Kelly Gang from 1906. This film is now in UNESCO’s Memory of the World Register which identifies cultural heritage of international significance. The archive has launched a Centre for Scholarly and Archival Research which attracts outstanding researchers and practitioners to study and interpret the collection. It has also compiled a superb National Registry of Audiovisual Collections to document many private and public holdings of moving image and recorded sound materials. In its arts election policy, the government recognised the significance of the archive and its work and that for it to operate effectively it deserved full autonomy as a national collecting institution. Accordingly, the government undertook to establish the National Film and Sound Archive as a separate statutory authority. This bill delivers on that commitment. For the first time, the National Film and Sound Archive will have independent statutory status in the same way as the other national collecting institutions, with its own governing board and management. It will have ownership of the national collection of audiovisual and related material and full responsibility for selection, acquisition, preservation and disposal of items in the collections. The NFSA’s functions include the development, preservation, maintenance, and promotion of a national collection. The principal duty of a collecting institution such as this is to manage the national collection in its care and ensure that posterity is able to experience and enjoy all the treasures which it holds. The NFSA will also be able to engage with other collections in Australia, for instance through the benefits of its world-class technical expertise, and will be able to provide access to the finest programs from around the world. The NFSA will not simply be an organisation focused on preservation and maintenance. Instead, the government will be looking to the new agency to develop a high public profile. It will be expected to develop strong access and outreach programs so that as many Australians as possible can enjoy films and recordings in the national collection, and can develop a greater appreciation and awareness of our finest films, television programs, music and spoken voice recordings. The NFSA will be expected to emphasise the historical and cultural significance of the material which it holds, and to make the best use it can of the collection in the national interest. It is expected that the archive will have a strong research focus in relation to the collection, and to collaborate with institutions in Australia and overseas. A key provision in the bill is the need for the archive to, as far as practical, apply the highest curatorial standards to its activities, and thereby assume a national leadership role in relation to best professional practice. This bill gives the National Film and Sound Archive a strong statutory mandate, a clear and coherent philosophy reflecting its cultural role and importance in the archiving profession, autonomy in its own affairs consistent with other national collecting institutions, and greater accountability and transparency. Debate (on motion by Mr Farmer) adjourned. 835 Bills R2941 835 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Garrett. Bill read a first time. 835 835 09:28:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 0 Mr GARRETT —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is a companion bill to the Screen Australia Bill 2008 and the National Film and Sound Archive Bill 2008 which are also being introduced today. The bill deals with consequential and transitional matters related to the establishment of both bodies. The key elements of the bill relate to repeal and consequential amendment of other legislation, transfer of assets and liabilities, termination of office holders and transfer of staff and their entitlements. Once Screen Australia is established, the Australian Film Commission Act 1975 will be repealed and the companies, Film Finance Corporation Australia Ltd and Film Australia Ltd will be wound up. The assets and liabilities of the three agencies will be transferred to Screen Australia with the exception of those that go to the National Film and Sound Archive or the Australian Film, Television and Radio School. This bill also contains provisions dealing with transfer of employees of the existing agencies as appropriate. These transitional provisions are necessary because currently staff are employed under a number of different arrangements including as APS employees, under certified agreements or Australian workplace agreements, or under common law contracts. While clearly all mergers encompass a degree of change, the provisions of this bill ensure that staff will not be disadvantaged as a result of this legislation. The bill also contains provisions relating to the appointment of the first CEOs of Screen Australia and the National Film and Sound Archive. While future appointments will be made by the boards of the respective agencies, the initial appointments will be ministerial ones in order to ensure they can be made quickly ahead of the commencement of operations of the agencies on 1 July 2008. Debate (on motion by Mr Farmer) adjourned. 835 Bills R2933 835 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McClelland. Bill read a first time. 836 836 09:30:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2008 is to amend the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to extend by 18 months the operation of the network protection provisions which are due to sunset on 13 June 2008. It is because of the immediacy of this date that I ask the parliament to consider this time-critical bill. The bill also implements a number of minor yet important technical amendments. I note that this bill contains no new powers for security or law enforcement agencies in relation to telecommunications interception, stored communications or access to data, but the bill ensures that these agencies have the necessary tools to combat crime in this age of rapid technological change. Extension of sunset clause for network protection The act currently includes network protection clauses that create exemptions to the general prohibition on listening to or copying communications passing over the telecommunications system. The exemptions apply to personnel in law enforcement and security agencies who are responsible for protecting and maintaining their agency’s network or enforcing professional standards. The provisions enable these personnel to monitor inbound and outbound communications for security and integrity purposes. The network protection provisions were inserted by the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 2006 and initially applied only to the Australian Federal Police. These provisions are subject to two-year sunset clauses that come into effect on 13 June this year. The provisions were subsequently extended to additional law enforcement and security agencies by the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Act 2007, but the original sunset clauses were retained, and they expire, as I have indicated, on 13 June this year also. Background policy The emergence of highly invasive and difficult-to-detect means of infiltrating telecommunications networks has required the development of equally sophisticated methods of maintaining the integrity of those networks. The need for effective protection of corporate networks was also recognised in the Report of the review of the regulation of access to communications conducted by Mr Anthony Blunn AO. That report was tabled in parliament in September 2005. The Blunn report, as it has become known, recommended that access be allowed to the content of communications, outside of the warrant regime, for the protection of corporate communication systems. Recent media reports highlight the importance of private companies also protecting their networks. The proposed 18-month extension of the existing network protection provisions will ensure law enforcement and security agencies can continue to protect their networks while a comprehensive long-term solution is developed. My department has already undertaken extensive work on legislative changes that would implement the Blunn report recommendation. As mentioned, these measures will have implications across government, corporate and private networks. They must also address complex issues associated with privacy, and state and territory laws. It is important not to rush those changes, and there must be enough time to consult widely on their impact. An 18-month extension will enable full consideration of a more complete solution across all networks. Technical amendments The bill also includes several technical amendments. These will improve the effective operation of the act by removing duplication and clarifying existing reporting and accountability regimes for agencies and telecommunications carriers. Again, the amendments do not provide any new powers for law enforcement or security agencies. The provisions dealing with the notification of additional services being intercepted will be amended to include a new requirement to report additional information to the Attorney-General’s Department. The process for adding additional devices to a device based named person warrant will be clarified and aligned with the existing process for service based named person warrants. The chief officer of an interception agency will be able to delegate certain reporting and notification requirements to a senior executive service officer of the agency or someone of equivalent rank. Significant residual duplication of reporting requirements for warrants will be removed. These duplications arose from the transfer of oversight from the telecommunications interception remote authority connection to the Attorney-General’s Department. The technical amendments are minor but important. They will ensure that the act creates clear and consistent reporting obligations on agencies and also telecommunications carriers. Conclusion In conclusion, this bill is an important element in ensuring that the legislative framework for accessing telecommunications information for law enforcement and national security purposes remains clear and effective. It contains no new powers for security and law enforcement agencies and it strengthens the reporting and accountability framework. I commend this bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Farmer) adjourned. 837 Bills R2934 837 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Snowdon. Bill read a first time. 837 837 09:38:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP Minister for Defence Science and Personnel 1 0 Mr SNOWDON —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill comes to this House for the second time, having been introduced prior to the last election, but lapsing due to the dissolution of parliament. It represents another stage in the reform of military justice in the ADF and one which is long overdue. For the record, during the term of the previous government there were no less than six reviews of military justice, including inquiries in 1999 and 2001 by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade of the parliament. These were preceded in 1997 with the report of Justice Abadee, which began in 1995, and an Ombudsman’s report in 1998. Following, there were reports by the WA Coroner into the fatal fire on HMAS Westralia, and by Mr Burchett QC. Finally the catalyst for action came in May 2005, in tabling the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report on The effectiveness of Australia’s military justice system. The findings and recommendations of this report identified some serious shortcomings which are now being addressed. Those recommendations essentially covered two themes. First, the replacement of the old system of court martial and Defence Force Magistrate trials with a new Australian Military Court (retaining the existing right to appeal to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal), an independent Director of Military Prosecutions and Provost Marshal ADF. The second theme was that of major reform of the administrative system by which grievances are handled. The majority of these reforms are now in place and on the face of it appear to be operating satisfactorily, as regular six-monthly reports to the Senate committee indicate. This bill provides for the implementation of one of the final links in this new system, namely, the summary discipline system which is that part of the military justice system where many breaches of military discipline are first dealt with—as well as a number of related matters. The previous government’s response to the Senate committee report was made in October 2005. Although not all recommendations were accepted, there was sufficient in the view of the Labor Party, then in opposition, to give support albeit conditional upon serious change being made and close monitoring of progress being undertaken. In essence the difference in view was that the Senate committee recommendations were for the ‘civilianisation’ of the military justice system so as to remove any risk of compromise which was seen to be endemic in the existing system. The then government rejected those recommendations, though it is clear that in so doing the military was placed on notice that the system had to demonstrate dramatic improvement quickly. The Rudd government has maintained that attitude, and hence some revision to the provisions of the bill first introduced which reflects our attitude to the principles of military justice which previously we considered had been too readily dispensed with. The issue which best represents this attitudinal difference concerns an attempt by the previous government to modify the rules of evidence applicable in summary trials. The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in its report on this bill in September last year expressed reservations about the provisions of the bill governing the application of the rules of evidence in proceedings before a summary authority. The Rudd government does not believe that the previous government’s response to the committee’s recommendation on that matter was sufficient and hence in this new bill the provisions have been strengthened so that the rules of natural justice and basic principles of the rules of evidence (relating to relevance, reliability, weight and probative value) are applied by a summary authority. Therefore, the Rudd government has in this new bill further strengthened the application of the rules of evidence. The Rudd Labor government is therefore committed to continuing the reform of the military discipline system to address the concerns of defence personnel, the parliament and the community. The changes are intended to provide for, and balance, the maintenance of effective discipline and the protection of those individuals who are subject to the military discipline system. It introduces another element of military justice which reflects the fairness of civilian processes of justice, but in a way which recognises the realities of applying military discipline fairly and efficiently in the field. This recognises that ADF operations are to some extent unique, requiring a far greater level of regulation than that encountered in other forms of employment and demands behaviour which is consistent with its role as an armed force. It follows that breaches of service discipline must be dealt with speedily and, sometimes, more severely than would be the case if an individual, who was not subject to military discipline, engaged in such conduct. The military discipline system needs to be one that can operate overseas and in Australia, in war and in peace. At the same time, however, the Rudd government in recognising the need for these additional constraints and standards believes that the military discipline procedures that accompany them must be timely, impartial and fair to ADF members, and that they must be seen to be so by the Australian people. In 2006, the first stage of significant reforms to the ADF discipline system was implemented through the establishment of a statutorily independent Australian Military Court under the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 2006. The court came into effect on 1 October 2007. The second stage of these reforms makes further significant improvements to the military justice system, in particular through the modernisation and redesign of the summary discipline system. Commanders in the ADF carry great responsibility, which may ultimately require them to use lethal force.  These commanders are required to ensure that this lethal force is used lawfully. To do this requires a disciplined force. The cornerstone of ADF discipline is the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 and, in particular, the summary discipline system subject of this bill. The summary discipline system enables the timely maintenance of discipline and morale. The balance between discipline and the rights of individuals is the key to achieving the operational effectiveness and success that the nation expects of its armed forces. It is this balance that produces a defence force that can wield lethal force while reflecting the values of our nation and complying with our international obligations. The ADF summary discipline system forms one part of the military justice system which, taken as a whole, must provide the safeguards necessary to protect the interests of ADF members. Commanders use the summary discipline system on a daily basis. It is integral to their ability to lead the people for whom they are responsible in order to ensure their welfare and safety. The summary discipline system must therefore operate quickly, be as simple as possible, and it must be capable of proper, fair and correct application by officers with no formal legal training. It is upon this premise that the Australian military justice system is based and the amendments proposed in this bill have been drafted. To ensure fairness and rigour, the bill will introduce a number of enhancements to the summary discipline system including— A right in all cases to appeal a summary authority conviction, order or punishment to a military judge of the Australian Military Court. The bill provides that a statutorily independent military judge of the Australian Military Court will have the discretion to deal with an appeal on its merits by way of a fresh trial or a ‘paper review’ of the evidence. - If the military judge upholds an appeal against a conviction, then they may substitute a conviction for an alternative offence or quash the conviction, with the option to order a new trial. - On an appeal against punishment or order, the military judge may confirm, quash or vary the punishment. In varying the punishment, the military judge is limited imposing a punishment not greater than the maximum punishment available to the summary authority at the original trial. The bill also introduces the right to elect trial by a military judge of the Australian Military Court for all but a limited number of disciplinary offences, similar to the scheme available in the Canadian forces summary system. This means more minor offences have no such right for simple reasons of practicality. They are best dealt with quickly and are of such a nature that trial is inappropriate. The exception to this is for some officers where the right to trial has been long established. Dealing with these offences at the summary level will reinforce the maintenance of service discipline, while preserving the rights of individual members. Additional safeguards have been included, for example, where no election is given, a more limited range of punishments is available. If a summary authority contemplates the imposition of a more severe punishment then, prior to making a finding of guilt, they must offer a right of election for trial by the Australian Military Court. In addition, a convicted person will be further protected by their right to appeal. The limits on the right of election are designed to ensure that the Australian Military Court is not unnecessarily burdened with charges involving minor disciplinary infractions, for example, straightforward cases of absence without leave. In the case of all summary proceedings and appeals from summary proceedings to the Australian Military Court which are dealt with on the papers, the bill will also introduce a revised evidence framework. However, as mentioned earlier, the Rudd government has brought a different approach to the rules of evidence. While it is recognised that the rules of evidence and policy guidance currently applicable to summary proceedings are complex and varied, that they can be difficult for persons without formal legal training to apply in the field, their influence must be retained in the interests of fairness. Hence, unlike the provisions of the previous bill, subparagraph 146A(2)(b)(ii) of this new bill requires the summary authority to comply with the rules of natural justice and to apply fundamental evidentiary principles. The bill also proposes significant reforms to the review process for summary convictions. It provides a right of appeal to the Australian Military Court while retaining internal safeguards requiring more serious punishments (such as detention) to be approved before they take effect. There is a new obligation on reviewing authorities to recommend appeals to the Australian Military Court where substantive errors are identified. There is also a mechanism for correcting technical errors. When coupled with the new right of appeal to the Australian Military Court, the revised review process adds an additional layer of protection for the rights of individuals who are subject to the military discipline system. A number of other significant improvements to the military justice system are included in the bill. Following a review of offences and punishments in the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, a number of proposed changes will be effected in the bill, including: Reinforcing ADF antidrug policies by enabling service tribunals to try offences in respect of a broader range of illegal drugs. Tribunals will have an expanded ability to deal with drug charges for offences committed both in and outside Australia by ADF and defence civilians as defined in the DFDA. The category of drug offences will be broadened, and because of the ADF’s no drug policy, the burden of proof will be strengthened, especially with respect to self-administration of a prohibited drug or the administration of a prohibited drug by a person to a defence member, where there is lawful excuse for doing so; Making it clear that a member is guilty of an offence of prejudicial conduct if he or she ‘omits’ to perform an act which proves likely to be prejudicial to ADF discipline. That is, in terms of modern military responsibilities, failure to act is as reprehensible as the wrongful commission of an act; Reinforcing the high standard of weapons safety required in an armed force by making the offences of ‘negligent discharge of a weapon’ and ‘unauthorised discharge of a weapon’ alternative offences; Improving the accuracy and fairness of sentencing by allowing the suspension in whole or part of a greater range of punishments, thus providing more flexibility and fairness commensurate with civilian practice; Ensuring that Defence Force Discipline (Consequences of Punishment) Rules may apply to certain punishments regardless of whether the punishments are awarded by the Australian Military Court, a summary authority or a discipline officer; Amending the status of a summary conviction so that it is of relevance for service purposes only. This will reduce the possible adverse and disproportionate impact of minor service offences on the civilian lives of persons convicted by an ADF summary authority; and Providing better administration of members sentenced to dismissal by allowing the Australian Military Court to order that the punishment of dismissal is effective on a day no later than 30 days after it has been imposed (rather than immediately as is currently the case). These changes will make an immediate contribution to the rigour, fairness and transparency of offences and punishments under the Defence Force Discipline Act. This bill makes a number of other changes as recommended by earlier reviews, but which have taken almost seven years to this stage. These include: Expanding the discipline officer scheme under part IXA of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to include non-commissioned officers, warrant officers and junior officers up to and including the ranks of lieutenant in the Navy, captain in the Army and flight lieutenant in the Air Force (with limited punishments); and Removing the separate and more severe scale of punishments for Navy. Additional proposals include: Expanding the jurisdiction of superior summary authorities to include ranks up to rear admiral in the Navy, major general in the Army and air vice marshal in the Air Force. This change will allow simple and minor offences committed by more senior officers to be dealt with expeditiously at the summary level, rather than awaiting (the currently mandatory) trial by the Australian Military Court. Adding the automatic disqualification of a summary authority to try offences where the summary authority has been involved in the investigation of the service offence, the issuing of a warrant, or preferring the charge. The change will help reduce any perceptions about the possible bias of summary authorities and promote confidence in the impartiality and fairness of summary proceedings. Removing the examining officer scheme from the Defence Force Discipline Act. This change will remove an unnecessary and rarely used procedure. Introducing a new time limit requiring the trial by a summary authority of a person charged, as soon as practicable within three months of the charge being laid. This will improve the timeliness of summary proceedings and mandate the referral of delayed matters to the Director of Military Prosecutions. Clarifying the powers of the Director of Military Prosecutions in respect of a charge preferred by the Director of Military Prosecutions to make it clear that he or she has the full range of options that are required by the position. Requiring a discipline officer to provide a report to his or her commanding officer. The intention of this amendment is to provide a safeguard through legislated oversight of the discipline officer scheme and provide statistical information to commanding officers. This will facilitate the maintenance of discipline and transparency of the discipline officer scheme. Providing a right for a member to request no personal appearance, subject to approval, in respect of a summary proceeding. The personal appearance of the accused will remain the norm; however, in exceptional circumstances, and only where the accused intends to plead guilty, the member may apply not to be present at a summary proceeding and to have the matter heard in his or her absence, subject to the approval of the summary authority. The member will have the right to be represented at such a hearing. Statutory recognition of the new Provost Marshal Australian Defence Force. In accordance with the government response to the 2005 Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report, the Provost Marshal was appointed on 14 May 2006 to head the newly established ADF Investigative Service. It is intended to enable the Provost Marshal to refer a serious service offence to the Director of Military Prosecutions, where the Provost Marshal considers it appropriate to do so. Adoption of this provision will improve efficiency by streamlining military discipline procedures and allowing more serious matters to be referred directly to the Director of Military Prosecutions. Strengthening the rights and duties of legal officers, in particular the exercise of their legal duties independently of command influence, by an amendment to the Defence Act. The purpose of this new section is to ensure that ADF legal officers are not subject to inappropriate command direction in the exercise of their professional capacity as ADF legal officers while still allowing an ADF legal officer who is superior in rank or appointment to issue technical directions to subordinate ADF legal officers. To give effect to a recommendation by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, in its report of October 2006 (regarding an earlier military justice reform bill now enacted), the Director of Military Prosecutions will be able to require that a trial of a class 3 offence is to be by a military judge alone, accompanied by a reduction in the maximum available punishment to six months imprisonment. This amendment reflects civilian criminal practice and overseas military systems. Similar to the previous system of a Defence Force magistrate trial, these offences do not warrant a jury trial (with the associated administrative issues, expense and possible delays). This will avoid unnecessary jury trials. This will be of significant benefit to the ADF, given their potential to impact adversely upon ADF operations. Allowing for the Director of Military Prosecutions to be able to seek a determination from the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal on a point of law that arose in an Australian Military Court trial, at the conclusion of that trial. This will be for precedent purposes and will allow the law to be applied correctly in future cases. These recommendations and initiatives, when implemented, aim to streamline and improve the ADF discipline system. Debate (on motion by Mr Farmer) adjourned. 843 Governor-General's Speech 843 Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Mr Hale: That the Address be agreed to. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Before I call Mr Symon, I remind honourable members that this is his first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him. 843 09:59:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 1 Mr SYMON —Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I congratulate you on your election to the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives. I am sure both sides of the chamber would agree that you have brought an immediate professionalism and style to the job. I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land upon which we stand, the Ngunnawal people. As a new member of parliament, can I say that it was very moving and special to witness the formal apology delivered to the stolen generations as the first item of business in the 42nd Parliament. I would like to add my voice to the apology to the stolen generations and say sorry for the harm that has been done to our nation’s Indigenous people over so many years. I would like to thank the electors of Deakin for voting for a change and listening to our positive campaign message throughout the election period. I was fortunate to be able to meet and talk to so many different local community and sporting groups during the eight months of campaigning, to present our policies and listen to their views. Like so many of the people I met during that time, I have lived in the area my entire life because I like its environment and because it is a great place to raise a family, just as my parents did. My parents came to Australia as immigrants from England in 1957, just two of the 41,439 settler arrivals from the UK and Ireland in that year. For the first few years of life in a new country they lived near the city in Melbourne and eventually settled in the then semirural suburb of Bayswater in 1962. My father, Denis, worked as a paymaster on the other side of Melbourne for many years, without a car, and my mother, Sally, stayed at home to look after me and my sister, Fiona. I sincerely thank them both for their dedication to their respective jobs and hope that I will always share their ethics of hard work and honesty. To my lovely wife, Cheryl, and my two wonderful daughters, Jessica and Angie, I thank you the most for having the understanding of and patience with me as I went out campaigning night after night and spent the weekends at work for good measure. Your support, more than any other, spurred me on to do my best. I would also like to thank all of the unions who contributed in so many ways to helping out on the Deakin campaign. Without the resources and members on the ground, the result at the last election may have left me unemployed. My union, the Electrical Trades Union, encouraged and supported me throughout the campaign. I would especially like to thank the southern states branch secretary, Dean Mighell, and the assistant secretary, Howard Worthing, along with all the organisers, shop stewards and office staff, for their help, advice and on-the-ground support. Tim Stephenson, Andy Di Mieri, Joe Yousef, Trevor Darwell, Danny Timmers and Wes Hayes deserve a special mention for their efforts. I would also like to thank the ETU National Secretary, Peter Tighe, and ETU Assistant National Secretary, John Ingram, for their support in the campaign. The plumbers union also helped out in so many ways. I would like especially to thank the secretary, Earl Setches, for sharing his extensive local political knowledge and the assistant secretary, Tony Murphy, for organising his members to help out on an almost daily basis. Kevin Bracken, the state secretary of the MUA, provided generous support and arranged for retired MUA members to help out during the working week when our campaign office was always light on for help. Joan Doyle, the state secretary of the CEPU P&T division, helped organise professional letterboxers for me in the form of posties, who volunteered their weekends off to deliver letters for my campaign. Thank you also to the UFU secretary, Peter Marshall, and all of the fireys who helped out on the campaign. I would also like to especially thank Bill Oliver and Tommy Watson, assistant secretaries; Ralph Edwards, president; and organisers Gareth Stephenson and Bobby Mates of the CFMEU Construction and General Division in Victoria for all of their support in so many different ways throughout the campaign. I thank Dave Noonan, CFMEU National Secretary, for his union’s staunch support. I would also like to thank Steve Dargavel, Victorian Secretary of the AMWU, for his union’s excellent support of the ALP campaign in Deakin. May I also thank the ASU, AWU, CPSU, HSU, NUW, RTBU, SDA, TCFUA and any other unions which I may have forgotten to mention. The Victorian Trades Hall Council and its secretary, Brian Boyd, deserve a special mention for encouraging unions to help out in Deakin and organise local campaign events. I would also like to thank the ACTU and its leadership of Sharan Burrow and Greg Combet, who is now, of course, the new member for Charlton. I particularly thank all the ACTU constituent unions and their members for all the years of hard work that was put into the Your Rights at Work campaign in the community and amongst the combined union membership. I would especially like to thank Linda Cargill and all of the many hundreds of local Your Rights at Work campaigners who spent more than two years rallying opposition to the Howard government’s extreme workplace laws on the ground in the seat of Deakin. Your community campaigning and grassroots message delivery certainly made a huge difference in the final outcome. The Deakin campaign was blessed to have the help of people from all walks of life and with diverse skills and talents but all with an absolute passion for change. I cannot possibly thank all of the many hundreds of volunteers who helped out on the campaign, but I shall name a few who worked way beyond any asking and helped hold the campaign office together for nearly six months. Ray Jackson, Erryn Glover, Michael Howe, Greg Napper, Daniel Simpson, Lesley Keppert, Glenice and Michael Freeman, Terry Smart, Ralph Curnow, Ian Holmes, Stan Smith, Scott Dare and Antony Kenney: thank you all for your terrific contributions. I could not have won the seat of Deakin without the fantastic dedication shown to the task by my campaign director, Pauline Richards. The sheer level of organisation to keep the campaign running smoothly probably needed three people to do the work, but Pauline kept going right through to the declaration of the poll and beyond. I particularly note her ability to organise last-minute but extremely successful campaign events. It is a very stressful part of campaigning, but every single one of them was fantastic. Also, a big thankyou to Nathan Murphy for organising all of the backroom parts of the campaign, especially the bulk mail-outs; Graeme Watson for organising signage and transport; and Andrew Cameron for his work on the campaign database. I would like to thank the Blackburn South, Mitcham and Ringwood ALP branches and all of those members from the Blackburn branch who helped out on the campaign. The task of winning an election without local support would be nigh on impossible, and there is no substitute for local knowledge. My thanks also go to the ALP Clayton South branch for their wonderful support during the campaign. I would also like to acknowledge the support of the Victorian ALP—in particular, the secretary, Stephen Newnham; assistant secretary Kosmos Samaras; and the campaigns officer, Daniel Gerrard. Thank you also to federal MPs Alan Griffin and Anna Burke, and Senator Gavin Marshall, along with Victorian state MPs Kirsty Marshall, Tony Robinson, Shaun Leane, Brian Tee and Craig Langdon. The advice and support that all of you provided was invaluable and freely shared. I would also like to acknowledge the support and valuable advice of former Victorian MLA Peter Lockwood and former Victorian MLC Pat Power. Thank you also to Young Labor. Grant Poulter and Liam O’Brien organised hordes of very keen and active volunteers to give up their weekends and assist the campaign with doorknocking and street stalls on many occasions. I would especially like to acknowledge the only previous Labor member for Deakin, John Saunderson, who held Deakin for an 18-month period in the first term of the Hawke Government. Like me, John Saunderson also had a union background, his union ultimately becoming a part of the CEPU, just like mine. For much of its history, Deakin has been a rural seat, originally covering an area that included Wallan, Seymour, Mansfield and Warburton. Over the last 71 years, the boundaries of the seat of Deakin have shifted so far that the original area is now almost foreign to the current electorate. What was once a completely rural seat is now a completely urban electorate, and the needs and aspirations of the community have changed accordingly. Due to the ever-changing boundaries, I was also born in Deakin. Back in 1965, Deakin covered Box Hill, but that suburb is now, of course, in the electorate of Chisholm. In my time as a resident of Deakin, the seat has always been marginal but in every election from 1984 until now has always just managed to avoid having a Labor member installed. I have lived in the area covered by the modern-day boundaries of Deakin for over 23 years and in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne for all of my life. I have seen market gardens and orchards give way to residential and commercial development that has seen Deakin become a favourite area for working families to settle. In that time, I have seen the suburbs in the eastern end of the electorate grow in both population and demand for services. Infrastructure has not kept pace with this demand over the years, and much more needs to be done by all levels of government in the provision of roads and public transport. Major road projects such as the Springvale Road grade separation have been ignored over the last 11 years whilst the Howard government engaged in finger-pointing without fixing the problem. Labor has provided a practical solution, with a funding commitment to work with the state government and get traffic in the suburb of Nunawading moving again. Deakin has a large proportion of two-car households, as for many people there is no realistic alternative for travel for work, shopping or leisure. With suburbs up to 30 kilometres out from the city, many households face petrol bills of $100 per week or more, and the price of petrol is a constant topic within the electorate. I certainly welcome the appointment by the Rudd government of a petrol commissioner and believe that this will help hold down the price of petrol for the many people for whom a car is the only practical means of transport. Whilst still at high school in Bayswater, I had to make the decision that all students face: what sort of career did I want? I must say that, in 1981, I certainly did not even think about a career in politics. I was instead thinking about what sort of job would not be taken over by a computer sometime in the future. After much thought, I chose to become an electrical mechanic, and I was fortunate enough to obtain a position as an apprentice at CW Norris and Co., a large electrical contractor in west Melbourne. I had a very varied apprenticeship, working in all types of industries, including construction, petrochemical, maintenance and many other areas. This variation of work continued after my apprenticeship was complete and included working on ships and offshore oil rigs and in computer centres and retail developments across Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales. When the company was hit by the downturn in the industry in 1983, I, along with the other 40 or so apprentices, was placed on a week on, week off, job-sharing arrangement so that none of us were sacked. As a second-year apprentice, this meant that my weekly wage of $140 at the time was literally cut in half. This lasted for six months and times were tough. There were no other jobs for electrical apprentices around, and so I had to wait it out until the industry picked up again. This was but an early introduction to the tenuous nature of employment in the construction industry. Many workers in this industry to this day are on hourly or daily hire, with the rest being on weekly hire or subcontractors. It is an expected hazard to be laid off whenever a project is getting close to completion. Unemployment is an occupational hazard of the industry, and I have spent periods of up to six months looking for work, due to downturns. Whilst the pay is good when you are employed, your savings do not last long when the bills keep coming in. Worse than this is the all too frequent experience of builders or their subcontractors declaring insolvency or being declared insolvent without notice. Far too many times workers are left severely out of pocket when secured creditors’ claims are placed ahead of workers’ entitlements. Annual leave, superannuation, long service, redundancy, lieu of notice and even unused sick leave can all be gone in the blink of an eye. The Howard government’s scheme, GEERS, has only provided limited relief for affected workers, and, after all the spin and waiting months for payments, workers were always left out of pocket. I see a role for government in providing security of entitlements, and I would encourage consideration of a national scheme that banks workers’ entitlements to protect them from corporate collapse. Many innovative solutions have been implemented by all parties in the construction industry to protect workers’ entitlements over the last 25 years. The introduction of portable long-service leave, superannuation and severance schemes have done much to protect workers’ entitlements in the construction industry, and I would encourage both unions and employers to consider similar schemes for all other industries. Without award and EBA provisions to limit casualisation, I am quite sure that most workers in the construction industry would only be hired as casuals. Australia now has the second-highest rate of casual employment in the OECD, with a rate of 27.3 per cent back in 2002. I suspect that has grown significantly since the introduction of Work Choices and the further stripping away of workers’ rights and conditions. The ABS’s Year Book Australia 2006 notes that there were two million casual employees in Australia in 2004 and, of these, 55 per cent had been with their employer for 12 months or more. As we all know, casual workers have no annual leave, sick leave or job security, and many suffer greatly in between periods of employment. Very early on in my working career, I saw the benefits of belonging to a union. In the construction industry that I worked in, those in unions worked on large jobs with good wages and conditions, such as site allowances and rostered days off, whilst those outside this area were often stuck on paid rates awards and no more. I have been a member of the Electrical Trades Union for 24 years now. It would have been a bit longer but for the attitude from the tradespeople I worked with as a young apprentice. When I asked about joining in 1982, the response was one of indifference or negativity. I found it somewhat strange that the people I had asked said that I should not join, yet they were in fact members themselves. I eventually managed to join, some 18 months after starting my electrical apprenticeship, and have remained a member ever since. I am very happy to say that those attitudes have changed and, for many years now, apprentices have been welcomed into unions with open arms. I have been employed as an organiser, projects and political officer with the union for several years at different times and have always been amazed at the sheer amount of hard work that everyone would put in week after week, year after year. For most of this time, however, I was employed on site, for many years as a shop steward looking after the interests of members on the job. During this period I developed an interest in occupational health and safety, having seen the terrible results of building site accidents and poor work practices over many years. After many long years of part-time study I finally received my diploma of occupational health and safety. I would specifically like to acknowledge the guidance and support of the CFMEU Victorian branch training unit, Allan Mulveena from the ETU and Incolink. I also worked for a couple of years as a compliance officer for the Protect severance fund in Victoria. My role was to ensure that employers paid entitlements in a timely manner on behalf of their workers into the fund. This job required a huge amount of time and effort but came with its own rewards in ensuring that workers received their legal entitlements from employers that could then be accessed on termination. I joined the ALP in 1997 as a reaction to the Howard government’s attacks on the wages and conditions of Australian workers. Not too long after this the MUA-Patrick dispute was brought on by the Liberal government and I, along with many thousands of others, joined in the community protest in Melbourne. Firstly at Webb Dock and then also at Swanson East dock I saw firsthand the difference between Peter Reith’s depiction of wharfies and the real thing—workers through and through, sacked without notice and left to wonder how to pay the mortgage, pay the bills and support their families. And as we now know, the MUA-Patrick dispute was just the beginning of the Howard government’s long war on workers, reaching its dreadful pinnacle with Work Choices. I believe that the effect of Work Choices was the number one election issue in Deakin. At street stalls so many people would want to talk about how they or their friends or children had been ripped off by John Howard’s laws that sometimes I would have to go over my allotted time. I met many people in my campaign travels who had lost overtime rates, public holidays or shift allowances through being forced onto take it or leave it AWAs. The concern of Deakin residents over the effects of climate change, and the disbelief that the Howard government would not acknowledge reality, was also a frequent topic of discussion. It was an example of just how stale and out of touch the Howard government had become. Cost of living issues regarding mortgage and rental stress, the price of groceries and petrol, the cost of education as well as access to good affordable child care were also of concern to many residents, as was the concern over the lack of infrastructure investment. With a large percentage of residents over the age of 65 there was much concern voiced over aged care and pensions, and access to health care and hospitals. Labor’s policies to provide more funding for hospitals and dental health along with an increased number of aged-care beds were especially well received. And, of course, Kevin Rudd’s vision for an ‘education revolution’, underpinned by a comprehensive plan for a world-class national broadband network, was equally well received by the many working mums and dads of Deakin, who care above all else about the future of their children’s education. For these reasons the people of Deakin were a true barometer of the issues that were important to the nation during the election and still very much are today. Of course, there are many more vital issues that confront us as a nation than those I have mentioned so far. The skills shortage and training gaps that affect our nation’s capacity now will not be solely fixed in the long term by the continued importation of skilled labour under 457 visas. There is merit in importing labour as a temporary measure, but training more Australian workers and encouraging permanent migration in areas of skills shortage will have long-term benefits for our nation. What we as a nation should be doing is encouraging retraining and up-skilling programs not only for the unemployed but also for those already in unskilled or semiskilled jobs. Encouragement and support of adult apprenticeships by state and federal governments would help reduce this shortage over time. In conclusion, I look forward to being an active part of a Rudd Labor government with fresh ideas for Australia’s future. I look forward to ridding Australian workplaces of Work Choices and allowing workers and their unions the right to collectively bargain and organise together without the threat of unfair dismissal. I look forward to supporting ways of increasing the types and use of renewable energy to help combat climate change and to investigate and implement cheaper renewable alternatives. I look forward to meeting the challenge of reducing carbon emissions by setting realistic targets that will show the rest of the world that Australia is pulling its weight. I look forward to ensuring that children at government schools receive the best education possible through improved investment in learning. I look forward to supporting and increasing the number of trade apprenticeships. I look forward to working cooperatively with the Victorian state government and the two local government authorities in my electorate, Whitehorse and Maroondah city councils. I look forward to supporting a republic so that Australia may one day have an Australian head of state. And I will keep listening to the electorate and acting on issues that will improve the lives of people in Deakin and Australia as a whole. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the member for Moreton, I remind the House that this is the honourable member’s first speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. 849 10:22:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 1 Mr PERRETT —Firstly, Mr Speaker, may I congratulate you on your new position. You showed kindness to me on the first occasion that we met, and I am hopeful that this kindness will continue should the need arise—although that is very unlikely! I stand here beneath our radiant Southern Cross in this magnificent people’s building, below our coat of arms, very aware that I am a long way from the banks of the beautiful Balonne River. Nevertheless, I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land where I was born, the traditional owners of the Moreton electorate where I live and the traditional owners of the land here on which I stand. I thank them all for their continuing stewardship and was heartened last week to be welcomed here by Matilda House and her people. I also acknowledge the eight previous members who have represented the Federation seat of Moreton: James Wilkinson, Hugh Sinclair, Arnold Wienholt, Jos Francis, Jim Killen, Don Cameron, Garrie Gibson—who is up there in the chamber—and Gary Hardgrave. I especially appreciated the phone calls and good wishes from Don Cameron and Garrie Gibson. Unfortunately, one of Moreton’s most magnificent former members died last year, leaving giant shoes. Sir James Killen once declared in an exchange with Gough Whitlam—and with your indulgence I will quote—that he ‘swam bare-arsed in the Condamine with Aboriginals’. So I thought I should inform the House that I too have completed this feat. But, out of respect for my Murri friends from St George, I will not name anyone. When I grew up out west, it was not alongside members of the stolen generation. However, way too many of my Indigenous friends belong to a lost generation. It is very sad that not all of my Murri mates are around today to see where I have ended up. Brian, Greg, Frank, David—too many names, too many young lives lost and too many tears. There are way too many. I still see your faces and hear your songs. However, today is not about sad words. Too many sad words make a sad, sad song. Instead, I am cheered by the commitment made by Kevin Rudd and Jenny Macklin here last week after saying sorry to the stolen generations. Surely that was one of the greatest days in this parliament. I thank them both for the commitment to providing hope with dignity for so many Indigenous people. For way too long, I personally felt there was a void at the heart of Australia. It may have been a spiritual void or a moral void—I am not sure—but the ‘67 referendum and the Mabo decision both went some way to erasing the horrible fabrication that was terra nullius. Paul Keating’s Native Title Act was a further lurch towards making wrongs right. Let us hope that the legacy of this the 42nd Parliament will be the re-commencement of the journey towards healing, changing Indigenous lives and erasing that void. When I grew up in St George, politicians were blokes in tweed jackets who sporadically flitted into town, unveiled plaques and made long speeches at school assemblies. Today I see politicians from a different side. Now my Premier is a progressive woman called Anna who has probably never owned a tweed jacket and my Prime Minister is a nice, bright bloke called Kevin. His Queenslander is just down the road from mine but I hear he now has a nice house here in Canberra. I got into politics originally because that great visionary Paul Keating left this chamber. Do not get me wrong; it is not that I thought there was not room for the two of us. It is just that I was pretty happy with the world in the nineties while Mr Keating was my Prime Minister and Wayne Goss was my Premier. Once these two noble gentlemen were gone, I decided it was time to be more fair dinkum. Actions speak louder than whingeing, so I joined one of Australia’s greatest and proudest community organisations, the Australian Labor Party. Once I joined Labor, I was delighted to meet a few politicians, such as the current member for Brisbane, and quickly realised they were a lot like me. In fact, when I look at the earlier careers of most members in this chamber they are usually former teachers, solicitors, union officials, farmers or policy advisers or they are from the private sector. Because I have done every single one of those jobs, I am optimistic that my skills will help the good people of Moreton. Mr Speaker, as you might recall from your visit in 2004, my electorate is a majestic place. For the benefit of the chamber, I will detail some of its features. Moreton is close to the thriving heart of Brisbane but not too close. We are blessed with the peaceful Brisbane River to the north, the rugged beauty of Karawatha Forest to the south and the lungs of Oxley Creek to the west, and in the middle there is Toohey Forest and Griffith University. In addition to that seat of progressive learning, Moreton is also blessed with three other state-of-the-art training facilities, fantastic schools and great hospitals. Moreton has some of Australia’s major roads and train lines and is the engine room of manufacturing in Queensland. Unfortunately, this creates some local issues but I am committed to easing the congestion squeeze. I will not be passing the buck, unless it is only briefly back to the Leader of the House for discussion. I want to sort out the sound barriers on Riawena Road, the Acacia Ridge Elizabeth Street overpass, the Kessels and Mains Road intersection and the Toohey Road bike path. These are my first traffic priorities and I will work with the local and state governments to achieve real results, irrespective of their political flavour. Moreton is not all about business. It also has the best multicultural food in Australia. We have something to tickle your taste buds—whether it is the African restaurants of Moorooka, the Asian cuisine of Sunnybank or the Halal food of just about anywhere in Moreton. I especially acknowledge the representatives from the Chinese community who have flown down here to see me today: Ni hao ni hao, Lewis, Kenny and Jack. Xie xie xie xie ni. The Chinese diaspora is committed, like so many other groups in Moreton, to a harmonious, multicultural Australian society. Just like the wonderfully warm Islamic people, like Moreton’s varied churches and community and environmental groups, they are dedicated to understanding and tolerance. This is what makes Moreton the best place in the world to live or to visit. Contrary to earlier misguided statements, I do not see an exhausted community. Instead, I see suburbs full of people who are committed to getting on with and helping their neighbours. I do not believe in any form of racism. I do not believe in any form of discrimination or segregation. The Australian sense of the fair go is alive and well and living on the south side of Brisbane and I will work hard to make sure that unfair, racist accusations are never, ever again given oxygen in my neighbourhood. I stand here as somebody of Irish, French and Italian heritage, representing an electorate where one in three voters was born overseas. I wish to remind all Australians that the price of harmony is hard work. Each and every one of us must be eternally vigilant when it comes to community relations. We must knock on all our neighbours’ doors and offer a helping hand. We must build understanding, trust and friendship, irrespective of race, religion, age or political beliefs. I now wish to thank some of the people who helped get me here. Firstly, to my mother, the indomitable Peggy Perrett: your courage, stoicism, love of literature, telling yarns, travel and having good times with your friends inspired me as a child and guides me still as an adult—thank you, Mum; I am proud to stand here as your son. I also acknowledge my indefatigable father, Brian Perrett, and each and every one of my siblings—and, because my mum was a good Catholic girl, this will take a bit of time. Firstly, to David and Claire Perrett: David surely never thought 20 years ago when he helped erect this house of the people that his little brother would get to stand here in awe of the exquisite skill and craftsmanship. Next, to Debbie and Philip Bolin: thanks for all those years of babysitting, support and employment. My many years of labouring on your farm certainly made me study hard at university. I thank Malcolm Perrett, who is deceased, who is watching down from way up above the flagpole with my uncle Straw Morrissy, my partner’s father, Stanley Scoines, and my grandfather TJ Morrissy. Coincidentally, for the information of the members for Robertson and Solomon, my grandfather comes from Deuchar, an outer suburb of Allora. My great uncle’s name, James Alphonsus Morrissy, is on the Allora war memorial because he lost his life at Ypres. Surely, there is nothing more moving than standing at the Menin Gate and seeing all those young names. Thanks to my brother Mark and to Karyn Perrett for teaching me to appreciate nature, and especially to Mark for his laughter and strength; to Simon Perrett, who is in the gallery, and Michael Threlfo, for their sterling work on my election campaigns and godfather duties; to Kerry and Peter Shearer for their friendship, love and, most importantly, babysitting; to Timothy Perrett, my younger brother, for showing me horribly through his tragic workplace accident and the deaths of his two fellow workers the importance of health and safety on worksites—everybody in this chamber must recognise the important role our unions play in saving lives every single day all around Australia; to Nick Perrett and Tony, for making me laugh and never for one minute thinking that I am the best; and, lastly, to Megan, the last Perrett in the Perrett family but definitely not the least, one of the most generous people I have ever met, the best electrician in Queensland—without offending the member for Deakin; I did say Queensland—and a godmother par excellence. I also wish to go on the record and thank some very good friends: Peter Brown; Michael Watson; my teachers in St George, Linda Walsh and Anne Reilly; Erin Brady, John Carozza and all the Gophers; Judi Locke; David O’Sullivan; Roy Nott; David Dall’Antonio; Karen Campbell; Dean Sullivan; Annie Ballard; Chris Holt; Thomas Pedersen; Noel Niddrie, who is here in the gallery; Dene Crocker, also in the gallery; Peter Shaw, up in the gallery; and Greg Rudd. I also acknowledge my mentors: in education, Gary McLennan, Graham Bruce, Debbie Colquhoun, Joe Ryan, Dell Jones and Brother Terence Heinrich; in law, Michael Quinn; and in mining, Stephen Robertson, Geoff Wilson and Michael Roche—thank you all for your guidance. I also proudly acknowledge my godchildren—Tricia Bolin; August Sullivan; Alexander Crocker, who is also up in the gallery; Charlotte Nott; and Erin Shearer—and hope that my spiritual guidance will always pass muster, especially on the floor of the chamber. I willingly thank all my friends and comrades in the union movement and the ALP. As a so-called union thug, I gladly acknowledge the crucial role the labour movement played in my election night success. So many decent, talented, hardworking, honourable people worked incredible hours. To quote from that great Western philosopher from the 1980s, ‘I love youse all’—that is Western Sydney, of course. I am especially thankful to Russell Carr and the AMIEU for their support and advice, the LHMU, the ETU, the RTBUA, the AMWU and my old union, QIEU. To Andrew and Trish Ramsay, Ken and Robin Boyne and all of the Your Rights at Work team—thank you, thank you, thank you and thank you again. I acknowledge my previous campaign managers: Jo Justo and Karen Struthers; and my 2007 campaign director Roslyn McLennan, aka Wonder Woman—Ros, you are an absolute legend. Unfortunately, my campaign directors seem to keep having babies—this has got nothing to do with me—so it might make it hard for me to recruit somebody for the ‘Kevin11’ campaign, but I will worry about that later. One thing is certain, the future of Labor is in safe hands whenever women of this calibre take leadership roles. Thank you to the rest of the Moreton team: David Forde, the most passionate Irishman in Australia, which is saying something; Terry Wood from the ALP; the rest of the ALP team, Dallas Elvery, Brad Hayes, the irrepressible Kate Perry; and Braedan Hogan; all of the union and Labor Party members; family and friends; community leaders like Faisal Hatia, Father John Scarriott and Mustafa Ally; the elected representatives at the state level, Karen Struthers, Stephen Robertson, Anna Bligh, Phil Reeves, Simon Finn, Ronan Lee, Judy Spence and Gary Fenlon; Steve Griffiths, Helen Abrahams, Gail Macpherson and Kevin Bianci from the Brisbane City Council; and also to Craig Emerson, Tony Burke, Joseph Ludwig and Claire Moore from the federal parliament. These people all worked to restore fairness in the workplace and install me in this chamber, where the people are the boss. I especially remind the other side of the House of this fact: the people of Australia are our bosses and they spoke very loudly and very clearly. It was truly humbling to see the incredible work that my branch members and union volunteers did throughout Moreton. And why did they do this? They worked tirelessly simply because they believed in a fair and decent Australia. I promise solemnly right here and right now to serve all of Moreton diligently and honestly. I will work to ensure that the Australian fair go is not forgone—never again, not in Moreton, not on my watch, not on our watch. I finish my thanks and acknowledgements with the two most important people in my life—with all due respect to you, Mr Speaker, and to the whip! I see they have been consigned to the soundproof chamber up above. The first person is only two years old but already my greatest inspiration—Stanley Che Scoines Perrett, known to his friends as Stan. Stan, as you read this speech, please accept my heart-wrenching apology for all of the nights and days of your life that I missed because of my commitment to the people of Moreton and the great Commonwealth of Australia. Secondly, I thank my best friend, who also happens to be one of the funniest and brightest people I have ever met, and the most beautiful woman in the world—my partner, my wife, my love, my life: Lea Scoines. I give you all my love and the assurance that I will miss you every single night that I am away. I will walk the line. They say that behind every successful man stands a very surprised woman. Lea, thank you for always hiding your look of surprise. So how did I get here? Well, I have answered that question by listing some of the people who helped me over the last 42 years to arrive here in the 42nd Parliament as one of 42 new MPs. It has been said that the Ultimate Answer to the Great Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42. Mr Speaker, as I am now 42 it is time for me to ask existentially and practically: why am I here? The answer: I’m from Moreton and I’m here to help. How? Firstly, I wish to bring some poetry and literature back to this chamber and throughout Moreton. They say that if you want to avoid offence at a dinner party you should avoid discussing politics and religion. I taught in Catholic schools for eight years and was a union organiser in Christian schools for five years, and I met some of the most decent people I have ever encountered on this planet. I quickly found out that it is not what people profess to believe but what they do that counts. Back to religion and politics: I tell you, if you really want to put some people offside, it is not politics or religion that does it; all you have to do is recite a bit of poetry. Mr Speaker, I give you fair notice that it is my intention to bring some more poetry and literature back into this chamber. To paraphrase Les Murray, Australians need more absolutely ordinary rainbows. Secondly, I will continue to assist Moreton’s very healthy multicultural community in projects such as the African business initiatives, a Chinese war memorial and a south-side multicultural community centre. Thirdly, I will assist groups like the Kyabra Community Association to stamp out homelessness. One of the saddest things I had to do when I became a candidate was to resign from the board of the Kyabra Community Association. On a recent tour of a homeless shelter in the Prime Minister’s electorate, it broke my heart to see the small lockers that people used to store all that they had amassed in their life. My host, Jeff, said that often people did not even bother coming back to collect all their stuff, to collect all of their life. I know that I will not be comforted on my deathbed by anything I have amassed. Instead, the achievement I want to stack beside me is the times I helped ease the pain and strain of those doing it tough on our streets. The white light has come on, so the last item on my agenda is all about timing. It came to me when the Member for Forde and I rushed over to attend an Organ Donor Awareness function last Thursday. Some people are wearing these wrist bands. When we got there we were told by Anne Cahill Lambert that we were too late. Anne stood there with her oxygen machine and told us that it was all over—too late. For me, the presentation I had missed was not life or death, but organ donation is life and death for Anne. During the 2007 election campaign it was also too late for my friend Debbie Duddridge. Debbie had been waiting on a set of lungs for more than two years but on 29 October last year it became too late. How many other Debbies are out there? How many Annes? Waiting, hoping, that it will not be too late. Australia’s rate of organ donation is shameful. We need to work with our doctors to change this, but you too can help. Have you signed an organ donation form? If not, why not? Have you clearly told your loved ones that you would love your body to keep on working long after you are gone? If not, why not? If your religion prevents you, perhaps you need to have another talk with your God. Whether you are watching, listening to or reading this speech, the question you need to ask yourself is: why not? Please commit today to doing somebody else a favour after you are gone. Caring is doing. If you don’t do, you really don’t care. 854 10:43:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —I join in congratulating the new member for Moreton on his maiden speech. The then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, announced in his budget-in-reply speech last year that he would provide the then Prime Minister, John Howard, with bipartisan support to build a national consensus around our historic Murray-Darling Basin initiative. This initiative, of course, aimed at overcoming the century of fractured management of the basin, which is divided between jurisdictions—four states, the ACT and the Commonwealth. Successive state as well as federal Labor governments have never tackled the longstanding problems of the Murray-Darling Basin—water overallocation, ecological and governance problems. This city-centric, union-dominated Labor government is probably still unfamiliar with the concept of total catchment management—a hot topic in the 1970s—but what is Minister Wong’s excuse for her continuing failure to bring all of the Labor state governments to the table so that they can begin to manage this huge, interdependent and stressed ecosystem, the Murray-Darling Basin? It must be managed as a whole, and urgently. I acknowledge that the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, is trying very hard to bring the Victorian Labor government kicking and screaming to sign up with their fellow states to the National Water Initiative intergovernmental agreement. Mr Brumby, the Premier of Victoria, was recently quoted as saying: ‘Victoria has long held the position that the Murray-Darling system requires a national approach.’ So what side deal is the Premier, Mr Brumby, demanding in return for Victoria’s sign-on? What is the delay? We need this better governance and better management of the Murray-Darling Basin to commence urgently. The system is under great stress. Unfortunately, all the indications are that the sign-on by Victoria may be at the expense of the rural water users of northern Victoria. I have this concern because the Premier of Victoria, like his predecessor, Mr Bracks, has been caught short without a non-climate dependent sustainable plan for his capital city’s future water supply. The same problem applies to a number of other regional Victorian cities such as Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong. There has been scant attention paid to urban recycling, stormwater harvesting or pricing mechanisms to ensure these urban water users are drought proofed. Victoria now has fixed terms for their parliament, so the clock is ticking to the time when city voters visit their water restriction frustrations on their Premier and his party. But the Victorian government has hit on a plan. It is technologically simple and can be delivered before their next election in 2009. Unfortunately, the plan does not deliver any short- or long-term water security to Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo, it is environmentally damaging and it does not represent value for money. It removes the future water security from the northern Victorian food bowl producers, who are dependent on the tributaries to the Murray. The plan is to pipe water south, out of the stressed Murray-Darling Basin, up over the Great Dividing Range, to Melbourne, Geelong and Ballarat and, on the way, to fill the ornamental lakes and water the gardens of Bendigo. One pipeline is already built to Bendigo and, as we speak, it is forcing water out of the near-empty Eildon Dam into the muddy wastes of Eppalock. This pipeline is discharging this water because they want to make sure they beat the rush as irrigators try to do a last autumn watering to save their failing crops and dying livestock. In northern Victoria they have been in drought for the last seven years. The uncertainty and stress caused by these pipeline plans has had, as you can imagine, a terrible impact on northern Victorian irrigators, stock and domestic supply users, and the communities who depend on their enterprise. Primary producers are literally selling their remaining water rights and walking off farms because the Victorian government has shown it has no interest in the viability of their farm business or their communities’ survival. Up to 30 per cent of water rights have been sold out of some districts, threatening the viability of the water supply system itself, an irrigation system some 100 years old. The Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, then Leader of the Opposition, made one fleeting reference to the problem of drought and the catastrophic impacts of the loss of water security for regions in his May address-in-reply budget speech. There has been scarcely anything more announced then or since. In his speech in May 2007, Mr Rudd announced: We can improve water security for local communities. That is why we have committed to funding the goldfields super pipe for Bendigo and Ballarat ... So at that time the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, was in perfect agreement with Premier Brumby of Victoria. The water restriction problems of the cities of Bendigo and Ballarat could be solved by taking water out of the food bowl of northern Victoria, which had been a multibillion dollar per year farm production sector. We need to know what Mr Rudd, the Prime Minister, and his ministers for the environment and water think now, given the dust has long settled on the hot political contest for the two extremely marginal seats of Bendigo and Ballarat. There was no environmental, social or economic evaluation of the impact of the so-called ‘goldfields super pipe’ pipelines before the projects were announced as a done deal by the Premier of Victoria—quite an extraordinary thing! So let us unpack this decision to pipe water out of one failing catchment, in the Murray-Darling Basin, to others with far better local water supply and recycling opportunities. Then I will conclude my remarks by asking: why is the Rudd government continuing to support the still-to-be-built Ballarat pipeline and will it ensure the use of the Commonwealth EPBC Act does not become a mockery as the Melbourne to Geelong pipeline is put on the table for urgent construction before the next Victorian election? The so-called ‘goldfields super pipe’ takes water from the Goulburn River within the Murray-Darling Basin in Victoria up over the central highlands to the city of Ballarat. Ballarat enjoys a natural rainfall double the volume of that of northern Victoria—which is to supply this water. Ballarat is also close by one of the biggest good-quality groundwater systems in western Victoria—the Otways. Ballarat has virtually no recycling of water for domestic or industry consumption. The amount of coal produced energy required to push the water over the divide from the droughted farmers and the stricken northern Victorian environment is simply obscene. No-one who claims they care about carbon emissions and climate change would contemplate such a project on the basis of climate change impacts alone. Along the way, this so-called ‘goldfields super pipe’ also supplies Bendigo and its surrounding communities. This is another population which has been failed by successive Victorian Labor governments, who have ignored their impending water supply crisis. Bendigo has, like Ballarat, next to no water recycling. Its 100-year-old stock and domestic system leaks more water than it delivers and as much as the city of Bendigo needs annually. But the state owned Coliban Water supply authority says it cannot afford to pipe the stock and domestic system for at least another 15 years because the state government will not give it the money. How has the Victorian government managed to placate the concerns of the future water recipients—the people at the end of the pipe, the toilet flushers and the car washers of Melbourne, Ballarat and Geelong? These people are aware of the extreme stress in the Murray-Darling Basin system and the extreme pressure on the tributaries of the Murray, particularly the Goulburn, Broken, Campaspe, Loddon and Avoca rivers. The people in Melbourne, Geelong and Ballarat know that we have had seven years of the worst drought on record. They know about the human impact of the drought and they are aware of the dying red gums and the depleted Ramsar listed wetlands in the Barmah Forest, the world’s biggest red gum forest. I believe Melbourne, Geelong and Ballarat people know and care about these problems and issues. But how have they been placated so that they are not marching in the streets beside the northern Victorians, who regularly march in the streets saying to the Premier of Victoria, ‘Enough is enough’? The people have been placated through the Premier saying, ‘This is not a problem because we are going to fund the food bowl modernisation project.’ The Victorian government has acknowledged that this requires $2.5 billion of funds to be invested into their own state owned Goulburn-Murray water supply system. This $2.5 billion, it says, will help save the water which currently leaks, seeps and evaporates out of their century-old irrigation supply system. It also acknowledges that there are a lot of on-farm water-saving works that could be done if farmers could afford to do them—given they have been in seven years of drought and are at the end of their economic, emotional and psychological resources to do the water-saving measures that are now needed. The state government said, ‘We acknowledge $2.5 billion is needed to invest in our own state owned water supply system. We’ll give northern Victoria $600 million, not $2.5 billion. We’ll get another $400 million out of Melbourne water users and northern Victoria water users, and we’ll do some works on our supply system in northern Victoria, and whatever savings of water we get out of those works we’ll give a third to irrigators, a third to the environment and take the other third to Melbourne.’ That sounds like, perhaps, a reasonable proposition, maybe even a good deal; but look at the detail and what the experts say about the volume of water that can be saved with $600 million plus $400 million worth of infrastructure investment. That investment is mostly being put into new meters—I never did see a new meter save water—and into things like total channel control. When we question if those water savings are really there—particularly in the dry, drought years which we are assured will be even more likely with climate change—to ensure that at least 75 gigalitres goes to Melbourne and Geelong each year, the Victorian government says, ‘Yes, that is a problem, isn’t it? We’ve got an even better short-term solution. We will take the environmental reserve out of Eildon Dam to supply Melbourne’s toilets, car washing and leaf flushing because Melbourne urban water users can’t be left water short.’ This environmental reserve in the Goulburn system in the Eildon Dam is about 30 gigalitres of water. It is of the highest security of all. Irrigators cannot use it. It is a volume of water reserved in Eildon Dam to use for flushing the Goulburn River should there be a toxic blue-green algae outbreak. These blue-green algae outbreaks occur in hot weather when the water is shallow—the conditions that exist now. When toxic blue-green algae outbreaks occur, the ecosystem is quickly poisoned and there can be no human consumption of the water. That is why that environmental reserve is there in Eildon Dam. But Mr Brumby has said: ‘That’s okay, we will take it and pipe it to Melbourne. We acknowledge the savings we talk about by our investment in the water supply system won’t be there, particularly in dry years, but we cannot leave Melbourne short of water.’ I say to the Victorian government that you have shamefully neglected Melbourne’s sustainable water resource during your time in government. Melbourne does not have recycling in any way, shape or form as it should. Stormwater harvesting is virtually nonexistent and the dumping of all treated sewage water out at Gunnamatta is a disgrace. Melbourne water users are profligate in their use. The water-pricing mechanisms for Melbourne water consumption in no way reflects the cost and value of the water and the need to conserve it. Instead of tackling these sorts of issues and finding solutions to Melbourne’s long-term water supply, we have this quick and dirty and technologically simple fix of taking water from the Murray-Darling Basin over the divide in the north of the state of Victoria to the urban water users of Bendigo, Geelong, Ballarat and Melbourne. Those members in this chamber will not be surprised to know that environmental, social and economic assessments or the impacts of the Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat or Bendigo pipelines were never done. There were no environment assessments undertaken before these pipelines were announced as a done deal. You might say that that is extraordinary. How could that be in the 21st century with a democratically elected government? The Bendigo pipeline is already completed and it is pushing water out of the near depleted Eildon Dam into the muddy waste of the Eppalock Dam. The Bendigo pipeline is in place, the Ballarat pipeline is yet to come and the Melbourne pipeline is on its way, we are assured. I want to commend the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, in saying: ‘Hang on, this is just too embarrassing. Enough is enough. We will now declare the Goulburn system to Melbourne north-south pipeline a controlled action under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.’ Mr Garrett has realised you just cannot keep going on like this and get away with it, even though you ignore the farmers marching in the streets, because the metro media do not print their problems, and even though you consistently say, ‘This is not a problem because we will find water savings somehow.’ Mr Garrett has said, ‘This north-south pipeline, the Goulburn system to Melbourne and Geelong, is a controlled action,’ under the EPBC Act. He declared this about the middle of last week. I congratulate him for doing that. He got into an enough strife with the dredging of the bay and he is in a bit of bother with the desalinisation plant. But I am pleased he made this announcement about the north-south pipeline. However, I am shocked to see, just five working days after Mr Garrett’s announcement, that we already have the report. Here it is: the ‘Sugarloaf pipeline project’. You might wonder why this Melbourne-Goulburn Valley, north-south pipeline, is now called the Sugarloaf project. It was an attempt to hide it from the public, but we discovered in time that this project is now called Sugarloaf, after one of the reservoirs on the way. Just a few working days after the declaration of this pipeline project as a controlled action, we have the Victorian government’s project impact assessment report. I have to tell you, I am shocked and ashamed. This report is thin. It regularly says: ‘Well, of course, we’re going to have to do more work assessing here and assessing there. Yes, there are scores of endangered and vulnerable flora and fauna, as listed in the EPBC Act, that will be in the way of the pipeline. But we believe we can put in some mitigating measures. Perhaps we can put the pipeline overland here rather than under there. The job will be right. Don’t you worry about that.’ That is what this Sugarloaf pipeline project report basically says. It does not go into the impacts of the loss of the water from the Murray-Darling Basin in northern Victoria and the impacts on the flora and fauna across the riverine tracts of the Broken, Goulburn and Murray rivers. It does not talk about the impacts of taking the environmental reserve out of Eildon Dam. Without this reserve we will have nothing to fight the toxic blue-green algal blooms, which, as we speak, are a threat in the Murray. This pipeline project document at last says: ‘Oh, dear, yes, there are some Indigenous heritage issues. Hmm. We’ll think about those,’ though it does not identify them in detail and says, ‘We need to do a bit more work there too.’ We are supposed to accept this project impact assessment five working days after its declaration as a controlled action as the answer to removing what last year would have been 30 per cent of the northern Victoria irrigation region’s water supply to flush down the toilets of Melbourne. Why doesn’t the Premier really take a statesmanlike approach here and say: ‘This doesn’t drought proof Melbourne. This was a quick and dirty political fix. We were panicked by Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo people not being able to water their roses. We didn’t really care about the food bowl future of northern Victoria—that multibillion dollar industry and income generator. We thought we could get away with it by throwing $600 million at them rather than fixing up our own state owned water infrastructure’? I am calling on the minister, Mr Garrett, to ensure they do better. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Before I call Mr Ramsey, I remind honourable members that this is his first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him. 858 11:03:00 Ramsey, Rowan, MP HWS Grey LP 0 1 Mr RAMSEY —Mr Speaker, I acknowledge and congratulate you on your appointment. I stand before you today as the proud and humble representative of the people of Grey. I am the 11th member in over 100 years and just the third Liberal to hold the seat. Grey was named for Sir George Grey, who served as Governor of South Australia from 1841 to 1845. It seemed like some kind of message to me when, in May last year, I walked into the basement of St Pauls Cathedral, London, and looked at the floor and realised I was standing on the resting place of Sir George Grey, also a former Governor and Premier of New Zealand, Governor of Cape Colony in South Africa and an explorer in Western Australia. I had a quiet word with him and told him I intended to keep an eye on his patch, if I were chosen as its new member. I was raised as one of four children on the family farm at Buckleboo, where I still live. My three sisters all pursued professional careers, producing a teacher, a pharmacist and a doctor. One of them, Janet, a long-term resident of Canberra, is here in the gallery today. I would like to thank my parents, Eric and Dora, for instilling in me a sense of social obligation and a Christian compassion for all. My mother, a genteel lady with a great singing voice, is the author of my compassion for those in society who struggle. My father is a unique individual of high intelligence and great stamina. At the age of 80, he was still driving a truck at harvest time. At about that time, he rode a pushbike 115 kilometres from Arno Bay to Port Lincoln to raise money for cancer research. When he got there, he realised he had left his companions behind. All of them were much younger than him. Never a patient man, my father; he rode back almost 10 kilometres to escort them in. To him, I owe my energy and passion for life. To my campaign team, thank you. I make special mention of my campaign manager, Heather Baldock, and her husband, Graeme, and friends, neighbours and fervent supporters here in the gallery today. To my home branch of Kimba, the other 30 Liberal Party branches spread across Grey and the more than 1,000 volunteers out there on election day, thank you and well done. Special thanks to a number of federal and state colleagues, in particular Senators Ferguson and Bernardi, and Graham Gunn. I am given strength by those in my community who have great faith in me. I dearly thank the Buckleboo crew, also here today, who have a round trip of a thousand kilometres just to catch the plane in Adelaide to be with us today. I am inordinately proud of my three children, all in the gallery. My eldest daughter, Alexandra, is a chemical engineer and currently working out of Darwin. My second daughter, Courtney, has just completed first class honours in science, and Lachlan is a second-year civil engineering student. Purposeful and self motivated, they are already making a success of life. Families provide loving, caring, stable and trusting environments for children. They are the building blocks of our nation; their failure threatens our future. It is our responsibility as parliamentary representatives to do all we can to support them. To my wonderful wife, Teresa, who supports me, gives me strength and has committed to sharing this life on the road: thank you. I do not think I could overemphasise how difficult it would be in an electorate the size of Grey to retain a working marriage if one partner did not make the type of commitment she has made to me. I have a long involvement with leadership in community affairs. Sporting clubs, Apex, hospital boards, agricultural research, farming organisations and the Liberal Party have all given me the opportunity to contribute. I am incredibly privileged to now take that community commitment to a national level. The population of my home town of Kimba is just 1,200; it has, though, made a significant political contribution. It is remarkable that I am the fourth person from Kimba to be elected to parliament in the last 40 years—three of us, I think, inspired by the first, Arthur Whyte, who established the Liberal Party branch in Kimba and went on to become the President of the Legislative Council in South Australia. Arthur has been followed by his daughter Caroline Schaefer, who is currently a legislative councillor, and my predecessor, Barry Wakelin, who served this place and the electorate of Grey with distinction for almost 15 years. Barry was a man of the people who the electorate increasingly warmed to the longer he was in office. I must also acknowledge his wife, Tina, who was the other half of ‘Team Wakelin’. A former staffer said to me, ‘Great value—we got two for the price of one.’ Those of you who know Tina would appreciate that comment. I am often asked what it is about Kimba and leadership. It is a good question. I think it has something to do with being on the edge economically, geographically and socially—the attitude that, if you are not prepared to help yourself, why should you expect someone else to help? My local football club, Buckleboo, in 1984 built what is even by today’s standards a magnificent clubroom 35 kilometres from town, surrounded by trees and paddocks—hence the name ‘the club in the scrub’. Built at a cost of nearly $300,000, today’s value would be around $2 million. There was no public funding—just 40 families determined to help themselves. Local guarantors were paid off in three short years. It is a testimony to the power of positive attitude: if you want something done, get off your backside and make it happen. Sadly, it is an Australian attitude we are fast losing. We are a much poorer society for losing it. That leads me to my frustration with what I see as our collective lack of individual accountability. Whenever things go wrong in our society, we start to search for someone to blame. If we trip over, it is because someone else left a rock on the footpath. Surely we have some level of personal responsibility. Nurses in hospitals spend more time filling out records than providing nursing care so they can prove that, should anything go wrong, it was not their fault. In the end, these impediments lead to a weakening of the decision-making process. People avoid making decisions in case they get it wrong. It has often been said that our diggers built an unparalleled reputation for their ability to respond in an independent fashion, to take charge in the event that they lost their leadership, to make decisions under pressure. It is what made them the best soldiers in the world. The independent spirit on which Australia was built is being strangled. I am attracted to the Liberal Party ideal that those who can, should take charge of their own lives. Many of the reforms of the last decade have been aimed at just that outcome: encouragement to take out private health cover, to contribute to your own retirement plan, to utilise independent options for your children’s education—in short, taking care of your own business but still believing there must be quality public options for those who cannot or choose not to take this path. This world is not awash with democracy; we are extremely fortunate and privileged to live here. I have news for the many who believe that this is such a great country in spite of our politicians and our system: we have such a great country because of those things. We employ a government to run the country, then we employ an opposition to examine every move they make, to highlight poor policy, bad practice and corruption. Should they find any of those things, we have the opportunity to vote and change the government with no bloodshed and little disruption. As a stable, mature and wealthy democracy, Australia has a role in the world far beyond what one might expect from a country of this size. Our ability to engineer the liberalisation of world trade, whilst being in our interest, is of far greater value to those developing nations around the world. The globalisation of the world economy that sees production shift to low-cost economies spreads the wealth of the world. Poverty is the illegitimate bedfellow of conflict and it should be core business for Australia to be well engaged in this area. The electorate of Grey, the third biggest in the nation at almost 905,000 square kilometres, is by any standards vast. It stretches from the borders of Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales to Marion Bay on the Yorke Peninsula and Eudunda in the south. It has 27 councils, 137 schools and 36 hospitals, which serve an enormous number of individual communities. It can present some challenges for a local member. I noticed in his maiden address to this House the member for Wentworth remarked he could paddle a surf ski the length of his electorate in an hour. We are a bit short on water in parts of Grey, so the surf ski might be a bit of a stretch; to put it in context, it takes me an hour and a half in a jumbo jet to get across Grey. My electorate is often seen as the big rural seat in South Australia when in fact half of the population live in the industrial cities of Whyalla, Port Pirie and Port Augusta—great examples of multicultural Australia. Whyalla, for example, is home to over 90 different nationalities—friendly, cooperative, tolerant and all with an allegiance to Australia. It is an electorate of incredible contrasts, from some of the driest deserts in Australia, with rainfall of less than 100 millimetres a year, to some of the most fertile farmlands on the Yorke and Eyre peninsulas. There are dramatic visual icons like the ancient sentinels of the Flinders Ranges; huge salt lakes, including Lake Eyre; the feast or famine of Australia’s inland rivers; and a stunning coastline from the Great Australian Bight to the pristine white sandy beaches of the Yorke and Eyre peninsulas. There is dramatic history, such as the opening of inland Australia. The names, places and icons roll off the tongue: the Overland Telegraph Line; the Afghan camel drivers and their rail replacement, the Ghan; the Birdsville, Oodnadatta and Strzelecki tracks. These are great slabs of Australian folklore. The economy of the electorate is currently enjoying the benefits of the mining boom, which is helping revitalise the industrial cities. Unemployment rates in these centres, while still above the national averages, have declined markedly in the past 10 years and are a testimony to the excellent economic management of the previous government. We are incredibly energy rich and have new-age energy. Already the world’s pre-eminent supplier of uranium, a greenhouse friendly fuel, it seems we are almost daily discovering new deposits of hot rocks; we have many of the best sites in southern Australia for wind farms; and we are blessed—even though some say cursed—with huge areas that enjoy more than abundant sunlight for the production of solar electricity. Both sides of politics are committed to a carbon trading scheme, as we must be, to curb the effects of global warming. The Cooper Basin has been a major supplier of Australia’s oil and gas, and this will continue but production has peaked. It will have a new economic life because of its unique position to become the country’s major storage area for carbon dioxide. Not only are we rich with energy but already BHP’s Olympic Dam is one of the great copper mines of the world, with a proposed expansion set to more than triple its size. Major developments at Prominent Hill, world-class mineral sands deposits in the west, the expansion of iron ore near Whyalla, along with a number of new deposits on Eyre Peninsula and in the far north, are all adding to a heady mix. It is my goal to assist local communities in retaining a fair slice of the benefits in our electorate, to keep workers living in their regional towns and cities, to get governments to reinvest a fair share of the dividend in the areas it came from and not use it just as a cash cow. Balancing the promotion of this dynamic sector will present a lot of challenges, and it is a task that I do not take lightly. I will hope to focus decisions that will enable us not only to create jobs but also to pass on a legacy of good management to our children. We cannot live in this world without making some impact on the natural environment, but neither can we have an exploit-at-all-costs mentality. With more than 70 per cent of South Australia’s coastline, Grey is the major player in our fishing and aquaculture industries. Port Lincoln is the home of the great southern bluefin tuna industry, resuscitated by the pioneering of farmed tuna. As the world’s wild-stock fisheries are reaching their limits, aquaculture is providing the promise of tomorrow. Already we are farming abalone, oysters, kingfish and mussels, and we are on the verge of closing the breeding cycle of tuna. Visionary investment in the infrastructure area will be needed for the region to reach its full potential. Roads, rail, ports, air facilities, electrical interconnectors and water generation will all need investment. I welcome the government’s commitment to skills training and urge them to support the very successful Australian technical college established on the three campuses in the upper Spencer Gulf. This is a great educational model. It is strongly supported by industry, by schools and by the public. This parliament and this generation must have a significant effect on the welfare of Indigenous Australia. The electorate has over 9,000 of Aboriginal descent, many living in some of the most remote parts of our nation in settlements of a similar nature to the type targeted in the intervention in the Northern Territory. I welcome the apology to the Aboriginal peoples. I fervently hope that this will provide comfort to those who were adversely affected by policies, attitudes and actions of the past. We will now be measured by what the nation does in a practical sense to achieve real changes to the outcomes of many in this part of our community. We must not return to an ideology that sees Aboriginal Australia as just victims, who deserve welfare. Long-term welfare robs people of dignity and purpose. If no economic basis exists for a community, it will eventually cease to exist. There is nothing more assured to destroy any human soul than the uselessness of perpetual unemployment. If it is important that these people stay on their traditional lands, it is imperative they be opened up to development partnerships. Tourism, mining and more traditional agricultural activities can provide the economic base for these inland communities to flourish. The government has supported the intervention. I urge it to stand by this commitment. We can no longer accept a second Australia in these remote communities. For that reason, I call upon the government to reconsider its move to reinstate the permit system. A situation where parts of our country and parts of our population are hidden and allowed to be measured by a different, inferior standard cannot continue. Might I pause here to commiserate with Mal Brough, who had the strength to begin the task. The contribution he has made, and was about to make, to the Indigenous future of Australia cannot be overstated. This parliament has lost a great champion of the cause—a man who truly made a difference. I have behind me a 30-year career in agriculture—an industry I count myself very fortunate to have been involved with. Modern agriculture is a dynamic industry. To survive, Australian farmers have had to embrace innovation. We have seen incredible technological changes, and today’s methods of farming are so different from those my father used. Precision farming, modern marketing techniques, complex soils and crop analysis mean that today’s farmer is extremely multiskilled. I have had a long involvement in cutting-edge dryland farming research, firstly as a member and then as Chair of the Eyre Peninsula Agricultural Research Foundation. I am strongly aware of the important role that a well-funded research and development capacity plays not just in agriculture but in all industries. It is disturbing to note that, as a first line of business, the new government has slashed $10 million that was put in place to support agricultural research at a time of deficiencies in levy income caused by the drought. There is plenty of debate about whether this drought is a result of climate change or whether it is just a good old-fashioned drought, albeit at the very extremes of our recorded experiences. I think it is probably both. As a farmer living in some of the driest cropping country in the world, I am acutely aware of the challenges of climate change. If southern Australia is to suffer a reduction in rainfall, it stands to reason we will be the first to feel its bite. But, whatever the cause, the results are very real. Inland towns with no alternative economies are losing a generation of young people, their skilled tradespeople, their young families and, unless we decide otherwise, government services. There are limits on what governments can do, but we should not be the catalyst that causes services to disappear. The closure of a school, a hospital or even a school bus run can have devastating knock-on effects for a small community. We should, however, remain optimistic about the future of agriculture. With a world population pushing toward seven billion, the booming economies of Asia will increase the demand for Western diets and energy, and we are in the box seat to provide what they need. Living in rural Australia is a great privilege but, unfortunately, it can come at cost. Inequality with urban Australia in the key areas of health, education and communication are contributing to the country-city drift. Downgrading of rural health services to where many are little more than first aid centres has resulted in a continual deskilling of our professional staff, leading to job dissatisfaction and the inability to respond to emergency situations. Doctors will not serve in rural areas where there are no or inadequate hospitals. Individual efficiencies do not always compensate for the worth of the total package. Withdrawal of services can have complex, far-reaching implications for the whole community. It is worth noting that the South Australian government is currently moving nearly 260 country based jobs, many of them in the health industry, to Adelaide, in the name of efficiency. Quality education can become a huge financial burden to parents. I do not normally support non-means-tested allowances, but in this case, where students are required to live away from home to access subjects of their choice, including tertiary, they should receive assistance. Parents choose where they live, but, in this case, it can be the children who wear the cost. One must seriously doubt the viability of the government’s plan to roll out a fibre to the node network to 98 per cent of Australia. This plan spends the $2 billion telecommunication fund put in place to provide for the very demographic I represent. I strongly urge the government to revisit their technology mix to ensure that rural people receive a fast, modern service and are not left behind when the cash runs out. Rural and regional business needs the same kinds of access to telecommunication as the rest of the community. Our cities provide great diversity and opportunities in what is otherwise a rural landscape. They are the centres that provide higher levels of medical, aged and educational services, industry training and a face to the arts. The greatest threat to their continued growth is certainty of water supply. The cities of the Upper Spencer Gulf and their industries are 100 per cent reliant on the Murray. My electorate and the rest of Australia can no longer stand delays in implementing national control of the Murray. There is no greater curse to a nation than that of high unemployment. We are currently enjoying the lowest rates in more than 35 years. Full credit for this must go to the previous government. Significant inroads have been made into the long-term unemployed. Small business, the backbone of our economy, determines the kind of employment numbers that we ultimately end up with. It has been encouraged by changes in the industrial system to expand and to take on extra staff. The next few years are now uncertain, and I urge the government to take great care with their changes to industrial relations lest they sour the well of jobs growth. Programs such as the Welfare to Work reforms are not about savings to the national economy; they are about individuals taking control of their lives. We know that people who are employed have much better outcomes in all areas of their lives. The Australians we can get into the workforce have better health, better education, stronger families and better lives. But there are some groups in our society who will never be able to take control of their own lives in this fashion. The permanently severely disabled are just one. Things have improved, but we have further to go. Australia is a wealthy country, and people who, through no fault of their own, find life a daily struggle, should not have to. Parents and relatives burdened with the terrible worry of what will happen when they can no longer cope need a more certain future. As with so many of these service type issues, the problems get worse the further you get from capital cities. The opportunities for those of us elected to parliament are enormous. We have the task of identifying the difficulties, the injustices and the great opportunities for progress in our society, and we are given a chance to make a real difference. After all, isn’t that why we all came here? I give the people of Grey my pledge that my door is always open. I take on your issues as my own, and may we together have many triumphs continuing to build Grey as a great place to live and work. Debate (on motion by Mr John Cobb) adjourned. 864 Bills R2906 864 Debate resumed from 13 February, on motion by Ms Gillard: That this bill be read a second time. 864 11:26:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Deputy Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —The opposition will not seek to oppose the passage of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008. However, we will move an amendment that we believe will strike the right balance between flexibility and fairness in workplace relations. The proposed amendment will seek to enhance the new individual employment contract that is being introduced by the government in this legislation to ensure that there is available in workplace bargaining an option for employees and employers for a long-term individual contract. I am pleased that the Rudd government acknowledges the need for individual agreements by allowing existing agreements to continue for up to five years and through the introduction of a new individual statutory agreement subject to a new no disadvantage test. I first received a copy of this legislation last week. My consultations over the past week confirm that Labor’s new individual contract should be a long-term feature of Australia’s workplace relations system. Therefore, my amendment will seek to delete the global expiry date of 31 December 2009 and give these new Labor individual employment agreements an expiry date of five years from the date of approval. We have maintained the eligibility criteria for Labor’s individual employment agreements for employers who had offered individual contracts prior to 31 December 2007. However, we acknowledge that this could have a significant impact on new businesses or employers who wish to avail themselves of the option of an individual bargaining arrangement. The Senate has in fact referred this bill to a committee, and this is the kind of issue that the Senate inquiry should consider. Labor’s industrial relations policy has not been accompanied by any economic analysis or modelling or any impact statement, and hence the necessity for the Senate to refer this bill to a committee. The Minister for Education and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who is also the Minister for Social Inclusion, has spent more than a year demonising individual agreements. The minister has also demonised employers who use these agreements and has attacked the integrity of individual employers and industry sectors. After months of these relentless attacks on employers, the minister then introduces a new individual workplace agreement. The minister will argue that this agreement is only transitional but that it will be fair for workers for the next two years. Then, for some reason, after two years, it will no longer be fair. Surely this is impossible if these agreements are to be subject to Labor’s new no disadvantage test. After all, what could be fairer in the eyes of Labor than a new individual contract designed and introduced by Labor and subject to a new no disadvantage test designed and introduced by Labor? I can assure the minister that her attacks on employers and her hypocrisy on the matter of individual agreements have not gone unnoticed in the business community. But the minister was strangely quiet in question time this week when I raised the fact that union officials have been negotiating collective agreements on behalf of their employees which trade away the same terms and conditions that individual agreements do. It seems that her outrage is directed only at employers and not at union officials who have achieved precisely the same outcomes through union negotiated collective agreements. At no time during her attack on employers has the minister acknowledged that the annualised salaries in both individual and collective agreements more than compensate for the so-called trading away of award conditions. A feature of the individual agreements in the Western Australian mining sector, for example, has been substantial salary increases based on productivity gains as a trade-off for award conditions that either are irrelevant or seriously hamper productivity. Of course, we all know that if the minister had her way she would remove all flexibility in workplace relations. Last year, when employers raised their concerns over her first attempt at an industrial relations policy, which had been drafted and designed by the ACTU, the minister threatened them with injury if they dared to voice their concerns publicly. This unseemly outburst was tempered when the now Prime Minister was forced to intervene and overrule the minister at that time, and she was dragged, kicking and screaming, to a more reasonable position. Workplace flexibility is vital to maintaining our strong economy. Opportunities for individual bargaining and both union and non-union collective bargaining have been a feature of Australia’s workplace relations system for over a decade. The Keating reforms of 1993 introduced the concept of enterprise or workplace bargaining, and this received bipartisan support. These reforms allowed collective agreements to override restrictive award conditions that held back productivity. However, the unions remained central to most negotiations. The 1996 reforms of the Howard government extended the workplace bargaining system into the non-union sector and provided the choice of individual agreements known as Australian workplace agreements. Workplace bargaining has meant that wages and employment conditions are negotiated in businesses rather than being determined by third parties with little knowledge of the particular needs of that business—bodies such as industrial tribunals, unions, employer bodies or government. Workplace bargaining has avoided the strangulation of the one-size-fits-all award system imposed by a tribunal. The circumstances of every business, of every employer and of every employee are different. Workplace agreements ensure that wages and conditions reflect the circumstances of a business and its employees which are more likely to make the business more competitive and be relevant to people’s changing needs. Workplace bargaining aimed at improving productivity has become the basis upon which improvements in wages and conditions have been achieved. Without improving productivity, increases in wages and improvements in employment conditions cannot be sustained. Improved living standards cannot be achieved. The evidence is there for all to see. Under the Hawke-Keating Labor governments from 1983 to 1996, real wages decreased by 1.8 per cent, homeowners were hit with 17 per cent interest rates and, by 1993, almost one million Australians were unemployed. In contrast, the coalition government reforms since 1996 delivered increases in real wages of 20 per cent, while interest rates and inflation remained at historically low levels. The OECD said in 2006 that Australia’s ‘recent macroeconomic performance continues to be impressive’ and that, ‘Living standards have steadily improved since the beginning of the 1990s and now surpass all G7 countries except the United States.’ The Australian economy has been a standout. It may come as a surprise to the minister that workplace flexibility has been critical in underpinning that economic performance. It was critical in allowing the economy to weather the economic stocks of the Asian financial crisis; it was critical in weathering the tech bubble burst and other economic challenges. The management of our trillion-dollar economy was handed to the new government at the last election. I must say that watching the new Treasurer struggle every day does not instil in the opposition any confidence in his ability, and I am sure that it does not instil in the Australian public any confidence in his ability to manage a trillion-dollar economy. The Treasurer is clearly out of his depth, and it is terrifying to think of the consequences should a genuine economic crisis develop. The nation cannot afford to have a Treasurer who panics when confronted with detail and who is incapable of answering the simplest questions about his new responsibilities. He has yet to answer any question on his understanding of the potential impact of the government’s industrial relations reforms; hence the need for a Senate inquiry to give the Australian people the answers that the Treasurer is incapable of providing. The opposition believe that the amendment we propose to Labor’s new individual employment contract recognises the need for there to be a range of workplace bargaining options, from collective agreements between an employer and a group of employees to agreements between an employer and individual employees, depending upon what best suits them. The significant workplace reforms of the Howard government over the past decade or more have aimed to increase the flexibility of the labour market, which has in turn generated higher productivity, higher real wages, increased labour force participation and lower unemployment. The most recent national unemployment figure of 4.1 per cent would have only been a dream under the previous Labor government. I note that it is substantially lower at 3.3 per cent in Western Australia, and that can be attributed to the strong economic growth over the past decade and to the reform of the labour market. It is no coincidence that the period of labour market reform coincides with the growth of the economy and the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Labor would have you believe that the strong economy has come about through good luck. The mining boom fell into the nation’s lap like manna from heaven. Labor would have you believe that workplace reforms did not play a role. The truth is that the mining boom would have passed Australia by if we had not become a reliable supplier to world markets. If Australia had continued to be a country beset by industrial disputation, we would not have been considered a reliable trading partner for the emerging economies, including China, or for our more traditional partners, including Japan and Korea. Last weekend, I spoke to a number of senior mining industry executives. One told of his experience in the mining sector over 20 years. In the early 1990s, he left Australia to work overseas. At that time, the sector was suffering constant industrial disputation. There were strikes over the most insignificant of issues. In fact, in his sector there had been a strike over the flavour of ice-cream at the site kiosk. In his particular resource sector at the time, South American mining companies were the preferred suppliers as they were more reliable than Australian ones. South American mining companies were more reliable than Australian mining companies in their ability to deliver on time. This executive returned to Australia about two years ago. He described the resources sector of today as a different planet from that of the early 1990s. He said he was stunned at the change of culture, the gains in productivity and the cooperation between management and staff to ensure the smooth and efficient running of this particular operation. He pointed out that Australia had overtaken South America as the preferred supplier, but that we remain in a highly competitive environment and cannot afford any hint of a return to the bad old days of industrial disruption. In 1992, 1.6 million working days were lost to strikes. This has fallen dramatically to now be at the lowest level in more than 100 years. There are workplaces that have not experienced a strike in a decade. We are in a period of industrial harmony that is unprecedented, and it is no coincidence that we are also in a period of unprecedented economic growth. Why have we entered a period of industrial harmony, which has delivered real wage increases? It is because there is no compulsion for employers and employees to have unwanted third parties interfering in the bargaining process. If employees wish to have a third party negotiate on their behalf, that is their right and they are able to do so, but it should not be forced upon them. Even in unionised workplaces where no employees are on individual agreements, the availability of individual agreements has had a calming effect on the behaviour of unions. The union officials know that, if their behaviour or demands become unreasonable or they push the employer too far, the employer has the option of bypassing the union and negotiating directly with their employees. Many employers have not used individual agreements and prefer to negotiate collectively with their employees, but they do not want to be at the mercy of unreasonable demands or disruptive behaviour. They must have other options available to them. While around eight per cent of the Australian workforce are currently on an individual agreement, the mere presence of individual agreements as an option for employers is enough to make unions drop their excessive claims, behave reasonably and even talk about productivity gains. It is fair to say that one of the major reforms since 1996 has been to give Australian employers and employees the right—and I would say the basic right—to conduct their business and negotiate their workplace agreements without compulsory reference to a union. This reflects the changing nature of the Australian workforce and its changing needs and circumstances. Whereas a generation ago over half the private sector were union members—in the early sixties it was about 61 or 62 per cent—currently more than 85 per cent of private sector employees no longer choose to join trade unions. The working public is passing judgement on unions and their effectiveness in lifting the standard of living. Rather than take us back to an era of industrial relations that has long since passed, we need to continue to embrace reform. I had hoped that Labor would admit that it recognises the need for flexible working arrangements. After all, this legislation specifically enables existing individual agreements to continue to operate for five years—not for six months or 12 months but for five years. Yet Labor would have you believe that individual agreements are unfair. If they are so unfair, why are they lasting for five years, a period that could encompass not one but two federal elections? It is to be expected that the Senate inquiry will provide the evidence base that the government has so far failed to adduce on the significant benefits to the economy from the retention of flexibility in the workplace relations system. The balance of this bill seeks to abolish Australian workplace agreements. Given the proposed amendment to embrace Labor’s individual employment agreements, with Labor’s no disadvantage test, as five-year agreements instead of transitional two-year agreements, the opposition will not oppose the amendment. The bill also seeks to refer to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission the task of award modernisation and simplification. This is a process that has long been coalition policy but was opposed by the Labor Party for years until just a few months before the 2007 election. We welcome Labor’s change of position on this issue. There are currently over 4,300 federal and state awards. There are over 105,000 employee classifications. This is a complex, unwieldy system. The reduction, simplification and modernisation of Australia’s complex and unwieldy system of awards are a necessary step in improving productivity. However, given that the government proposes to abolish the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, some might be forgiven for thinking that it will add to the confusion and complexity if the Industrial Relations Commission is tasked with the award rationalisation process in its dying days—yet it will be a new body proposed by Labor that will in fact oversee the implementation of the new awards. The handling of the rationalisation and simplification of awards is an area that is best covered by the Senate inquiry. The bill also seeks to introduce 10 National Employment Standards to replace the five existing employment standards, to underpin Labor’s new no disadvantage test that is to apply to all agreements. We welcome the fact that it will apply to individual agreements that are being introduced by Labor. The proposed 10 standards have been released. There is to be a period of consultation before an exposure draft is published. I would note that the majority of the new standards relate to how much time one can have off work and there is no mention of the word ‘productivity’ in the substantive part of the proposed 10 standards. Given the concerns already voiced by employers about the potential for increased regulation, red tape and cost to business, this is another significant line of inquiry for the Senate. As to other provisions in this bill: there will be a new commencement date for agreements—that is, upon approval rather than lodgement with the Workplace Authority; and there are changes to the termination conditions for collective agreements—some pre Work Choices certified agreements can be extended and varied on application to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Yet the government is reserving its most significant industrial relations changes for some years yet, including the establishment of a truly national industrial relations system. This was coalition policy, now adopted by Labor. But we can have no confidence that this new era of federal-state cooperation, so touted by the Rudd government, will actually see the creation of a truly national industrial relations system as promised by the Prime Minister prior to the last election. We will see the state ministers digging in their heels. We have already had the unseemly spectacle of the Minister for Industrial Relations from New South Wales— E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison —Very unseemly. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —it was a very unseemly spectacle—overthrowing the Rudd government’s idea of a truly national IR system. The creation of a single body called Fair Work Australia has been put off for some years, again leaving the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in limbo. It has been told it will cease to exist, that some of its members will be appointed to the new body and some will not—clearly an indication that those who behave according to the Rudd government’s agenda will be appointed and those who act independently will not. This also raises a number of logistical let alone constitutional issues, but that is legislation for another day. The abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission is a matter of considerable concern to a great many in the building industry, but once more Labor has put that off, presumably beyond the next election date. And there is the roll-back of the small business exemption from unfair dismissal laws. This is a matter of considerable concern to small businesses across Australia, for people who have been employed by small businesses since the introduction of the unfair dismissal exemption but particularly for the long-term unemployed. This exemption works for the benefit of long-term unemployed—those who would not otherwise get an opportunity for a job. Small business believe that, as long as they are not hampered by having to pay ‘go away’ money, they can give someone the opportunity to take on a job. The exemption from unfair dismissal laws is all about the long-term unemployed. It is not about those with a job; the focus is on those who do not have a job. We have seen the most dramatic shift in the long-term unemployed in many, many years. Structural unemployment is very hard to shift, yet in Australia we have seen a dramatic decrease in the number of long-term unemployed because employers are giving people a go. Yet the roll-back of the small business exemption from unfair dismissal laws has been put off for another day. One could be forgiven for presuming that Labor wants to continue to reap the benefits of a decade of reforms for as long as possible before it has to pay back its debt to the unions. Why else would Labor not bring forward its laws to roll back the exemption from unfair dismissals? It would be a very simple piece of legislation. I am sure it could be drafted overnight, yet Labor has put it off to a much later date so that it can continue to reap the benefits of the long-term unemployed being given the opportunity of a job. The 4.1 per cent unemployment figure that we have seen recently has not come about by accident. It means there are more people in the workforce, and that includes long-term unemployed who are for the first time in a long time being given the chance of a job. Given that the unions spent more money on an advertising campaign in the last federal election than both major parties combined, the unions will be demanding their pound of flesh. Today we read that the National Secretary of the CFMEU is ignoring the government’s calls for wage restraint, is ignoring the suggestion that wage claims should be based on productivity gains and is ignoring the fact that the ABCC has played an important part in cleaning up the building industry. We will see continuing disruptive union activity break out across this country. We have to ask what the government will do to prevent a wages breakout that will feed into inflation and that will lead to the kind of recession that Australia experienced in the 1990s, the last time Labor was in government. Work Choices is no longer coalition policy. We will not oppose the passage of this bill. We will not oppose the abolition of AWAs. But we urge the government to support our proposed amendment to extend the Labor Party’s new individual contracts with the Labor Party’s own no disadvantage test. We urge the government to support this in the interests of a better, more flexible and fairer workplace that reflects the reality of workplaces and reflects the reality of the needs of employees and employers in the 21st century. It is time for Labor to admit that flexibility in the workplace is underpinning our economic reforms. I urge them to support our proposed amendment. 870 11:54:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I rise to speak in favour of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 and to speak against the proposed amendment to be moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I say firstly that this is a fundamental bill. This is the beginning of the end of Work Choices and is a reflection of the people’s will. This represents the mandate that the Labor government was provided with to enact legislation to repeal Work Choices. I am very happy, indeed proud, to be at the dispatch box to speak to this particular matter. When Labor published its workplace relations policy, Forward with Fairness, in April last year, it made a foundation promise to abolish Work Choices. This bill marks the beginning of the end for Work Choices. As well as preventing the drafting of any new AWAs, this transition bill will make other amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996—including allowing existing users of AWAs to make individual transitional employment agreements during the transitional period up until 31 December next year—and introduce a genuine no disadvantage test for individual transitional employment agreements and new collective agreements. It will also enable the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to modernise the awards. The bill also repeals the requirement for employers to provide a copy of the Work Choices workplace relations fact sheet to their employees. Of course, as we know and as the Deputy Prime Minister made clear in question time, this was a pointless yet extravagant exercise that required companies to distribute government propaganda at the expense of the taxpayer. After the forest of other pamphlets and the plague of mouse boards, we will now remove the capacity for taxpayers’ money to be spent on such an outrageous waste. A more substantial workplace relations bill will be introduced into the parliament later this year to ensure the government’s new fair, flexible and productive workplace relations systems will be fully operational by 1 January 2010. Once operational, the workplace relations system under a Rudd government will not include AWAs or any other statutory individual employment agreement. Working families have agreed with Labor’s view that they are entitled to a safety net of 10 National Employment Standards. Having listened to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I can see she has no concern with that particular part of the government’s intention. I listened to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and in 30 minutes we had a meagre amendment proposed and nothing else. It was like I was listening to someone who wanted to rationalise Work Choices but vote for this bill—that is, put up a minor amendment, not insist on it and effectively accept the view of the government that we need to fundamentally change the law that exists. Those 10 basic employment conditions include maximum weekly hours of work, requests for flexible work arrangements—which, of course, denies the assertion made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that there will not be flexibility—parental leave and related entitlements, annual leave, personal carer’s and compassionate leave, community service leave, long service leave, public holidays, notice of termination, redundancy pay and a fair work information statement that must be provided to employees. This bill is a reflection of Labor policy and the will of the Australian people. As chair of Labor’s industrial relations task force and shadow parliamentary secretary for workplace relations last year, this bill is a great moment for me and indeed a great moment for this country. Over the last two years I spent much of my time travelling around and visiting 60 electorates, hearing directly the concerns of working families about how Work Choices had begun to erode their employment conditions and threaten their job security. I heard from administrative workers who were sacked after 20 years of loyal, effective and competent service for no reason and with no compensation. I met young workers in retail, tourism and hospitality who were forced to work 12-hour shifts on Saturday and Sunday with no penalty rates and no overtime. This was done legally. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert interjecting— 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I see the member opposite laughing at the fact that young workers were affected by Work Choices. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert —What wage increase did they get? 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —When he gets his opportunity, he can get up on his hind legs and tell us why he is in a party that supported Work Choices. The fact is that there was the capacity to do that legally; employers were able to do that to very vulnerable workers. Indeed, in a House of Representatives employment committee inquiry last year—and I was in attendance at this meeting—a peak employer representative said, without any shame or any concern at all, that the great thing about Work Choices was that it made lawful all previous employment breaches that were illegal in the hospitality industry. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert —What is his name? 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —The man said this in answer to a question, and it is in the transcript. I will find the transcript if you want me to embarrass this man. I can assure the member opposite that he said that the great thing about Work Choices is that it made legal what had been illegal in the hospitality industry. For me, that sums up Work Choices—a law that sanctions actions that were considered by earlier governments, Labor and conservative, as illegal. Interestingly, and underlining the decency in most people, the people who spoke with me around the country in every state and territory were less worried about the loss of their own employment, their own employment security and their own employment rights and more worried about the effects that Work Choices would have on their children, their grandchildren and people they had never met. This is in stark contrast to the admission made this week by the former Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who said that many cabinet ministers of the Howard government were not aware of the adverse effects of Work Choices. We are supposed to believe that the cabinet ministers of the former government were not aware of the adverse effects of Work Choices. This beggars belief. I know the previous government was out of touch, but for me to believe that cabinet ministers did not know the effects of Work Choices would have me conclude that they were incompetent beyond belief or insensitive to the concerns of ordinary working Australians. 00AMO Farmer, Patrick, MP Mr Farmer interjecting— 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —The member opposite should know that. The member who represents Western Sydney should know how many constituents of his were adversely affected by Work Choices. But, of course, he does not live there anymore, does he. He has gone to North Sydney. I understand where the shadow minister has moved to. I have been to his electorate. I went to his electorate for a launch of Green Corp; he did not turn up, I noticed. 00AMO Farmer, Patrick, MP Mr Farmer —Did you invite me? 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I did indeed. The ministers of the previous government say they did not know the effects of Work Choices. That beggars belief because out there in the community people knew that workers were hurting and that more was to come. We know that, if the Howard government had been re-elected, they were going to go further. They were going to introduce ‘Work Choices Plus’. They were going to continue with it until there were no entitlements for workers left in this country. That was their plan, and the people of Australia knew that and chose not to support the re-election of the Howard government. The election result is a testimony to that fact. While the Australian public made their position on AWAs crystal clear in November, it seems to me that those opposite are still debating their position. The public knows that there is still division in their party room. This division leaves the voters unclear as to whether the advocates or the critics of Work Choices will prevail. That is the problem for the public. They know there is division in the opposition; they just do not know whether the advocates or the critics of Work Choices will prevail. Following the postelection declaration by the outgoing workplace relations minister that Work Choices was dead, it seems that some members of the Liberal Party have insisted on performing CPR. One of those was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who, for 30 minutes today, managed to speak against Labor’s plan but then let us know that she was going to vote for it. She spoke against the bill for 30 minutes and foreshadowed a meagre amendment, which the opposition will not insist upon—and then they are going to vote for the legislation. So are we supposed to believe that the previous government know not what they did? I know the previous government were out of touch—I have just said that—and we know the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is still out of touch, but this proposition is very hard to believe. I note that in yesterday’s press conference the Deputy Leader of the Opposition announced that the Liberals would not oppose the passage of this bill. Is this the same Deputy Leader of the Opposition that said she was going to defend AWAs to the death? Is this the same Deputy Leader of the Opposition that supported the deferring of the bill to a Senate committee? Was it a backflip or a somersault with a triple pike, or was she rolled in the party room and had to get up here and put a position she does not believe in? And why is that so important? I will tell the House why it is important. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who spoke just before me, is the person to draft the alternative plan for this country in the area of industrial relations, the people of Australia should know where she stands on this matter. No-one is clear on where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister for workplace relations, stands on these particular matters. All we do know is that her position changes day by day. Day by day the Deputy Leader of the Opposition changes her view. To extract an unequivocal commitment from her would be like getting one from Hamlet. In September 2004—and this is where it all began—the then Prime Minister, John Howard, announced during the election campaign the industrial relations policy of the then government. In September 2004 we heard the supposed plans of the government that was seeking to be re-elected. On that day there was not one mention of any element of Work Choices. Prior to the 2004 election the Prime Minister announced the coalition’s IR policies with no reference to any of the pernicious provisions of Work Choices. The Liberal’s Work Choices legislation—and I have said this before in this place—was conceived in secret and rammed through the parliament and down the throats of ordinary working families. This was a shameful and disgraceful act. I have yet to hear the opposition accept responsibility for that behaviour. I am yet to hear them take any responsibility for introducing the deliberate capacity for people to be exploited by rogue employers. There was not one word of contrition from the opposition with respect to that particular matter. This occurred, as we know, because the former government had control of both chambers. Up until then we had been saving the Liberal Party from themselves. That is effectively what we had been doing. Because the government did not have a majority in the Senate, we managed to civilise some of their IR laws. I do not agree with all the provisions of the 1996 act, but I would have to say that that act was civilised by the Senate. But after the election, which gave the coalition the majority in the upper house, we could no longer save them from themselves. Their true IR policies were reflected in the laws that were enacted through Work Choices. We could not save them from themselves. It is important for me to comment briefly on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s view about pre-Work Choices AWAs, because she tries to put forward that pre-Work Choices AWAs was Liberal policy. It was not Liberal policy. The only reason that there was a no disadvantage test in the 1996 act was because the Senate insisted upon it. If it were not for Labor, the Democrats and other minor parties insisting on a no disadvantage test, there would not have been a no disadvantage test pre-Work Choices. So we were able, to some extent, to civilise what was uncivilised in terms of their industrial relations policies. The legislation went through—it was rammed through parliament. The Senate inquiry lasted for five days. It did not leave Canberra. Members of parliament were refused the right to debate on behalf of their constituents. We had a situation where the bill—a radical piece of legislation—was rammed through the parliament. We knew then what would take place. Apparently ministers of the previous government did not know. The government then sacked the first minister, the member for Menzies, but kept the law. It sacked the minister but kept the law. It blamed the messenger. But giving the member for North Sydney the reins would not change a thing. As I said at the time, Hockey might have been the jockey, but it was still the same old horse—and what a nag it was. Effectively, that is why the opposition finds themselves across the chamber. As Minister for Employment Participation, my key objective of course is to get people into work. We need to have a fair, effective, productive and innovative industrial relations system to make sure this country benefits. But it is important for the opposition to take stock of their position. The difficulty of all oppositions is to reconcile the fact that they lost the election. There is a process whereby people go through periods of denial. There is no doubt that the previous government denied the Australian people the chance before the 2004 election to decide whether they supported Work Choices. They denied MPs the right to debate Work Choices when it was introduced into the House. They denied a proper Senate inquiry for the most radical industrial relations laws the nation had ever seen. They denied—to themselves as well, apparently—that Work Choices was hurting working families, and today they are still in denial. We had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for industrial relations effectively say nothing about the concerns the opposition have with Work Choices. 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt —Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his psychological insights and I call attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed) 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —Obviously, the opposition do not want to have a debate about Work Choices. You have the shadow minister at the table, the member for Flinders, trying to prevent me from finishing this contribution to the debate. Work Choices will be killed off by this government. It was our commitment and it is the will of the Australian people. (Time expired) 874 12:15:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —It is somewhat ironic that the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 is being introduced into the House at a time of record low unemployment across the nation and at a time when we have the lowest level of industrial disputes since records began to be kept over 100 years ago. Indeed, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made it very clear that in the early 1990s more than 1½ million days were lost due to industrial disputation. In recent times it has virtually gone to nil. This bill has been brought into parliament at a time when real wages have increased by almost 20 per cent, with accompanying increases in productivity, over the preceding decade. Furthermore, the bill has been introduced at a time when Australia has eclipsed other nations—notably Brazil—with large mineral reserves. Australia is now a preferred mineral trading partner. At such a time, with economic prominence on our side, this bill is being introduced. For the government to claim brazenly that these achievements owe nothing to the flexibility and the stability of our industrial relations system, including the use of individual agreements, is naive and, in all probability, dogmatic. To adequately reply to economic challenges, flexibility in the workplace is fundamental. A hallmark of this requisite flexibility is the concept of an individual agreement, which has been a vital element of employment agreements in this country for almost a decade. The Deputy Prime Minister said in her second reading speech that individual agreements are an unnecessary element of a modern industrial relations system. She further had the effrontery—and, dare I say, the industrial ignorance—to state, in reference to abolishing all individual agreements, that higher productivity and lower inflation would follow. Au contraire, Deputy Prime Minister! One could argue that Cuba’s dictatorial left-wing President has left the building and perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister’s outdated ideology could follow out the same door. For the Deputy Prime Minister to state that tightening labour markets, reducing industrial flexibility and almost guaranteeing unfettered union involvement in future industrial relations will increase productivity and lower inflation is simply absurd. I think the Deputy Prime Minister has got carried away with her active verbs. She should have stood up and told the truth plainly and used the words ‘lower productivity and increase inflation’. But clearly I do not live on planet Gillard—and nor, frankly, do the bulk of businesses. Individuals must be free to enter into an agreement with an employer. The big question is: why is this right being denied by the government? Why can’t a worker organise an agreement with an employer that suits both of their circumstances—unencumbered by a third party, such as a union, or a third party instrument, such as an award? Any argument that individual agreements are somehow inherently evil just because they allow the bargaining away of entitlements for higher wages is clearly defeated, as many union collective agreements have done exactly the same thing. The question is: what is the difference between the union collective agreement and the individual agreement? The answer: union involvement. This bill is not about individual agreements; it is about the individual being involved without the strong-arm tactics of the union. The deputy opposition leader made it very clear that Work Choices is no longer opposition policy. The government have touted in preceding weeks that they want this bill through parliament in just four weeks. This leaves little to be desired. Four weeks is not nearly enough time to conduct any sort of rigorous detailed economic modelling for a substantive change of this nature—a change that seeks to strip out the very flexibility that has led to record low unemployment and a record low level of industrial disputation. This bill seeks to reverse in excess of 10 years of modernisation of the Australian workplace. It is clear, however, how strongly the government feel about the importance of this ‘back to the future’ approach. It is astounding then that the government do not even want to endeavour to ensure that the amendment is economically sound. The government would have you believe this bill is about workers getting their fair share of rights in the negotiation processes between employees and employers, but may I suggest that this bill has potentially greater consequences. It will have the potential to put inflationary pressures upon the Australian economy in a time of increasing interest rate pressure, as the Reserve Bank exercises its monetary policy. It will allow for unfettered wage breakouts in the absence of productivity gains. It will reduce the willingness of employers to expand their employee levels, with a consequential increase to unemployment in the long run. The risk of rushing such changes to our workplace relations system is significant, and changes to the way we interact with our employers and employees frankly deserve greater respect—more so than a hastened process in the name of political expediency. May I suggest quite strongly that if the government cared so much about working families as their rhetoric suggests, they would encourage the greatest level of scrutiny of this bill and might indeed express some gratitude towards the scrutineers. I strongly contend that a stringent Senate inquiry is the best way to apply this level of scrutiny, in fairness to the working Australians who will be impacted by the government’s rushed approach to this bill. It is fundamental and indeed sound economic sense that proper modelling and proper economic reasoning be applied to the assessment of this bill. Labor’s transition bill seeks to allow extant individual agreements to run their course for up to five years from their signing. It will also allow a second type of individual agreement, an individual transitional employment agreement, or ITEA, to be created for new or existing employees for up to two years. These ITEAs are set to expire universally on 31 December 2009, for those organisations that already use individual agreements. ITEAs will be subject to Labor’s no disadvantage test, a test that is supported. The move to create ITEAs has the potential to provide business with some of the flexibility that it requires to allow projects to be completed within suitable horizons, yet a maximum of two years is far too short. Frankly, anyone who has ever owned and operated a business knows this only too well. Furthermore, the creation of ITEAs is only allowed for organisations that have extant individual agreements within their employment structures. It does not cater for new organisations developing and looking for flexibility. This is a bill that looks backwards and not forwards. The coalition is seeking to make ITEAs last for five years, simply to provide the degree of certainty for employers and employees that is needed for long-term, diverse projects. Employers cannot operate with a less than two-year level of certainty and a less than two-year horizon on their employment structures. The expansion of businesses that currently use individual agreements will be impeded by the relatively short period of certainty afforded by ITEAs while the government looks to develop its new awards structure. I warned in my first speech of the dark spectre of union involvement cresting the horizon of Australian businesses. Already, the unions are promoting ‘rights’ in the draft National Employment Standards such as the ability to take sick leave apparently without a medical certificate and to take advantage of a whole range of other leave provisions. It is of great concern that Labor’s new National Employment Standards and some of the elements of the transition bill have the potential to increase the total cost of employment without providing for productivity gains. This equals higher inflation in any sound economic text. Increasing costs to businesses will feed into higher prices and add to inflationary pressures that will put pressure on monetary policy and hence interest rates. These changes therefore necessitate rigorous scrutiny—the scrutiny of a Senate inquiry. Labor does not have a mandate to put the economic welfare of Australian families at risk. It fails to empathise with the struggles of employers or to understand that some businesses will not be able to cope with higher costs. Employers in Australia are not all large, faceless publicly owned corporations listed on the stock market. In many cases, they are family businesses, small retailers and service providers. They are sole proprietors who are out not to suppress workers but to follow their dream of setting up a business and building a future for their families. Fifty per cent of employees in this great country are employed by small businesses so, before this reckless government sets out on a warpath against small businesses, it should at least do them the courtesy of having a Senate inquiry. My electorate of Fadden, together with the other two great Gold Coast seats of Moncrieff and McPherson, is the small business capital of the nation. There are over 11,000 individual agreements in Fadden. The percentage of individuals in Fadden on individual agreements is higher than the national average. This is an agreement between an employer and an employee. This is an agreement between the corner shop owner and the people who come to work that meets all of their requirements. This is an agreement for those in the highly competitive boat-building industry to allow for longer shifts but higher pay which fits in with the workers’ requirements and what they are able to do. This is about small business people who run newspaper shops, outlets and private services firms. This is about agreements with employees that meet employee circumstances in a rapidly changing 24-hour world. We cannot put the livelihood of these small business people at risk. This bill needs extensive investigation. The consequences of this bill need to be understood. The unintended consequences—which, may I suggest, the government has not even begun to consider—need to be thrashed out within the construct of a Senate inquiry. A reduction in workplace flexibility and a return to mandatory collective agreements will increase the rate of strike action. It will increase the risk of the type of wage and inflation break-out that drove the economy into recession in the seventies, eighties and nineties. Frankly, I find it staggering that the Labor government has rejected an offer from the opposition to schedule an additional two Senate sitting weeks in the first half of this year to expedite the Senate inquiry process. Rather than seeking to bully the Senate into rubber-stamping her legislation, the Deputy Prime Minister should respect democratic processes and ask the Prime Minister to schedule additional Senate sitting days. I understand that a militant union movement wants its pound of flesh. I understand that a militant union movement wants a return on investment for the money it has poured into the Labor coffers. I understand that a militant union movement is agitating for what it wants for getting this government into power. But we must note that, for the majority of businesses using individual agreements, though they will be permitted to use the new ITEAs—the new individual agreements—the two-year period is too short. It needs to be five years to provide the proper economic horizon those businesses need, irrespective of militant union demands. I clearly reserve the right to fight for new organisations to have the right to enter into individual agreements, noting of course that they will abide by the 10 National Employment Standards. The bill is rushed. It needs sound economic modelling. It needs to take account of the full gamut of intended and unintended consequences. It needs to go to a Senate inquiry. A reduction in workplace flexibility and a return to mandatory collective agreements will increase the number of strikes and the type of wage and inflation break-out that drove the economy into recession over the previous three decades. Only by maintaining individual agreements with a strong five-year horizon will this be averted. 878 12:31:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —I rise today in support of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008. In following the member for Fadden, I note that, whilst he is a new member in this place, I was here for the initial debate on the Work Choices legislation and I remember the lack of economic modelling, the lack of transparency, the failure of the government to inform the electorate during the election that it was introducing this extreme industrial relations reform to the Australian public and the guillotining of the legislation through this place. I think the opposition is being extended far more courtesy on this bill than we were on the Work Choices legislation when we were in opposition. This bill keeps our promise to the electorate to abolish the Howard government’s extreme industrial relations laws. This bill keeps our promise to establish a fair and balanced industrial relations system here in this country—one that protects the rights of Australian workers and helps to grow the economy. In November 2005 I stood in this House and condemned the previous government’s introduction of Work Choices, one for which they had no mandate. The legislation that the previous government passed through this House crossed a hundred years of a fair and balanced industrial relations system in Australia. That legislation was not given appropriate time for debate. There was no transparency about it and there was little scrutiny. As I said before, the debate was guillotined in this House and there was certainly little courtesy given through the Senate. Work Choices had absolutely nothing to do with reform. Work Choices was one party’s ideological obsession, and despite the backflip on supporting this legislation I am still not convinced that given just half a chance the Liberal Party would not do it all over again. Work Choices was not about boosting productivity or increasing employment levels. It was nothing more than the most extreme attack on working families that this country had ever seen. The laws that were introduced back in 2005 undermined the pay and conditions of hardworking Australians. Not only that but they undermined family life. The previous government was willing to sell out the Australian people based on its own self-centred ideological obsession. It sucked money out of the public purse with its taxpayer funded propaganda campaign—and we saw the mouse pads here yesterday in the House. The previous government did everything in its power to avoid public scrutiny on Work Choices and to avoid telling the truth about these laws, refusing to release statistics on AWAs and refusing to tell how it had stripped out many conditions for working families. Haven’t things changed! A few years on and things can change. I can think of two great examples that we have seen recently that show the Liberal Party seem to have changed their support in relation to Work Choices. We saw the first example of a change in attitude within the Liberal Party on Four Corners just recently. On Four Corners this week it was compelling to see how out of touch the previous government actually were when it came to industrial relations. Let me quote a passage from Four Corners. The member for North Sydney, Joe Hockey, stated on Four Corners: Quite frankly when I took ... the job— of Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations— I don’t think many ministers in Cabinet were aware that you could be worse off under Work Choices and that you could actually have certain conditions taken away without compensation. And once I started to raise those issues with colleagues and they became more informed about the impact of Work Choices we introduced the fairness test. What is debate in parliament about? Surely, members of the government who stood in this place supporting Work Choices would have informed themselves about the impact. Surely, ministers who all voted for Work Choices would have informed themselves of its impact. Case after case after case was raised here in this parliament during question time that demonstrated the impact of Work Choices—the stripping of penalty rates and award conditions out of Australian workplace agreements for little or no compensation. You would think they would have known. The previous federal election also sent a clear message on Work Choices. That was sent on 24 November 2007 when the Australian people voted for a new approach. The message could not have been clearer. The Australian people understood that Work Choices would leave them worse off and they resoundingly voted against the government that introduced it. They voted against Work Choices and against AWAs. The government made a clear, unequivocal commitment to the Australian people late last year—a commitment to restore fairness in the workplace to families across Australia. Australia’s workplace relations laws needed a new approach. In electorates across the country, Labor Party candidates were selling our message, as I did within my own electorate of Ballarat. The Australian people were well aware that by voting for a Rudd government they were voting for a new workplace relations system. The vote is in and now in this parliament we see many, many new faces—faces that are here today because they stood for office with the party that is willing to work with the Australian people on industrial relations policy. They stood up for families that demanded their government give them a fair go within their workplaces. The bill we are debating in the House today keeps Labor’s promise. It keeps faith with our promise during the election campaign. With the introduction of the bill, restoring fairness to the workplace relations system has begun. This bill will amend the Workplace Relations Act with the abolishment of Australian workplace agreements. This bill will amend the act to return fairness to workers whose pay and conditions were stripped by Howard’s legacy, and it will abolish the Howard government’s so-called fairness test and implement a genuine no disadvantage test for all workplace agreements. Under this proposed legislation there will be no new AWAs. The bill prevents the making of new AWAs from the date of commencement. The Rudd Labor government believes that in a strong industrial relations system there is no need for AWAs. The Rudd Labor government believes that all Australian employees are entitled to a safety net. That safety net comprises 10 National Employment Standards. The National Employment Standards will provide simplicity, fairness and flexibility for all employees. And we will provide this without the administrative burden that has developed through Work Choices. The National Employment Standards include: maximum weekly hours of work; requests by parents for flexible working arrangements—something I am about to become a little more interested in, I guess, not that I was not before; parental leave and other entitlements; annual leave; personal and carers leave and compassionate leave; community service leave; long service leave; public holidays; notice of termination and redundancy; and fair work information statements. Our standards outline the required safety net that all employees deserve. AWAs overrode the safety net, and that is why I back this bill 100 per cent. By implementing a new modern safety net, there is no need for AWAs or any form of statutory individual employment agreements. There is no need because the expectations of employers are met fairly in a way that is flexible for employees. But we will not forget about those people that are currently on AWAs. We acknowledge the concerns that some of them may have. The Rudd Labor government has created a special instrument for employees on AWAs, to make a smooth transition to the government’s new workplace relations system. A special instrument called an individual transitional employment agreement, or an ITEA, is proposed in this bill and will be available to employers who employed an employee on an AWA as at December 2007. Such employers may use this instrument for new employees or for existing employees who are currently subject to an Australian workplace agreement. These individual transitional employment agreements will have a nominal expiry date of no later than 31 December 2009. After this date, Labor will have introduced its National Employment Standards and a modern, simple award system. This is a reasonable transition for employers and employees to Labor’s new industrial relations system. After this date, employers will have no reason to want to access any form of individual statutory employment contract. It is also important to learn from the mistakes of the previous government. It is important to ensure our system does not disadvantage hardworking Australians. Interestingly, the member for North Sydney also is on record as saying that once he started to raise the issue with colleagues and they became more informed of the impact of Work Choices—again, a bill that had already been debated in this House, that they had already voted on—they then introduced the fairness test. But this so-called fairness test was not fair. The fairness test was not fair because it provided no proper protection for some award conditions and zero protection for others. The fairness test will not apply in the future. The test also created a backlog of agreements piled up waiting for the checks. This bill will end the compliance problem and create a more streamlined industrial relations system. Under our new proposal, there will be a new no disadvantage test. The no disadvantage test will cover all individual and collective workplace agreements. To pass our proposed no disadvantage test, ITEAs cannot disadvantage an employee against an applicable collective agreement or, where there is no collective agreement, an applicable award and the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard. The test is a reflection of the Rudd Labor government’s commitment to working Australians across this country. As it stands, when a workplace agreement is lodged with the Workplace Authority it is required to pass the fairness test, for below a certain level. A failed fairness test can result in a costly compensation payment for employers. This will change once the elements of this bill become law. Under our proposed transition arrangements, ITEAs for new collective agreements and for existing employees will not begin until the Workplace Authority director has seen that they actually pass the no disadvantage test. A Rudd Labor government has also proposed in this bill to repeal the provision of Work Choices that enabled employers to unilaterally terminate a collective workplace agreement—agreements that, once past their nominal expiry date, could give employers power to return staff to a limited number of standards, standards that in some cases were un-Australian and simply unfair. This government has no choice but to repeal this section of Work Choices. By doing so, we ensure that our proposed ITEAs will meet our national employment standards and leave no room for loopholes. Another simple yet important change which we have introduced in this legislation is the requirement for employers to provide a copy of the workplace relations fact sheet to their employees—something we were also required to do. Businesses I have spoken to have said that this was just another one of the many administrative burdens that had no real purpose for an employer or in fact an employee. Requiring employers to provide a fact sheet on workplace relations was nothing more than a last-minute attempt by the Howard government to sell their Work Choices package. It was unnecessary and it will stop. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission will also have the responsibility of checking those pre-Work Choices certified agreements that wish to be extended. The commission will have the power to grant any application made for an extension, so long as it is satisfied that both employer and employee agree with the terms of the arrangement. The bill implements sensible transitional arrangements, phasing out of the former government’s Work Choices legislation while requiring flexibility and transparency. During the last federal election, this government also gave a promise to the Australian people that we would create a new modern award system. This new modern award system is a must if we wish to have a fair and balanced safety net for all employees. The bill that I support today comes good on that election promise. This bill allows for modernisation of awards—modern awards that protect entitlements such as penalty rates and overtime, awards that ensure a fair safety net, awards that ensure minimum award entitlements and awards that allow flexible working arrangements. The opposition’s position on this bill remains to me unclear. The opposition has a choice not only in this chamber but in both chambers to support this bill, to support the mandate given to this government by the Australian people at the last election to abolish Work Choices. Many of us watched that somewhat excruciating press conference yesterday from the opposition spokeswoman announcing that the Liberal Party have now somehow seen the light and will support the bill in the House, if their amendments do not go through. Despite the fact that the opposition controls the Senate, the opposition spokeswoman was still unclear about what they would do in the Senate, getting bogged down in Senate procedural matters rather than making a clear, unequivocal commitment that they would let these bills pass unamended through both the House and the Senate. Working families needs these laws passed. The Rudd Labor government stand firm on our industrial relations policy. All Australians know our position—they knew it before the election. Our position to abolish Work Choices and to eliminate Howard’s ideological legacy of AWAs has always stood firm. This week has been another interesting week from the opposition in relation to its position on Work Choices. It is no wonder the party opposite had trouble understanding Work Choices, the legislation it introduced, because at present they seem to be having trouble finding a position on industrial relations overall. First they supported Work Choices and backed AWAs 100 per cent. Then the opposition decide that the so-called fairness test is required, because maybe—just maybe—those AWAs that they introduced did actually strip conditions from low-paid workers. They would not believe any of the cases we introduced into the House during question time but they thought: ‘We’ve got a problem here, so let’s introduce a fairness test.’ Then just last week we had the opposition in almost complete denial that they had lost the election, claiming that it had every right to seek the continuation of AWAs and that it would oppose this bill. Now the opposition as of yesterday is supporting the abolition of AWAs in the House—not sure what they will do in the Senate. It is difficult to predict what will happen next. Will the members opposite in the House support Work Choices or is it dead? Does the Liberal Party support it in the House but not in the Senate? We are going to wait and see. The Australian people deserve to know where all members of parliament stand on such important issues. As the Prime Minister said yesterday in question time, the opposition is flip, flop, flapping when it comes to Work Choices. And, if they get back into office, I am not convinced that it will not just be some of the same old tricks again—the same old tricks because the old Howard legacy is still woven into the ideological minds of the Liberal machine. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you for certain today that the Rudd Labor government has a firm position on industrial relations for this country, and this is just the start with this bill. This bill represents the view of many Australians and it represents this government’s commitment to the Australian people that we took to the election campaign. It is the Rudd Labor government honouring our pact with the Australian people by abolishing Work Choices and unfair Australian workplace agreements. I commend the bill to the House. 882 12:49:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —I am very pleased to speak today on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008. We know that, as previous speakers have outlined, this bill seeks to amend the Workplace Relations Act of 1996, make a number of changes to the framework for workplace agreements and enable the process of award modernisation to commence. I am speaking on this bill today because I have a vested interest on behalf of my electorate. Many people would not be aware that in the Canning electorate there are more than 20,000 people on registered individual agreements, AWAs—whatever you want to describe them as. It has one of the highest numbers of people on AWAs in Australia. The highest number of people registered on AWAs in this country is in the electorate of Kalgoorlie, held by my friend Mr Barry Haase. We will examine why this is more of a Western Australian phenomenon in a moment but, suffice to say, the new member for Brand, Gary Gray, has one of the highest numbers of people on AWAs as well—individual agreements that are negotiated in the workplace. For those who think this is all about the mining industry, let me put their minds at rest. In Canning, there is one large miner and it is Alcoa. Interestingly, most of the workers at Alcoa are on union inspired agreements on behalf of the Australian Workers Union—something I will tease out further when I get my address-in-reply speech, because we know that the current member for Maribyrnong had something to do with activity around that area. I will further elaborate on that later. The fact is that many contractors around Alcoa are on individual flexible agreements. So the workers at Alcoa are not, but the contractors in and around the area are. But the greater number of people that are on flexible agreements in the Canning electorate are not in mining; they are in areas like hospitality, construction, customer service, the tourism sector and even local government. I say to the journalists who stop us at the door in the morning on a regular basis: most of the journalists in this country are on individual agreements or AWAs. Many of them have said to me just privately, ‘Gee, I don’t want my flexible awards and conditions being disrupted by the interference on behalf of the unions by the Rudd Labor government.’ But let us talk more about the bill before the House today. This bill is designed to remove Australian workplace agreements from the industrial relations scene of this country. The government want them terminated as an industrial instrument. In her second reading speech, Minister Gillard announced that from 13 February 2008 the Australian Public Service would no longer offer AWAs. That is because she can do that. Why has the Australian Public Service been singled out? The reason is that it is heavily unionised. We know that most of the public service organisations in this country have almost 100 per cent union membership, so it is pretty easy to do it at that sort of workplace. But we also know that in this country less than 17 per cent of people in the non-public sector have decided to be a member of a union. For my part, I used to be a union rep when I was a schoolteacher. I see the role of the union often to be quite constructive in terms of bargaining on behalf of their members when there are issues in the workplace. But when the unions decide to become political operatives, as they have done over the last few years, and inject themselves into the workplace purely for craven political reasons then they have gone beyond their brief. They are not there for the workers; they are there for themselves. Most of the union bosses, if they are not in this place, are out there as hereditary peers of the Labor Party, feathering their own nests. How many union bosses do you ever see sitting in cattle class? They are mostly up in the front of the planes while their workers are sitting towards the tail. VU5 Griffin, Alan, MP Mr Griffin —Sitting next to you! PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr RANDALL —And sitting with the member opposite as well. Would you deny that? They are sitting with you as well. When the workers go on strike, do the union bosses go on strike? No. There is one rule for the union bosses and there is one rule for the workers. The union bosses use the workers as fodder to get themselves into a place like this. This place has become a retirement village for former union bosses. Let us go through them. We have the member for Batman; previously we had Bob Hawke, a former member for Wills; we have Simon Crean, the member for Hotham; the member for Throsby; and the member for Charlton. This is the progression of the union bosses. Eventually their retirement package is to come here. I wonder if Sharan Burrow will make her way here eventually and that will be her reward. The reason this bill has been so passionately sought as the first item of business is that the union organisations not only put the members opposite here through their preselections but they also then decide what those members can do or say in this place. The first order of bidding in this House is because the unions having paid a very big price to get the Labor Party into office in this country. The figures vary from $30 million to $50 million. We know that, in individual electorates, unions placed so-called research officers, who were just people on the ground. For example, the former member for Petrie, Teresa Gambaro, told me that a union in her electorate had people there for months and months acting as extra officers on the ground. I wonder if the general union membership knew that that was where their union dues were going—to involvement in a political campaign at that level. She tells me that, in the last few weeks of the campaign, public servants from Queensland were given two weeks leave to go and work street corners and doorknock on behalf of the union to unseat her. And they were successful. There is no doubt about it: the unions were woken up and they gathered together in a very strong force. They worked very much in marginal seats and we saw the effect that they had—except in Western Australia, and that is where I will return to, because it is my responsibility to outline the case there. One of the reasons Western Australia had such a good result at the last election was that so many people on AWAs were happy with their lot. A former Labor senator, John Black, in an article in the Australian newspaper pointed out the correlation between individual workplace agreements and voting intentions. One of the reasons is that people who can strike an individual agreement generally get a better deal. We heard the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and many other portfolios in this place yesterday talking about entitlements being removed from people when they took on AWAs. What she dishonestly did not say was that, when they agreed—and I emphasise the word ‘agreed’, because nobody could be made to take an AWA or an individual agreement; they chose to—to go on an individual agreement, they did so knowing that they would get a better deal. So, if they traded off some spurious things like picnic days—there was an award for picnics—for higher wages, what is the matter with that? In fact, I am aware of workplaces in Western Australia—bakeries, for example—where the casual workers were saying, ‘Could you take away some of those holiday entitlements from us, because we’re students and we actually want more money in our hands today because we want to pay the bills and be able to live a lifestyle today rather than at the end receive a lump sum.’ Ultimately people had a choice. This is what we as the former government were able to give the people of Australia: choice. The choice was theirs alone and they could choose to get themselves a better deal. But the Labor Party, even today, will dishonestly continue to tell you that things were stripped away and people were made to do things and they were worse off. At the end of the day, people received more money. One of the incongruous things about this bill, which I will return to in a moment, is the $100,000 limit. What the Labor Party and the minister have done—and I think it is quite good, actually, even surprising—is, in place of the individual agreements that were on offer as AWAs, put in this bill the individual transitional employment agreements or ITEAs. ITEAs are for people who are currently on individual agreements and want to continue on them when they expire. People who are not now on any form of agreement as such will not be able to sign on to an ITEA. In fact, they will end up on a union inspired collective agreement. One of the things the minister has done with the ITEAs—and, believe me, I must commend the minister on this—is that she has actually put in place what we consider to be a very good safety net or no disadvantage test. That is good for workers because, if you cannot be worse off, your only choice is to be better off if you choose to be on an individual agreement. If you choose to be better off and stay on an ITEA, that is good—there is nothing wrong with that. From that point of view, we would like to see the ITEAs. As has already been said, we will be voting for this in this House—there will be no opposition to that at all. The minister is going to put to the House an amendment which will extend ITEAs from two years to five years. People will say, ‘Why five years?’ Because currently in a state like mine, Western Australia, there are people still able to sign on to an AWA which will run for five years. Why not have the synergy for people who would like to continue on an award that is struck today to continue for another five years? We know they are not all bad when we see companies like Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank and Australia Post continuing to offer their workers AWAs. Of course we must again explain that these people are offered AWAs as a choice. It is not mandatory; you cannot make them. It is as a choice. Why would people choose an AWA? Because they can tailor their job to a more flexible arrangement and get more money by trading off things that they do not deem necessary in their particular contract which would remain under an inflexible award. This legislation, as I said, is something that we have agreed to. We know that the ITEAs will be tested by the Workplace Authority director and will then take effect as long as there is no lessening of conditions and we know, if people tried to offer lesser conditions, that under the legislation before us there would be penalties and remedies for noncompliance, so that way forward is good. But I now refer to the fact that, in today’s Australian, Alan Wood, the Economics Editor, has placed on record his concern about the way forward under the Labor Party in terms of workplace relations. He lists a number of motherhood statements made by the minister. They are all altruistic and very good, but in the end the fact is that the Labor Party will probably be unable to do any of this because of their exposure to and their compromising by the unions. I have listened to a lot of first speeches by those opposite. I have been impressed by the quality of members that I have met on both sides. But there are obviously some standout members—we know the member for Charlton, Greg Combet. I listened to his first speech and I congratulated him on it afterwards. He is a very articulate and obviously well-versed person, particularly in his area of expertise, and that is workplace relations. What he did say which struck a chord with me was that, when the unions ran their scare campaign against Work Choices, within six weeks of running this very expensive campaign they had 60 per cent of the Australian people in their corner. This demonstrates that this scare campaign, like the ones the Labor Party ran previously on GST and the privatisation of Telstra—and you will notice they are not talking about rolling back any of that—really bit. At the end of the day, I will agree—and this is why we are agreeing to this—maybe the previous amendments made in 2006 were too bold in the fact that they did not provide the safety net and the fairness test that people were concerned about. It was not only the workers—it was their parents and their families—that were convinced by this advertising campaign. That is why we are going to support this way forward. In terms of people in my electorate and even in the member for Kalgoorlie’s electorate, it is interesting that this legislation allows flexibility for people on over $100,000. In my state—and it is probably why people are happy and wanted to see the flexible arrangements provided by the previous government continue, so that is the way they voted at the last election—there are many people on over $100,000. You do not have to be a wealthy mining executive to get that. There are truck drivers, steel fixers and sheet metal workers in the Pilbara who are on well over $100,000. So you are going to have two classes of people. I put out a press release before the last election, and it is relevant today, saying that the electors in Canning—and, I would say, the rest of Australia—were going to be unfairly treated because those on under $100,000 could be excused for missing out on the ‘fair’ part of Labor’s Forward with Fairness policy. What happens to the aspirational worker who wants to earn more than $100,000? If he does not get there, he is then being dragooned into the inflexible award arrangement—the union inspired agreement—that has been put before him or her. This is typical of the ideology of the Labor Party: ‘We not only want to take over your workplace; we want to drive down your wages and corral you into an inflexible agreement.’ As we know, the previous government was able to increase real wages for workers by over 23 per cent in the 11½ years it was in government. The previous Hawke-Keating government bragged about driving wages down and they only increased wages by less than two per cent. On one hand, you have one side of politics wanting to see real wage and productivity increases and, on the other, you have the other side wanting to control the worker so that they get a worse deal—as long as they control them; that is the endgame here. They want to control and dragoon the workforce so that it is ‘one size fits all’. At the end of the day, the Australian people will judge this government on reducing the flexibility of the workforce. One of the reasons why Australia is one of the model economies of the world is that we have historically low unemployment and low inflation. We hear them screaming about inflation, and the fact is that we have never had inflation above three per cent. It was the skill of the previous government in all that time that kept inflation low while still having low unemployment. Very few governments ever have low unemployment and low inflation. Generally there are peaks and troughs that go with unemployment and interest rates, because they cannot control them. This was done not only because we reformed the taxation system but also because we reformed the workforce so that it would be more flexible and more productive. As Alan Wood says in his article today, at the end of the day this will not be done with the existing award system and there will be no gain without real pain. That is where we are heading with workplace relations under Labor—a lot of pain. 886 13:09:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —I rise to support the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008, which is the first step in abolishing the former government’s unfair and extreme Work Choices laws. I have just heard the member for Canning speak on this bill and I must take him to task on one comment, and it is a fairly salient point when you look at the former government’s inability to understand just what Work Choices did to people. He mentioned my colleague the member for Charlton, Greg Combet, and his maiden speech. Mr Combet said that, after the ACTU’s advertising campaign, 60 per cent of the public were very much behind the campaign. The member for Canning said that that represents the power of scaremongering. It was not a scaremongering campaign. When 60 per cent of Australians switch on because of an advertising campaign, it is because the campaign links in to their real beliefs and experiences and to their understanding of the threat to their livelihoods. That is why that campaign was so successful—because out there millions of workers around Australia identified with those sorts of threats and insecurities and they did not want it to happen, not just to them but to their kids, their family members, their neighbours and their friends. So I congratulate the ACTU and my new colleague Greg Combet on the work they did. It is absolutely undeniable that three months ago, on 24 November 2007, the Australian people voted a resounding no to Work Choices. In doing so, they voted for change and elected a Rudd Labor government—a government that takes its mandate for change and for abolishing Work Choices in particular very seriously. With this bill the government delivers on a key election commitment that was strongly endorsed at the ballot box. Labor could not have been any clearer about its commitment to getting rid of the Work Choices laws. In December 2006 the caucus elected its new leader and deputy leader of the then opposition, and they both made very clear their promise to abolish AWAs and restore fairness to the workplace relations system. In April last year Labor released its Forward with Fairness policy, which again made clear that, if elected, Labor would abolish Australian workplace agreements. Six months ago, Labor released its Forward with Fairness implementation plan, which set out the sensible transitional arrangements a Rudd Labor government would adopt for implementing our promise to abolish AWAs. Throughout the whole of last year every member on the government benches campaigned long and hard in our respective electorates across Australia to make clear Labor’s commitment to get rid of AWAs and introduce a fairer, simpler and more balanced workplace relations system. Unlike those opposite, who never sought a mandate at any election for their extreme Work Choices laws, well before the 2007 election the Australian people were left with no doubt as to Labor’s position on Work Choices and our steadfast commitment to abolish AWAs. Getting rid of AWAs and all statutory individual employment agreements has always been central to Labor’s workplace relations policy and we could not have been any clearer with the Australian people. That the former government spent more than $60 million of taxpayers’ money campaigning against Labor on workplace relations makes clear that members opposite were acutely aware of Labor’s policy. Indeed, there was barely a day last year when the former government did not criticise us for our policy position. Day after day they sought to attack Labor for wanting to introduce a fairer, simpler and more balanced workplace relations system in this country. In such a system there is no place for AWAs or any statutory individual employment agreement, since the essence of these agreements is to override the safety net. Labor believes that all Australian employees are entitled to a safety net of 10 national employment standards, and we believe that employees earning less than $100,000 are also entitled to an extra safety net provided by modern simple awards. Yet members opposite continue even today with the charade that AWAs are some kind of panacea for the economy—no matter that the evidence of how AWAs have unashamedly ripped off Australian working families time and time again continues to mount. All is well according to them, but just this morning the shadow minister for workplace relations came into the House and foreshadowed an amendment to this bill in the hope of extending the life of AWAs and keeping Work Choices alive just that little bit longer. It is so hard for them. Apparently death by a thousand lashes is their preferred option for working families. Such tactics are nothing more than a deliberate attempt to deny the Australian people what they voted for. Members opposite treat the Australian people with contempt. When are they going to accept that Labor has a mandate to abolish AWAs and put in place a fairer, simpler and more balanced workplace relations system? That is, of course, what this bill sets out to do: it implements our transitional arrangements and it prevents the making of new AWAs from the date of the bill’s commencement. Despite the former government doing its best to hide the facts about AWAs, Australian working families have felt their impact over the last couple of years and they have rejected them. Eighty-nine per cent of AWAs did cut at least one protected award condition. Eighty-three per cent removed two protected award conditions. Fifty-two per cent removed more than half, six or more, protected award conditions. Sixty-eight per cent excluded annual leave loading. Sixty-three per cent excluded penalty rates. Seventy per cent excluded shift loadings. Unfortunately, there were stories in our media around Australia every day that illustrated these examples. In my own area in the Hunter, I have a quote from April of a Rutherford tow-bar fitter who was sacked for requesting light duties after incurring a work injury—one of the victims of Work Choices. I know of two cases where workers were threatened to be sacked if they asked for time off to attend the birth of their children—these were fathers, of course. Those sorts of cases are what alarmed the Australian public. Those sorts of real experiences certainly convinced the Australian public that they did not want Work Choices. The impact of the Work Choices legislation was particularly harsh on women in the workforce. Analysis last year showed that less than 20 per cent of AWAs contained family friendly provisions, and, meanwhile, women on AWAs working a 38-hour week earned almost $90 a week less than those on collective agreements. Last October, a report from the New South Wales Office for Women compiled data from the Newcastle community legal centre and other Sydney branches and it stated that female employees were definitely more vulnerable under Work Choices. The report found an instance of a woman having her hours severely cut after revealing to her boss that she was pregnant. Another woman was pressured to sign an Australian workplace agreement that would have cut her hourly rate from $17 to $12, and instead she gave up the job. Of the 220 employment cases handled by the community legal centres, it was found that half of the women dismissed without warning were no longer protected by unfair dismissal laws. I congratulate community legal centres. I know what a great assistance they are to people not just in employment disputes but with disabilities and specific social needs as well. As the first woman to represent the federal seat of Newcastle, I am very pleased to support the Deputy Prime Minister, the first woman to hold that position and the first woman in Australia to be Acting Prime Minister, who has introduced such an important bill, which will help working women. So, for all Australians, the sooner that no new AWAs are signed the better. Upon commencement of this bill, no new AWAs will be signed. It is with some amusement, I suppose, that we all watched the backflip performed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition before question time yesterday. I still remain confused as to her position, having heard an interview with her this morning on ABC radio and then seeing her in the House earlier. Confusion is definitely alive and well in the ranks of the opposition. I do welcome the fact that the opposition have finally decided not to keep Work Choices alive in its entirety for as long as they possibly could and will be supporting some of this legislation. I think some of those opposite—perhaps like the member for Paterson, who suffered swings of up to 15 per cent from working families in his electorate and barely held on to his seat—will perhaps be considering their options a little more carefully when it comes to such legislation. In my own electorate, 40 per cent who responded to a survey were particularly concerned about Work Choices. They will be pleased today. One of them told me: My employer changed the title of my position, added additional responsibilities and reduced my monthly pay by 10 per cent. Another constituent said: I have been offered a lower paying job along with 71 other staff. I am choosing to leave the company and dread facing new conditions in the workforce. Yet another constituent said: I had to sign a contract for employment which was 20 to 30 pages long, and I did not really understand it. It also stated the employer could let me go with 24 hours notice. Another person, from Hamilton said: Since this contract has been put in place, my pay has dropped significantly for sick day and holiday inclusions. And a constituent from Lambton said: My 18-year-old daughter was given casual work, only to find her AWA includes no penalty rates for weekends. Young people do not have the knowledge to be able to understand what they are signing. That is exactly why the Australian public responded so well to the ACTU campaign. This is what was happening to them, their children and their family members. Fortunately, this legislation is the first nail in the coffin of Work Choices and the Australian people will take it out on the opposition if they refuse to join us in hammering that nail. I join the Deputy Prime Minister in calling on the opposition to help us get this legislation through the House and through the Senate by Easter. The bill does introduce sensible transitional arrangements to allow employers and employees who have been using AWAs to prepare for the full implementation of our new system in January 2010. Employers using AWAs as at 1 December 2007 will be able to offer individual transitional employment agreements, ITEAs, to existing employees on AWAs and to new employees. Importantly, ITEAs may not be used to strip existing employees off their collective agreements. The bill also extends the operation of transitional arrangements such as NAPSAs until the commencement of Labor’s new workplace relations system. The bill also abolishes the previous government’s so-called fairness test—I remember that fairness test; my goodness! All the advertising money in the world just could not sell that sham. It also establishes a true no disadvantage test for all workplace agreements. For ITEAs, the no disadvantage test is applied against an applicable collective agreement in the workplace or, if there is no such agreement, against an applicable award. Certified agreements will generally continue to operate in accordance with the current rules. They may no longer be terminated unilaterally following the nominal expiry date on 90 days notice, unless the AIRC is satisfied that the termination is not contrary to the public interest. Pre Work Choices certified agreements can be varied and extended by agreement, so parties to those agreements can avoid a double transition. The bill also establishes the process to create new, modern awards by 31 December 2009 that are simple and easy to understand and apply. Together with the National Employment Standards, the awards will form an integral part of the safety net for working Australians under the government’s new system. The Australian Fair Pay Commission will perform only the annual review of minimum wages, as any other exercise in relation to pay scales and minimum wages will interfere with the AIRC’s award modernisation process. I have great confidence in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission’s ability to harmonise and modernise our award systems. The government has already started consultation on the National Employment Standards, which will be the 10 key minimum entitlements for all Australian employees and will apply from 1 January 2010. This consultation is a refreshing change from the former government, which did not consult key stakeholder groups about Work Choices, let alone consult the Australian people at any election. This bill also removes the obligation on employers—quite a burdensome one—to hand out the former government’s workplace relations fact sheet. This obligation was really part of the former government’s hard sell on Work Choices. They spent $122 million in taxpayer funds on advertising trying to sell Work Choices. I was pleased to see the last of those pamphlets being pulped on Monday. Sadly, those mouse pads discovered yesterday still need a home, and who knows what else we will find? Perhaps the former government could have directed their information campaign—as they called it—to their own cabinet. After all, we did discover on Four Corners on Monday night that many of them, including the former Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Joe Hockey, did not even know the detail of Work Choices. Perhaps they could have saved some money by sending a memo to cabinet rather than printing hundreds of thousands of mouse pads and pamphlets. More broadly, this government is committed to reducing the waste associated with the former administration’s advertising excesses. This includes asking the Auditor-General to approve advertising or information campaigns with a budget of more than $250,000 and to verify that they are not political and provide essential public information. It is something we will all welcome. In speaking on this legislation and considering the hardship that employment uncertainty creates for working men and women with children, I digress and take this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the recent job losses within the steel industry in my electorate of Newcastle. Certainly, these workers are on collective agreements. The Hunter is the region with the highest take-up of collective agreements in Australia. We have a very cooperative relationship between our employers, unions and workers. After the closure of BHP and the end of steel making in Newcastle, OneSteel was demerged from BHP and continued a significant presence in Newcastle, particularly in the manufacturing of steel and metal products. At the time, it was evident that OneSteel had been spun off with poor capital equipment and limited capital for investment. I do pay tribute to the OneSteel workers and management, particularly Geoff Plumber, who worked cooperatively to build OneSteel into the successful company it has become. Last year when OneSteel, seeking efficiencies and ways to increase its competitiveness, merged with Smorgon Steel, the pain for Newcastle began again. Plants were rationalised and of course the first ones to go were those older plants in Newcastle, the same plants that kicked off the business growth and success that OneSteel has enjoyed in recent years. That particularly hurts. Last year, OneSteel announced the closure of the pipe and tube plant, with a loss of 240 jobs. Last week, OneSteel announced the closure of its bar mill at Mayfield, with a projected loss of a further 220 jobs. I am told the former Smorgon-Comsteel bar mill will absorb 40 of these workers. Of course, some of the older workers may see the redundancy offer as a favourable early retirement option. But 440 working families have had to face uncertainty regarding their future employment and have had to make decisions, hoping their choice will be the right one for their family’s long-term financial security. I know that OneSteel will ensure that all workers’ entitlements are paid in full, and I know that our government will ensure that Centrelink and the Job Network are ready to give maximum assistance to these workers and their families. I am also aware that in the first round of job cuts 80 per cent of those who actually left OneSteel found alternative employment. So there is a market in our manufacturing sector for skilled workers. I sincerely hope that the workers currently facing redundancies will also find satisfying and long-term employment. The closures at OneSteel will have further implications. It seems that OneSteel will cease making a certain spring steel in a particular bar size from 2009. This product is used in spring making by manufacturers in Newcastle, Adelaide and Queensland. It is used by Bradken in iron ore wagons in the Pilbara. It is used by the mining industry and I know there is concern amongst these manufacturers that they will not be able to access this product. I am asking on the record for OneSteel to clarify whether this latest closure will mean the loss of this product. I am sure that when the merger was looked at by the previous government and its agencies there would have been some assurances that products would still be available to local manufacturers. It would be a great pity if these closures and restructures by OneSteel saw our local manufacturers forced to import raw bars from China or India. I am told there is a world shortage of this material and that there will be problems in assuring a supply of the grade and quality that is required. So I do ask OneSteel to clarify that situation for me. I also hope that in the Hunter the unions, my colleagues and I can assist the OneSteel workers into better employment options. I support the legislation before us and congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on her sterling work in this field. Her clarity is something to marvel at and certainly her ability to put forward this legislation so quickly is something we all take great pride in. 891 13:28:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 0 0 Mr BROADBENT —Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, I am sorry you are leaving the chair at this stage because you were so much a part of the success of the former government. When we hear from the member for Newcastle about the situation she has just raised with the OneSteel employees, we know it is the fact the government has been handed a Holden Statesman, state-of-the-art, powerful economy that is going to allow those people who have lost their positions, or who have been made redundant, to go on and get a job. Their skills will be claimed and nurtured by the rest of Newcastle. That would not have been the case before the Howard government came to power. I am reminded that, over these last 10 years, there were those who made constant criticisms of the Howard government. No government will ever go without criticism. Also, it is very easy to be against something—for 10 years, it was very easy for people to be against whatever the Howard government did—but it is very hard to be for something, to look at what could be the best for our community and to chase that down, to look at ways that we can encourage people into the workforce and grow our workforce right across the nation. I cannot forget the power of small businesses as a result of the changes to the industrial relations that we are talking about today. These changes started in the Hawke-Keating years and went through into the Howard years. Perhaps the Australian people said at the last election, ‘You’ve taken them one step too far.’ But what we have today is the political reaction. The legislation before us today, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008, is the political reaction to the election that we have just had and to the conversation that we had with the Australian people about Labor’s position as against the government’s position over the 12 months in the run-up to the election. But we should understand that this new Labor government has a debt of $20 million to pay to the union movement. Part of this legislation is clearly to pay that debt. Coming out of small business myself, my concern is that the response of the new government will go too far and it will begin to offend the strong economy that has been handed to it. In an interview with Gerard Callinan—radio ABC Gippsland—former minister Peter McGauran, the member for Gippsland, was asked: ‘What was so different about your seat of Gippsland and Russell Broadbent’s seat of McMillan in this election campaign? And what was the difference in the state election?’ Peter McGauran explained that Gippsland does not take its current prosperity for granted. We are different. I know there are parts of Australia that have gone through massive change and that people have had to reskill or go into different areas, but Gippsland has been different. On the industrial relations front, our unions know very well that their local members have supported them over a long period of time. Going right back to when I was the member for McMillan from 1996 to 1998, I remember how we were working through the regional forest agreements with the support of the union movement. There were changes in the pulp and paper industry. There were changes in the dairy industry that we had to deal with. There was the loss of white-collar jobs throughout the whole of Gippsland. There were massive changes to the power industry with its privatisation. That caused very high levels of unemployment and enormous pressure on the community. As members of parliament—and I describe Peter McGauran; me; Gary Blackwood, the member for Narracan; and Russell Northe, the member for Morwell—we are but reflections of our community, the times that we have been through and the unions that we have worked with. Industrial relations is very, very important to us—the power industry, the pulp and paper industry and the enterprise agreements. Small businesses were very happy with the unfair dismissal provisions that the coalition government put in place; they made changes to the legislation of the previous government. The extremity of what we went through as a community meant that the whole of Gippsland was a hair-trigger for the nation. The reason the attack from Labor fell on deaf ears across Gippsland was that the unions—the people in the community—knew that their members in parliament were reflecting their concerns in this place and wherever else they needed to. From Peter McGauran’s activity and his support for me in regard to dairy farmers most recently, I know that he is listening closely to his community. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, after receiving a phone call from home, I can report that it has been raining in Gippsland since early this morning. You might think that that is no big deal for Gippsland. Queensland has been having enormous problems with rain, but we have been aching for rain for a long time. So, on behalf of my dairy farmers and my local community, I want to let you know that it is raining in Gippsland and that that is good news. Good news was part of our election campaign. We talked about the positives. The negative was not going to run in McMillan and Gippsland because we had taken a long time to get to this point of prosperity. It was embarrassing to have 25 per cent of the kids in your area out of work. There was no answer for it. What were you going to say—75 per cent got a job? What about when 18 per cent of your community could not get a job? In some parts of Gippsland unemployment is still high. What we saw with the Howard government’s strong and careful economic management and in the thrust of industry and small businesses down the eastern seaboard of Australia—and no-one can disagree with this—was the creation of some 250,000 jobs. That was only in the last three years. It is about real people with real jobs. What were those jobs? My argument here is that, if Labor are going to overreact on this issue, they will do damage to those people who received those jobs—and they were not part-time jobs. What would an employer do if they were worried about an employee coming on? They would put them on part time and if it did not work out they would cut their hours. What did they do this time? In this last three-year period, they put them on full time, 95 per cent of them worked out, the employers were happy, the employees were happy and nearly 250,000 people got jobs. This has got to the point where the unemployment figures across Gippsland that I just talked about, which were so high, have come down to less than five per cent over most parts of Gippsland. That is remarkable. It is remarkable for the nation that the unemployment rate could be down to 4.1 per cent. It must have galled the opposition during the Howard government years that there were such remarkable economic figures and such remarkable budget surpluses. JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms George —Talk about the bill. MT4 Broadbent, Russell, MP Mr BROADBENT —I am talking about the bill. This is what this bill is all about: the relationship between employer and employee. It is not true, as Labor have promoted, that every employer is a rogue. That is the message that you were sending across. You sent that to big business and small business. Your shadow spokesman at the time threatened them with retribution if they did not fall into line, and had to be called to account. Who by? By the then opposition leader, Mr Rudd. He had to call the now Deputy Prime Minister of this country to account. However, I digress. This is about the relationship between employer and employee. This argument has been going on in this place for 100 years. I do not believe that Labor in office will make the sorts of changes that you are promoting that you will make. I do not think that you will be able to pay this $20 million debt to the union movement. I do not think that they will get all they want from you, because there are people out there who know that this country will run better while we have this industrial relations program. I am quite supportive of what you have put forward, because you have individual workplace agreements. I am supportive of that. I cannot go back on what I have said before. I am a person who supports flexibility in the workplace, and I will continue to support flexibility in the workplace. There has never been a time when you could not join a union in this country and could not have the union go in to bat for you. I will give you an example. I will go back a bit and I will talk about the relationship between the unions and me, because it is important. When we were doing those regional forests agreements, the CFMEU rang me and said, ‘We are not at that roundtable that you are about to have with the Prime Minister.’ I rang Graeme Morris, who at the time was the PM’s offsider. I said, ‘Graeme, the CFMEU want to be at the table.’ He said, ‘I’ll have to talk to the boss’—John Howard—‘about that.’ He did. The member for O’Connor sat next to the Prime Minister at that roundtable. I knew that my unions in my area were represented at that table. That is how we work. I say to the members in the House that our relationship and what we did—and when I say ‘we’ I am talking about Gary Blackwood, the Russell North representatives, Peter McGauran and I—were totally in support of workers and unions in our area. We have never moved from that. And, by the way, they did not forget it at the last election, either. They did not forget who had been their supporter and who had looked after them and represented them in this place. That is why they voted the way they did in McMillan: because they had a representative, they knew that they had a representative and they supported that representative. There were people who felt that they needed collective bargaining support. There is no doubt about that. They had their say. Obviously, 40 per cent of people were concerned about Work Choices. Whether Work Choices was the catalyst for discontent with the government or time was up, nobody knows. But what we do know is that the people of Australia have spoken, and I for one respect what they have said. I believe that the shadow minister, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, has very clearly stated her case and been very clear about where we stand as a party and what we are prepared to put forward to this parliament. But you must remember that there are consequences. If you get this wrong, there will be consequences. Governments cannot afford to get things like this wrong, because they affect the lives of individual people. A lot of people have gained employment in this country under the excellent economic management of the Howard government. We have had very low unemployment and reasonable interest rates—especially compared to what I have been used to in the past, when interest rates were 22 per cent for small businesses and 18 per cent for households and you had something like 20 per cent of people unemployed. I remember those things. I do not expect everybody in the House to remember those things. I do. I see interest rates at eight per cent, and that is what I was paying 35 years ago when we moved into our house. These things are important for the daily lives of people. As I said the other day, these laws are important because they affect those at the bottom level of employment—such as those people along the eastern seaboard who got jobs under the Howard government. I believe that the Howard government will be seen by history as having a proud record of economic management and that the Treasurer of the day, Peter Costello, will be seen to have managed this economy very well. Who were the beneficiaries of that? Not the old union movement, with their ‘We’ll keep the jobs for our boys, thank you very much, and lock in the jobs for them.’ Instead, the jobs filtered down to those who were less skilled, unskilled and unable to get a job. If we have one responsibility as parliamentarians in this place it is to have regard to those people who are least able. JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms George —You abandoned them. MT4 Broadbent, Russell, MP Mr BROADBENT —That is one thing that we did not do. We did not abandon them. We got a whole lot of those people into work. What could happen here if the elastic band that has been pulled by the Labor Party on industrial relations is let go and springs back too far is that the least able to get employment will be first affected, not those who have already locked in a job in the union movement. A reasonable amendment will be put before this House, which could be easily accommodated by the Labor government except for the political charge against them by the union movement. If that charge were not there—if they were prepared to consider a reasonable amendment put forward—then we could go on progressively. Whilst the arrangements in this bill being discussed today are important, the real hit will come later, when the government proposes greater reform. This is the response to the election campaign. The greater response to the changing of awards, which will come later on in the parliamentary term, is the one that the Australian nation will have to watch more carefully. If the government are going to try to pull us back even further than where we have been in the past, those who are least able will pay the highest price. These are important issues for the nation; otherwise, we would not be addressing them. They are not, and never have been, the only issues. This morning I was thinking through these issues and I came to think about my own family and our employment of people over a long period of time. I know that there are those who have worked with us who speak very well of my dad and mum and our family as employers. I know that most of the people who employ people in this country, especially in small business, cherish their workers. Are there a few rotten apples in life? Yes. And that will continue to be the case. Yes, we do need workplace arrangements that allow people to be protected. I think that with what we have come to put in place here, if there is a safety net, people will feel more comfortable. But let us not do anything in the legislation on industrial relations laid down by this House to offend the economy as a whole. When the economic modelling for the changes proposed in Labor’s legislation comes out, we need to be on guard to make sure that this is not just an ideological push because we want one thing and they want another. This should be about what will benefit the nation as a whole and benefit our young people into the future. Yes, it was clear to me that there were some people, grandparents particularly, who worried about whether their children would be able to join a union and be protected. Yes, they can now and they have been able to in the past. As I said, we will be supporting this legislation, but I commend the proposed amendment to the House. 895 13:48:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —I have listened to the contribution from my friend the member for McMillan and I must say that I was quite confused about the essence of his speech. He asserted, as have other members on his side of the chamber, that somehow the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008, speedily brought into this House by the Deputy Prime Minister, is somehow a debt to the union movement. The member for McMillan should understand that this is a debt to the Australian people. The Australian people spoke very loudly and clearly at the last election, and there can be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the Your Rights at Work campaign touched the real-life experiences of so many people across the length and breadth of Australia that even the so-called ‘Howard’s battlers’ deserted the government in droves. It is their rightful expectation that among the first issues to be debated in the 42nd Parliament will be a transition bill to get rid of the most extreme, unbalanced and regressive industrial relations policies ever inflicted on the Australian people. Central to that agenda, of course, was the law of the individual contract so much supported by the former Prime Minister and the former Treasurer. They wanted the individual contract to be the centrepiece of their new industrial relations regime. By so doing, they overturned the hundred years of history of a fair conciliation and arbitration system that was the envy of many countries in the world, a system that had an effective award base that provided a safety net of industrial conditions for all Australian working people. So let us forget about this nonsense that somehow this bill is a debt to the union movement. I think the Australian community spoke very loudly and clearly, and today we see in the debate on this bill our commitment to the Australian people to get rid of individual statutory arrangements and to bring into being a fair, flexible and balanced industrial relations system. I heard the contribution from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this morning and I thought it revealed a rather naive and selective interpretation of the legacy of the Howard government’s approach to industrial relations. Her comments in the debate this morning were as confusing as her party’s flip-flopping about the issue of AWAs over the last few days. I am very relieved, as would be the Australian people, that wiser heads appear to have prevailed in the party room yesterday—at least until this point in time—and that now they are saying Work Choices is dead and, along with it, the AWAs, those insidious instruments that were used to undermine the conditions of so many working people across our nation. For the record and, in particular, for the benefit of new opposition members, I want to say a little about the history of the former Prime Minister’s attitude to the issue of industrial relations in this nation. Anyone who knows anything about that history knows that the former Prime Minister was very much on the public record as having a very well defined position about what he wanted to achieve over his many decades of involvement in public life and in this parliament. Certainly John Howard never did anything other than publicly disclose that his long-term agenda—an agenda he pursued for all the time that he was in parliament—was to overturn our unique system of conciliation and arbitration and the protection that working people in this nation had, from the early days of the Harvester judgement to the creation of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, under a system which understood that everybody needed to have the underpinning of fair and decent industrial entitlements and standards. The Four Corners show the other night was really revealing about many issues. I nearly choked when I heard Joe Hockey, a former industrial relations minister, say this on TV: Quite frankly when I took over the job I don’t think many ministers in Cabinet were aware that you could be worse off under WorkChoices and that you could actually have certain conditions taken away without compensation. And once I started to raise those issues with colleagues and they became more informed of the impact of WorkChoices we introduced the fairness test. The interviewer said to Mr Hockey, a former industrial relations minister: You’re saying to me that Cabinet colleagues were unaware that you could be worse off? JOE HOCKEY: Some were, yeah, yep. LIZ JACKSON (To Joe Hockey): Care to name them? JOE HOCKEY: No, not really! (Laughs) Not really! Then Andrew Robb, also a senior minister in the Howard government, said: I think it was the most powerful symbol of the fact that we had stopped listening and that we’d run our race and that we’d been there so long, that we were no longer alert to the views of the Howard battlers, the people who’d put us there in the first place. It is hard to believe that this level of ignorance prevailed around the cabinet table. If it did, I contend that it was a gross dereliction of duty and responsibility to the millions of hardworking Australians and their families for cabinet ministers to say on the public record that they had no idea that certain conditions could be taken away without compensation. If there was that ignorance, it does not absolve cabinet members of their complicity in the most extreme industrial relations legislation ever visited on the Australian people. I wonder whether their ears were closed when, in the very early days of the Work Choices regime, a brave shop steward called Mrs Harris, who worked for Spotlight, came forward. Mrs Harris said on the public record, ‘I was a former supporter of the Howard government, but I can’t support a government that takes away long-established entitlements from decent working people.’ Do you remember the Spotlight AWA? What the Spotlight AWA did to the workers in that enterprise was very common. We found that that Spotlight agreement had no penalty rates for Saturday or Sunday work and no penalty rates for public holidays. If a worker on the Spotlight AWA worked on a public holiday, they got $14.30 an hour in compensation, compared to their award rate of $35.70. Their only compensation was a day off in lieu at ordinary rates. In that agreement, and so common among all those agreements in the early days of the Work Choices regime, there were no overtime payments, no paid rest breaks, no annual leave loadings and no meal, uniform or first aid allowances. People like the former minister for industrial relations go on the public record and say that they sat around the cabinet table but had no idea of these terrible things that were happening to ordinary working people. You knew, because the Office of the Employment Advocate actually did a survey of the first 250 AWAs. What did that show? Nearly one in five of them excluded all award conditions and replaced them with the barest of the five minimum legislated standards. We know from that survey that two-thirds of them scrapped leave loadings and penalty rates. We know that more than half removed shift allowances and around one-third modified overtime loadings and rest breaks. Yet the former industrial relations minister can get up and say on the public record in a TV interview that they did not realise that all of these terrible things were happening. Their ears must have been closed, because everybody on the opposition benches who was talking to their community and listening to their constituents knew the tragedy that was occurring out there of people being unfairly treated in the workplace and having their long-standing entitlements ripped away without any proper compensation. For the new members of the opposition, let me just remind you that John Howard was on the public record all of his life in politics as saying that one of his long-term dreams was to overturn a system that had worked so well in this country, a system that provided a balanced and fair industrial relations framework and, as I said earlier, a system that was the envy of many countries around the world. In 1996, when John Howard was first elected, he wanted to visit on the Australian community a very similar industrial relations outcome to the one he achieved under Work Choices. But, much to the satisfaction of the Australian community and working families, the Senate in those days put a brake on the most extreme parts of the proposals. When the Howard government introduced its first IR bill in 1996, it sought even back then to abolish the no disadvantage test that Labor had put into place to ensure that enterprise bargaining was built on a framework of decent and fair minimum standards. I think it would be appropriate for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to familiarise herself with the history of the no disadvantage test and to understand that that test only survived because the Senate at that time rejected the extreme conditions that John Howard wanted to first introduce back in 1996. The majority of the Senate committee that looked at John Howard’s first industrial relations bill back in 1996 said: The protection of conditions underpinning agreements is one of the most important provisions available … 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Throsby will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 897 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 897 14:00:00 897 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the minutes of the last Reserve Bank board meeting, which reveal that the bank contemplated putting up interest rates by half a per cent and that it is concerned about a wages break-out. What is the Prime Minister’s plan for preventing a wages break-out leading to higher inflation and higher interest rates for Australian families? 898 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. The challenge that we face this year is: how do we handle the overall inflationary problem which has been left to us by the previous government? Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Whereas our friends opposite may find that difficult medicine to swallow publicly, it is simply the statistical reality that they have to get used to. It is not our say-so; it is the ABS’s say-so. But let us go to the question of wage restraint, which was the core part of the Leader of the Opposition’s question. The first thing we can do, and that we can do nationally, is to show some leadership. I am pleased about the fact that members on my side of the House, supported by the opposition, have decided in a modest way to demonstrate an appropriate level of restraint on our part, modest though it is, for the first year and a half—from now through until the middle of next year. That is important, particularly when we are confronted with statement after statement, report after report, by CEOs across the country, where unfortunately restraint has not been the first order of business for them when it comes to their own salary arrangements for the future. The second element goes to how we best deliver also on this government’s pre-election commitments when it comes to tax cuts. There has been a lot of debate about this. We on this side of the House take seriously our commitments to working people. Were we to take the advice of some and not deliver those commitments to working people, the argument that would be advanced right across the country in the various industrial negotiations that would subsequently occur would be extraordinary—namely, that the absence of the tax cuts which have been promised to working families would not provide a basis for restraint in the subsequent wages demands. We therefore regard that as an important measure in moderating overall demand in the economy, in particular when it comes to demands by those who will be engaging in industrial negotiations this year. That is the second point. The third point is: what do we do about the overall inflationary challenge when it comes to public demand? That is where this government has laid squarely the challenge to those opposite: do you believe that we need to rein in government expenditure—the Minister for Finance and Deregulation asked this very clearly yesterday—or do you not? We believe you do because it is the aggregation of private demand and public demand which creates the fundamentals of the overall inflation challenge. We have a plan of action on both fronts in order to do what we can to ensure that the inflation problem is kept under control. It is a problem which we inherited from those who preceded us, and we have the course of action underway that I just outlined to the honourable member. 898 898 14:03:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 Mrs D’ATH —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the economic challenges the government faces and the government’s policy response to those challenges? 898 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for Petrie for her question. The government’s challenge is to build a modern Australia that is capable of facing the challenges of the future and, within that framework, for us to have a modern, competitive economy which is capable of dealing with threats to our long-term prosperity. Right across the developed world at present we face challenges when it comes to projections for economic growth for the year ahead. We have seen already in the sobering report from the IMF, contained in its World Economic Outlook, the revision down of the growth projection for the global economy from 2007, when it was to render an outcome of about 4.9, down to 4.1 for the year ahead, 2008. What has this been triggered by? A range of factors: instability in global financial markets, occasioned by the downturn in the US housing market, occasioned in turn by what we have seen with the US subprime crisis. And these developments have yet to fully wash through the entirety of global markets and the real global economy. Here in Australia we face a treble challenge. One is to keep a very clear weather eye on these developments in the international economy, particularly the capacity of these developments to wash over the economies of East Asia, where 50 per cent of this nation’s trade occurs. The second thing is this: we must remain absolutely vigilant in the fight against inflation. Third, we must also prosecute a bold program of microeconomic reform to ensure that we can build long-term productivity growth so that this economy can be competitive in the long-term future, given the challenges we face. The inflation challenge that we face is substantial. Firstly, this is the highest level of inflation this country has seen in 16 years. When we took over office from the Howard government we inherited a level of inflation higher than that which the Howard government inherited from the Keating government. Those members sitting opposite need to be very mindful of that fact. Secondly, those inflationary pressures have been building for a couple of years. Thirdly, look at the Reserve Bank’s Statement on Monetary Policy and their projections out, based on where the economy was standing in the final quarter last year—inflation numbers beyond the three per cent band through 2008, through 2009 and into the middle of 2010. These are substantial economic challenges, substantial challenges on the inflation front, and therefore demand a course of action. When it comes, therefore, to the impact of these high levels of inflation, it has of course washed through to what we have seen in interest rates moves. We have had 11 consecutive interest rates rises. This has placed enormous pressure on working families, to the point where when this government took office from its predecessor they were (1) running inflation at the highest levels this country has seen in 16 years and (2) giving to working families interest rates which are the second highest in the developed world. That is what we received by virtue of our predecessors by way of an economic inheritance. The question of course is what to do about it. The legacy problem I have referred to, but the beginning of wisdom in terms of how you deal with the problem is to recognise that a problem exists— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the abuse of question time by using it to make statements. Furthermore, I am terribly disappointed that he won’t give Swannie a go! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —On the point of order, Mr Speaker: yesterday you indicated that it was appropriate that someone on this side of the House raise issues at the time if points of orders had been clearly used to disrupt the functioning of the House. That is clearly what is occurring with the member for O’Connor’s point of order. It was not a point of order, and I ask that you take action against him. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, further to the point of order: the Prime Minister himself said that he wanted fewer ministerial statements in question time and more ministerial statements after question time. We have accommodated those ministerial statements after question time. The member for O’Connor has a very good point: this is a prime ministerial statement about the economy. We deserve the right to have the opportunity to respond. We cannot do that in question time but we can do it through a debate on ministerial statements. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Hopefully, people have read overnight page 188 of House of Representatives Practice, about points of order. We are slowly getting to the point where we are dealing with things at the point in time. If people want disruption, you can have arguments over points of order all you like. Let us get a few things straight. The second part of the honourable member for O’Connor’s point of order was not a point of order and was disruptive. The other question that he raises is something that the House will have to come to grips with, because if you all went away and listened to yourselves today and last year you would have problems. The question that was asked of the Prime Minister was in order. The answer that the Prime Minister is providing is in order. If the House has problems with the length of the answer, that might be something that the House would like to bring its mind to through the Procedure Committee or other avenues. It is a great risk for me to put this on the record in that you might consider time limits for questions, because I do not believe that is the way we should really go if we are fair dinkum about sitting down and thinking about question time and the way that it should operate. The other observation I would make is that this early in the life of the government, whatever people believe is by way of ministerial statement or explaining the government’s position, it is all new. It would seem legitimate that, in the early stages, we have questions that ask the position of the government and that it is explained. I believe that later today we might see the proper use of a ministerial statement, where something that may have in the past been announced outside of the chamber will be exposed and introduced inside the chamber. If we take a collective deep breath and work towards improving the way in which this place operates especially at question time, reduce the number of points of order and get on with the proper operation of the House, I will try to assist that. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The fact that we in the parliament and the nation face is as follows: we have inflation running at 16-year highs and we currently have working families, as a consequence of that, paying the second highest interest rates in the world. That is the challenge that we face. That is the challenge we have inherited from our predecessors. The question arises as to what we now do about it. The beginning of wisdom with this lies in recognising that you have a problem. The core challenge which remains unanswered in this debate is: do all members of this House recognise that we have a challenge in dealing with the inflation problem? If I listen carefully to those opposite in their recent contributions in the debate, I hear the member for Wentworth referring to the inflation problem as a fairytale; the member for Higgins, only six months ago, saying that the inflation rate was right where we wanted it; the Leader of the Opposition disputing the real relationship between inflationary movements and interest rates; and the good old Leader of the National Party giving the classic three-point National Party response to any problem: spend, spend, spend. The core question that we face is: how do you deal with the inflation challenge that we have now inherited? We on our side of the parliament—the government—have articulated a five-point plan to deal with the budget surplus, with the encouragement of private savings, with the skills crisis, with infrastructure and with participation, all of which are critical elements in bringing the inflation genie back under control and boosting long-term productivity growth. Part of the participation problem lies in having not only effective tax policy settings and effective welfare policy settings but also effective industrial relations policy settings. That is why we, the government, have put forward a fair and balanced industrial relations system for the future of this nation, embodied in the interim arrangements introduced by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in the bill which is currently before the parliament and as reflected elsewhere in our policy. We on this side of the House have a clear-cut policy when it comes to industrial relations. Our opponents do not. In December they said that Work Choices was dead, in January they said it was back alive again, in February it was dead again—and still we seem to have a bit of a flutter, based on the statement by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in terms of what may still happen in the Senate. In particular, I draw to the attention of honourable members a statement made today by the good old member for Canning, who, when asked, ‘Wouldn’t AWAs be gone forever after five years?’ responded: ‘But anything could happen in five years, you know. You could have a different government after five years.’ Therein lies the point. Whereas they may say that Work Choices and AWAs are dead and buried or fluttering away there for a bit, the truth is that they lie in the back drawer and lie in the top drawer, ready to be taken out should the opposition assume office at the next election. You can just see it. There it is: Work Choices is dead one minute, back again, dead the next, then waiting for the next election. You can see them with the defibrillator prongs waiting to bring Work Choices back to life—zap, zap. On the day after the election, bang—it is back into life. No-one knows where the Liberal Party stand on industrial relations. They have not made up their own mind on this. They are a party that has lost touch and lost direction. 901 901 14:15:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer to the comments from the Minister for Finance and Deregulation at the Press Club on 6 February when he said that he did not believe that there was a problem with respect to the states’ relative budget and debt positions. Given that state Labor government debt is projected to grow to $80 billion by 2011, does the Treasurer agree with his finance minister that this level of government debt is acceptable? Is the Treasurer seriously contending that a dollar spent by a state government has less impact on inflationary pressures than a dollar spent by the federal government? 901 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for his question. It is very important to understand that state government expenditure on critical economic infrastructure is a very important part of lifting the productive capacity of the economy. Those opposite do not seem to get it. They simply do not seem to understand the importance of critical economic infrastructure in this economy and, because of their failure to provide political and economic leadership in this area over 11 years, there are now inflationary pressures in the economy—elevated inflationary pressures, which have caused seven interest rate rises in the last three years alone. So we on this side of the House do understand the importance of critical economic infrastructure. It is absolutely essential that it goes in place if we are going to lift the productive capacity of our economy and put downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates in the long term. Why are we getting these questions today? Because they are so embarrassed about their complacency over the last 11 years and because their failure in infrastructure gives lie to any claim they have to economic competence. Of course, the other thing that gives lie to their claims of economic competence is the seven interest rate rises that this country has experienced in the last three years on the back of the highest elevated inflation in 16 years. That is the parting gift of the Liberal Party of Australia to the people of Australia. But we take the fight against inflation very seriously, which is why the Prime Minister has put forward his five-point plan. I will quote an authority on infrastructure—this is from Governor Glenn Stevens to the Economics, Finance and Public Administration Committee on 21 February. He said: Balance sheets of governments in this country, by and large, are in very good shape. Opposition members interjecting— He is referring to state governments as well. They will not have any trouble borrowing money from the lenders of the world for a reasonable project. How inflationary is that? I do not think it will feed directly into the consumer price index per se—end of story; end of argument. 902 902 14:18:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 Mr PERRETT —My question is to the Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations: will the minister update the House on the recycling of promotional materials relating to government policies? 902 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Moreton for his question and I know of his concern for fairness and balance in Australian workplaces. The Rudd Labor government is determined to get rid of the scourge of Work Choices and the scourge of Work Choices propaganda. The former government waged a war with Work Choices propaganda; we are now trying to wage a war on that propaganda and get rid of it. On Monday I reported to the House that the Prime Minister and I had arranged for the pulping of 436,000 Work Choices booklets. Yesterday, I reported to the House that we were getting rid of 100,000 Work Choices mousepads. Yesterday in this parliament I was convinced that I was winning the war against Work Choices propaganda, but it is with a heavy heart I am forced to report to the House: there is more. I am sorry about it, but there is more. There are 102,341 plastic folders—unfortunately, more than 100,000 of them. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —What are you going to do with them? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —It is a good question that the Manager of Government Business asks: we are going to have to get rid of them. There are 77,893 pens. There are 5,684 postcards and— Government members—Postcards! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Postcards—just in case anybody ever wanted one! There is an unknown number of fridge magnets. I am alert and I am alarmed, I would have to say! You cannot turn a corner in Canberra without Work Choices propaganda cascading on top of you. It is just remarkable. We are going to continue the war against Work Choices propaganda. I do concede that for some people this propaganda could come in handy. I can imagine that when the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition produced their ‘Work Choices is dead’ statement they did it at a computer with a Work Choices mousepad, they signed it with a Work Choices pen, they filed it in a Work Choices folder and then they had a drink out of a Work Choices fridge. I understand that this propaganda can come in handy to some— Honourable members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —One with a fridge magnet on it—a Work Choices fridge. You would not want to doubt their bona fides, would you, as they sit in their office, cocooned in with their Work Choices propaganda, remembering the good old days when they had the political honesty to walk to a dispatch box and defend Work Choices? Now of course they still believe in Work Choices, but they do not have that political honesty anymore. The Work Choices propaganda is the propaganda of the Liberal Party, paid for unwillingly by Australian taxpayers, by a government that believed in Work Choices. This is a Liberal Party that still believe in Work Choices. If they want some things to remind them of the good old days, they can just ring my office. We have got a lot of them waiting for you! 903 903 14:23:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the claims, reported today, by the National Secretary of the CFMEU that the union will ignore the government’s calls for wage restraint and seek pay rises well in excess of inflation and not based on productivity gains. Given the concerns of the Reserve Bank about the potential for a wages break-out, will the Treasurer guarantee there will be no wages break-out of the kind that drove the economy into recession under the previous Labor government and left one million Australians unemployed? 903 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for her question. Many years ago, far-sighted governments put in place enterprise bargaining, where wage rises were linked directly to productivity at the workplace level. And that is the policy of the Rudd Labor government. That is the fair and balanced system that we are going to put into place, a fair system where all participants in the system must adhere to the law. That is the policy of the Rudd Labor government. But it is so ironic today that we should receive these questions from those opposite, because only last year they looked the Australian people in the eye and they told them Work Choices was something they fundamentally believed in. They told the Australian people it was the secret to economic success in the future. They told the Australian people it was the key to productivity. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked a specific question about the words from the National Secretary of the CFMEU about the fact that that union is ignoring the government’s claims about wage restraint and is going for wages well in excess of inflation. If the Treasurer is not able to answer the question, we can get someone who can. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Those opposite do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha when it comes to Work Choices. They simply have not got a clue. They have not got a clue because they have not got a plan to fight inflation. They do not have a plan to fight inflation at all. They put all their policy power into the Work Choices basket and, for political expediency, they threw it overboard yesterday, leaving them with no plan for the future. Well, the Rudd Labor government has a plan for the future, and it includes a fair and balanced industrial relations system, one which will be based on productivity to create wealth well into the future. 904 904 14:26:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 Ms REA —My question is to the Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Will the minister detail the stability and certainty that the government is providing for Australian employees and employers in its workplace relations policies? 904 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for the question. This side of the House believes it is very important that Australian employers and Australian employees can plan at work with certainty, knowing what the law is going to be. We believe that that certainty should not just last for a limited period of time; that certainty should be there for the long term, because people make long-term arrangements at work. That is why we published, before the last election, all of our policies in industrial relations: so Australian employers and Australian employees could see what it was that a Labor government would provide if elected. We have before the House the legislation that delivers the first bit of that policy, and we will have a substantive bill that delivers the rest of the policy. But the certainty on this side of the House is met on the other side of the House by confusion, by flip, flop, flap and then fuddle. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Fuddle? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Fuddle. And before the last election these were the people that walked to the dispatch box and defended Work Choices day in, day out. Just a few short months ago they were at the dispatch box defending Work Choices. The current Leader of the Opposition talked about how much political capital and philosophical determination had been invested in workplace relations. The member for North Sydney, then the relevant minister, said in the context of the election campaign: The workplace relations system of the Coalition is providing benefits to workers, businesses and the economy as a whole. It must be retained … They believed in Work Choices before the election, and the truth is they actually believe in it now. They are pretending that they have had some road-to-Damascus conversion and they no longer believe in Work Choices. They are pretending that they no longer believe in the Australian workplace agreements, though one would have to say in the last 48 hours the degree of confusion on that point from the opposition has been absolutely remarkable. But apparently, if the statements of the opposition are now to be believed, they will give passage to Labor’s bill through the parliament, and indeed today coalition members at the relevant Senate committee for the bill did not vote at all on a resolution to put the timetable for the Senate inquiry back to the timetable that Labor had asked for. Originally the Liberal Party in its defence of Work Choices had sought to draw this matter out to keep Work Choices going as long as humanly possible. Today the Liberal Party, confronted with a proposition that they come back to Labor’s timetable, that they deal with this bill before Easter, did not even vote on it. So we are now in a situation where we believe—it is hard to know; it changes minute by minute with the flip, flop, flap and fuddle—that the opposition will vote for Labor’s bill and we believe that the opposition will process Labor’s bill in the Senate before Easter, as Labor originally asked. What could cause this remarkable change of heart from a party that believed in Work Choices and has always believed in industrial relations extremism and advocated it right up until yesterday? I would have to say I think I know what has fed into this change of heart, because I have come upon a secret Liberal strategy document. It is the secret plan that shows why the opposition has now repositioned on Work Choices. This is a secret plan that says that the opposition would be best advantaged by adopting Labor’s policy and offering to fast-track it. Isn’t that starting to happen? They are fast-tracking Labor’s policy now, as we ask. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is echoing Labor’s words, talking about a fair and flexible industrial relations system. They are adopting this policy of pretending to close the gap on industrial relations and endorse Labor’s plan. This is a policy that talks about them losing their reputation for industrial relations extremism and Work Choices by pretending to endorse and give swift passage to Labor’s policies. When you analyse this secret plan, the position of endorsing Labor’s plans and giving it fast track is not because they should change their view substantively—that is not what this secret document says they are going to do. They are going to change their view cosmetically, because if they change their view cosmetically— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order—again, it relates to relevance. The Deputy Prime Minister was not asked about alternative views. Specifically, the question was about their current policy. I ask you to bring her back to the question or, if it relates to the current debate, to rule it out of order subject to section 100(e) of the standing orders. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Mr Speaker, the question was about certainty and stability for Australian employers and employees. So I think what a Liberal opposition believes in pertains to that question, because we are talking policy settings people are entitled to know for the long term. This secret policy document talks about pretending to agree with Labor— 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. The question asked about certainty for employees and employers, not any secret documents. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Prime Minister is relevant. On the point that the member for North Sydney raised, yet again it is a standing order that covers the question. In any case, I do not think that the Deputy Prime Minister is reflecting upon proceedings before the House at the moment. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —This secret document lays bare that the reason for this strategy is so business will come back into dialogue with the opposition and they can ‘do some deals’—that is the terminology used—that they can have refunded. It is all about business fundraising. That is what this secret plan is all about. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The answer has been going for well in excess of five minutes now. The Deputy Prime Minister is now referring to documents that I understand come from a private sector organisation. It is not part of the question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —This secret document from a Liberal Party strategist that includes the secret plan—it is all about attracting business fundraising, not about substantively changing their position on industrial relations. This is a document that lays bare a strategy to pretend that they have given up industrial relations extremism and then, if they are re-elected in the future, to go straight back to industrial relations extremism. I take it that the Liberal Party, the members opposite, think I am wrong. Well, if I am wrong, they can come to the dispatch box and say one thing: that a re-elected Liberal government will never introduce AWAs or statutory individual employment agreements again. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Prime Minister is well and truly starting to debate the question. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. The Deputy Prime Minister has moved considerably from the question and the answer that is required. It is well known that the coalition will not be opposing the government’s workplace relations legislation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! As reminded by the member for Cowper, the question went to certainty and uncertainty in regard to workplace legislation. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I conclude on this: the question of certainty and stability for Australian employers and employees would be assisted by a simple answer from the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—or whoever is in control these days—to a question. That question is this: would a re-elected Liberal government reintroduce Australian workplace agreements or a statutory individual employment agreement of any nature—yes or no? And if they do not answer that question then clearly it is about a secret plan to bring back Work Choices, should they ever return to the government benches. The party of Work Choices are still the party of Work Choices and they will always be the party of Work Choices. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I ask that the Deputy Prime Minister table the secret document that she was quoting from. Government members interjecting— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Well, she says it is our secret document—table it! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Table it! Table it! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I warn the member for North Sydney! He requested action to be taken. I am about to take it if he would be quiet. Was the Deputy Prime Minister reading from a document? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Mr Speaker, I made reference to but did not read from a document. 906 906 14:37:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain to Australians with a home loan how they can have faith in a Treasurer who when asked important questions about the economy dismisses them as a ‘pop quiz’ and then confesses that ‘sometimes I will have the details on hand and sometimes I will not’? 906 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. When I think of working families in Australia dealing with mortgage rate pressure, they have one thing and one thing only in mind: 11 consecutive interest rate rises in a row as a response to the economic policy settings put in place by those opposite. Working families across Australia are struggling to make ends meet. They have been dealing with the mortgage pressures which they have been confronted with—11 increases in a row—on the back of mounting inflation pressures in the economy and an inflation genie let out of the bottle by those opposite. I would have thought that those opposite, if they were serious about dealing with the long-term economic challenges of Australia, would accept that we have an inflation problem. I do not hear any recognition from those opposite that we have one at present—none whatsoever. Six months ago the member for Higgins said, ‘It’s just fine and dandy.’ We have had the member for Wentworth saying, ‘It’s all just a fairytale.’ Is there an inflation problem? If you do not recognise that there is an inflation problem, how can we embrace a common set of policy undertakings in this place to deal with an inflation problem? For example, what do we then do when it comes to eliminating unnecessary waste and expenditure through government departments and through the razor gang exercise that we have embarked upon? Because, when it came to the waste of government funds, the growth in government outlays in the last financial year was, I am advised— RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: the question to the Prime Minister is, ‘Can Australians have faith in his Treasurer?’ 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —And what is relevant to working families is whether we have a plan to deal with inflation, a plan to deal with interest rates, a plan to deal with unnecessary government outlays—a plan of action on each of the above. For 11½ years those opposite sat there, fiddled, allowed the macro-economic policy settings of this country to become unravelled by a loose approach to fiscal policy and a nonagenda on productivity policy. When it comes to cute questions asked by those opposite, I am advised by those around the tracks that when the NAIRU question was raised by the chief of staff of the Leader of the Opposition about what to ask in parliament this week, his first response was that they were talking about the Prime Minister of India in the postwar period. You can run as many pop quizzes as you like. We will get some right; we will get some wrong— HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: the question was about the Prime Minister’s confidence in his Treasurer. Some minutes have passed and he has not even mentioned the Treasurer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —It seems the House wants these points of order fully explained to them. I will rule that the Prime Minister is in order— SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Of course you will. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The honourable member for Mackellar will absent herself from the House for one hour. The member for Mackellar then left the chamber. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The question posed by the honourable gentleman opposite has no logical premise to it in the first place. If there were any serious engagement of the economic debate in this nation about what we will be doing in the future on inflation, on interest rates and on cutbacks to unnecessary budget outlays, we would start to have an engagement of proper economic policy debate. I will tell you what the Treasurer of the Commonwealth has been doing in the 2½ months since we have been in office— Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —sitting there in an Expenditure Review Committee of the cabinet cutting and burning the outrageous engagement— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It strikes me, the question having been asked, that now the question has well and truly been directly answered should not be an invitation for those on my left to raise their voices. They will sit there quietly. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Why this House has absolute confidence in the Treasurer is because the Treasurer is engaged in day-to-day, week-to-week meetings in the Expenditure Review Committee of this government and cabinet cutting and burning the outrageous examples of waste and misallocation of public funds in which those opposite have engaged. The Deputy Prime Minister today has given you one example after another, one item of waste after another—$122 million worth of this outrageous self-indulgence in public outlays, all contributing to public demand and all therefore adding to the inflation burden in the economy. That is what the Treasurer has been doing. The Treasurer has also been engaged with me in how we advance a productivity agenda for this nation for the future, how we make sure that we engender long-term productivity growth through a human capital revolution, investing in skills and investing in infrastructure. These are the areas where this Treasurer has been engaged. The Treasurer has the absolute confidence of the House, the government and the parliament, because we are dealing with a record of mismanagement by those opposite, and they stand condemned. 908 908 14:44:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the wage price index data released today and its implications? 908 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for his question because this is a very serious matter. The wage price index for Australia grew by 1.1 per cent in December and by 4.2 per cent over the year. As we have said, this is a very, very tight labour market, so we need to be alert to the skill shortages and labour shortages in the Australian economy, something those opposite were not alert to for 11 long years. These are solid wage rises, but we need to ensure they are closely linked to productivity growth. As I was telling the House earlier, our industrial relations system, where wage rises will be linked to productivity growth at the firm level, is absolutely critical. It is fair, it is balanced and it is the key to our future prosperity. As the Prime Minister indicated before, so is our capacity building agenda, so is doing something about the skills crisis, so is providing some leadership when it comes to national infrastructure and so is enhancing workforce participation. They are all absolutely critical to the productivity agenda that this government has in hand. It stands in stark contrast to the approach of the current Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer. They do not have a plan for the future. The shadow Treasurer has a plan for himself but he does not have a plan to fight inflation. Do you know what the Leader of the Opposition said in a radio interview a couple of weeks ago? He said that there was no link between inflation and interest rates. That is how economically illiterate and ignorant the Leader of the Opposition is when it comes to these basic economic facts about what we must do to tackle the inflation challenge and build prosperity for the future. The shadow Treasurer says inflation is a fairy story. It is not a fairy story for people sitting around the kitchen tables of this country who are finding it very hard to make ends meet. This government has a plan for the future. The opposition have no plan for the future at all. They just have a plan to take each other’s jobs. 908 908 14:47:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Treasurer, and I refer to my question to the Treasurer yesterday about Australia’s two-speed economy. Given the budget cuts proposed by the government, what measures is the Treasurer considering to ensure the impact on Australian families is not disproportionately severe in states such as New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, where economic growth last financial year was well below average and considerably less than the rate of growth in the mining boom states of Queensland and Western Australia? E0F Wood, Jason, MP Mr Wood interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for La Trobe is warned! 908 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for his question because I have just outlined a plan that we have got to tackle inflation. But I want to make a couple of points about the relationship between fiscal policy and monetary policy, because it is pretty true to say that monetary policy is a blunt instrument. Why is monetary policy a blunt instrument? It is a blunt instrument because it hurts working families. It is a blunt instrument because, when inflation goes up, interest rates follow. One of the problems we have had in this country is that the lax fiscal policy from those opposite is pushing up inflation, and inflation is not something that is confined just to one state or another. Inflation is not confined to Queensland; it is not confined to Western Australia; it is Australia wide. So we have to deal with that inflation problem. We have to deal with it to take the financial pressure off working families. We deal with it through our five-point plan. That is our plan, and those opposite do not have one at all. 909 909 14:48:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 Ms PARKE —My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the foreign minister update the House on recent developments in Pakistan? 909 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I thank the member for Fremantle for her question. The Australian government welcomes the largely peaceful conduct of parliamentary elections in Pakistan on Monday of this week, 18 February. Members, of course, would be aware that Pakistan has had to overcome very significant difficulties to see the conduct of this election. The election was of course delayed by the shocking assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December of last year, but we welcome the fact that the elections have now been conducted. When I rang the then foreign minister of Pakistan, Mr ul Haque, to relay Australia’s shock and sadness at the assassination of Mrs Bhutto, I made the point that the Australian government very strongly believed that the best way forward for Pakistan was to pursue the election, the best way forward for Pakistan was to have an election where there was full and free participation and which was conducted in a peaceable manner, and that the best way forward for Pakistan to combat extremism and terrorism was by restoration of democracy and restoration of the rule of law. Whilst the Pakistan election commission will not formally complete and declare the election for the next couple of days and whilst we will not see, for example, any independent international observations either from the US teams or from the EU teams until later tonight or tomorrow, it is clear that the opposition parties have made very substantial gains. The party of the late Benazir Bhutto, the PPP, led since her assassination by Mr Zardari, at last count had won up to 87 seats. The PML-N, led by former Prime Minister Sharif, has won 66 seats out of the 268 seats up for contest. So it is quite clear that for the first occasion at a democratically held election we see the demise of a Pakistan government which has for the first occasion run its full term. We will await with interest those formal reports of the election observers and the full and complete conduct of the election by the Pakistan election commission. We will of course be watching the election aftermath and its consequences very closely, but we are very pleased that President Musharraf has indicated that he is prepared and willing to cooperate with any new government which is formed out of the parliament as a result of these elections. We believe that that is very important and we encourage all parties in Pakistan to engage in such discussions in a peaceful and constructive way. Stability, democracy and the rule of law are very, very important to Australia. That is because any adverse implications for Pakistan, particularly any adverse implications for the south of Pakistan so far as extremism and terrorism are concerned, have adverse implications and consequences for the over 1,000 Australian troops in the south of Afghanistan. Deleterious consequences for Pakistan lead to deleterious consequences for Afghanistan. It is very important that Australia and the international community support very strongly the extension of democracy in Pakistan, the extension of the rule of law. We look forward, after the conduct of a relatively peaceful election, to seeing a peaceful transition to a new government in Pakistan in cooperation with the current President. 910 910 14:52:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP 0 FRAN BAILEY —My question is to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of the appointment of Roy Green and officials from the trade union movement to conduct the government’s review of the textile, clothing and footwear sector? Why has the government again ignored Treasury advice that the Productivity Commission conduct the review? 910 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I certainly welcome the question from the honourable member. As is the case with the automobile industry and is the case with the clothing and textile industry, they are very, very important manufacturing industries in this country and we make no apologies for the urgency with which we approach the problems challenging these industries. The principal problem challenging these industries at the moment, among many, is of course our exchange rate. We will from time to time take decisions about inquiries and involve the full expertise of the federal bureaucracy and agencies in those inquiries. The Productivity Commission will be involved in any future inquiry into the textiles industry, just as it is involved in the auto industry. 910 910 14:54:00 Campbell, Jodie, MP HWC Bass ALP 1 Ms CAMPBELL —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and relates to the Australian National Audit Office performance audit report tabled last week entitled Administration of grants to the Australian Rail Track Corporation. Would the minister advise the House of the report’s findings and outline the government’s approach to investing public money in infrastructure? 910 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the honourable member for Bass for her question. I note the critique of the leader of the National Party of the Australian National Audit Office: that it is just more money for bureaucratic inquiries. But, no, these are actually inquiries making sure that taxpayers’ funds are used efficiently. I am not surprised that the National Party are so concerned about the operations of the National Audit Office because, given their concentration on National Party pork-barrelling, the National Audit Office— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. The question did not ask about the National Party at all. There was no reference at all to it in the question. If he does not want to answer the question, we can have someone ask a question that does want answering. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I am hoping that the minister for infrastructure is making preliminary remarks about the Audit Office. I would indicate that it is not assisted by subquestions being fired across the chamber. I call the minister. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —The ANAO report outlines how the former government made three special grant payments to the Australian Rail Track Corporation: $450 million in June 2004, $100 million in June 2005 and $270 million in June 2006. Why were these payments made in June each year? The Audit Office finds that these payments were made ‘in the context of assisting to reduce higher than expected budget surpluses’. We have in this nation a significant infrastructure deficit, but were the excess funds used to improve productivity? No. It was just bailed out at the end of the financial year to get the funds off the books. The ANAO report goes on to say this about the $450 million payment in June 2004: … prior to the grant being approved, the ARTC was not asked to provide any formal advice on specific areas in which a grant of that quantum could be applied ... It was as if they said: ‘We have $450 million. Here you go. Do with it what you like.’ That was the attitude. Then the government put out a release. They said that it was for rail realignments of the New South Wales North Coast line. It sounds worth while. But what does the Audit Office say the money was used for? The Audit Office says that the money that the government said was going to the New South Wales North Coast was used on the lines from Melbourne to Junee. No wonder they lost the seat of Page on the New South Wales North Coast during the election: they could not find it; they did not know where it was. That is just one of the recommendations of this Audit Office report. Indeed, the National Audit Office is thinking of changing its name to the ‘Nationals Audit Office’, because every week there is a new report being tabled in this parliament about the pork-barrelling and the waste and mismanagement of expenditure over there. There was so much money that they did not know what to do with it. I heard an interesting story the other day about the Nationals and their use of spending when it comes to infrastructure. During the campaign, the now leader of the National Party rang up some people in Singleton and said that he was going to pay a visit. If you are in Singleton and the National Party are coming to town you think: ‘You beauty! Here come the big bucks. Singleton is going to get some allocations of funding. Here it comes.’ The now leader of the National Party was in Tamworth and he drove down to Singleton. You have to drive through Muswellbrook to get to Singleton. When he got there the announcement was about the Muswellbrook bypass. He did not actually know that you should probably announce the Muswellbrook bypass funding in Muswellbrook. When it comes to the National Party, it does not matter whether it is funding for Junee to Melbourne, instead of the New South Wales North Coast, or announcing the Muswellbrook bypass in Singleton—it does not matter, because the Audit Office have said this about the management of this scheme: There are no contracts, funding agreements or documented governance arrangements that require the ARTC to use the $820 million in special grant funding on any particular projects or in any particular time frame. That is an absolute indictment of the former government’s attitude towards taxpayers’ funds. They stand condemned, not just by the government, not just by the Audit Office but by the taxpayers of Australia. 911 911 15:00:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 Mr WINDSOR —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and relates to the carbon debate. Could the minister inform the House of his vision for the farm sector in relation to the carbon debate and, in particular, the potential to sequester carbon in our better soils through conservation farming practices? Given that the former Prime Minister sidelined farmers from any involvement in the carbon task force, and the inability of the National Farmers Federation to influence debate, what role does the new government foresee for agriculture’s involvement in the development of a carbon market? 912 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr BURKE —I thank the honourable member for New England for his question. When I was visiting New England, the honourable member for New England took the opportunity to take me through and show me some of the particular soil practices that are being engaged in by farmers there. For a long time New England has been in the front line of no-till farming. The same issues were raised by the representatives of AgForce during the visit the Prime Minister and I made to Roma. A lot of focus has been put, at different times, on carbon emissions and land clearing. It is also the case, though, that the different methods of soil use have a significant impact on carbon emissions. Packages put together by the government and announced in our election policy Australia’s Farming Future go to some of the specific ways in which we can advance these practices to make sure that farmers are well prepared for the carbon trading scheme. The three particular programs in Australia’s Farming Future which will go to some of the issues raised by the honourable member for New England are the agricultural adaptation programs, the adjustment programs and a program making sure that research and development has a particular focus on productivity and on climate change research. Together, those programs add up to $130 million, and that will provide an important part of the way forward on the issues raised by the honourable member for New England. It is important that we finally have a situation where the government of this country is concerned with preparing farmers for a future with climate change. It is all the difference in the world away from the prior government, which denied the climate was changing at all. It is all the difference in the world away from that government, which for 11 long years told people there was no need to prepare, there was no need to adapt and there was no problem at all. The report that came from ABARE at the end of last year made clear the real dangers to both our domestic and export markets if we do nothing in terms of preparation for climate change. This government has the Australia’s Farming Future policy. We are committed to making sure that we are well prepared, as an agricultural sector, for the future so that we can deal with both adaptation and mitigation issues—in particular, in the soil areas raised by the honourable member for New England—in making sure we have not just a sustainable but a vibrant future for Australian agriculture. 912 912 15:04:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 Mr SYMON —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What steps is the government taking to cut back on wasteful government spending? Will the minister explain why spending discipline and addressing the inflation challenge is important for Australian families? 912 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —Underlying inflation is currently running at 3.6 per cent in Australia. We have had 11 interest rate increases in a row after 20 Reserve Bank warnings over the preceding two or three years about the threats of inflation. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I will be very generous to the member for North Sydney. This is a final warning. He has interjected on every question today. BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams —Throw him out! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lyons is not helping. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —Underlying inflation is running at 3.6 per cent, the highest rate for 16 years. We have had 11 interest rate increases in a row and government spending for the current financial year, and the projections from the previous government, is running at a 4½ per cent real increase. The rate of increase is way too fast. The Rudd government is committed to cutting into government spending to get it back in line with appropriate fiscal settings to ensure that the budget is putting downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. That involves taking tough, challenging decisions. We faced the first instalment of this requirement a couple of weeks ago. When we were confronted with choices about the former government’s announcements that were made after the budget last year, a whole variety of spending initiatives were wrapped up in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook papers. There were 220 spending decisions. We went through all of those spending decisions. Some of them were entirely legitimate and some of them were the ordinary business of government, but many of them were a substantial part of John Howard’s pre-election shopping list. As a result, we cut $643 million of government spending over four years and, particularly, for the forthcoming financial year we cut $265 million of government spending. That is just a modest first instalment. We accept that, because the real action, the big action, is going to be in the budget. We could not duck or avoid these decisions because we had to legislate on those measures, and that legislation is to be passed by the House today. Some of the measures that we cut included significant government advertising spending. I advised the House yesterday of the outrageous amount of money—$457 million—that was spent by the previous government over the last 16 months it was in office. Some of those things were government advertising and some were specific programs. It was notable that straight out of the blocks in responding to these initiatives we had none other than the new Leader of the National Party. He immediately responded, and here is what he said in his press conference in the wake of these cuts being announced. He described the removal of $3 million of funding to the Fishing Hall of Fame as ‘absolute rubbish’. He said, and I quote, ‘We do not have a shortage of money in Australia.’ In other words, money grows on trees and the trees are in bloom so we do not really have a shortage of money in Australia. He pointed out that the United States has a higher inflation rate than Australia but it is actually increasing government spending, clearly implying that the solution to any inflation problem is to increase government spending, not cut it. Finally he stated that cuts in government spending of the kind that we have projected will do nothing to reduce inflation. It is notable that in the last couple of days the opposition have placed a lot of emphasis on the question of technical economic knowledge. I would suggest that the little task force that they have beavering away somewhere in the bowels of the parliament should pay a visit to the Leader of the National Party’s office and give him a bit of a lesson about some technical economic concepts like the impact of public demand on inflation and the impact of government spending on the economy, because at the moment we have a Leader of the National Party who thinks that the big issue facing Australia is the prospect of cuts to the Fishing Hall of Fame. He thinks that there is plenty of money lying around, that there is no problem, that we do not have to worry about the rate of spending in our economy and that we do not have to worry about inflation or interest rates. He thinks that cutting government spending will have no impact on inflation and that the answer to inflationary problems and upward pressure on interest rates is to actually increase government spending. It is notable that there has been some speculation about the Liberal Party and the National Party merging. There has been speculation about a prospective merger of the two parties. Interestingly enough, the National Party cannot get a deal. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have a bit of a problem here: I am starting to have some sympathy for the member for North Sydney. I hope that the minister will be wrapping up his answer very quickly and not digressing too far. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —I will of course comply with your ruling, Mr Speaker. I was merely coming to the suggestion that, before any discussions of that kind might proceed, the Liberal Party might have a bit of discussion with the Leader of the National Party—given the Liberal Party’s new-found discovery of technical economic knowledge that it has been so pleased to parade before the parliament over the last couple of days—about some basic economic concepts. We on this side of the House, we in this government, understand the importance of cutting government spending to tackle the inflation problem. 914 914 15:10:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS 0 Mr TRUSS —My question is to the Treasurer and it follows on from the answer just given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Can the Treasurer explain why he believes the massive projected increases in state debt are not inflationary while at the same time he says that federal expenditure must be cut and the federal budget surplus must be increased to deal with inflation? Why is state government expenditure on infrastructure not inflationary but Australian government expenditure on infrastructure is inflationary? 914 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I have a couple of concepts for him. The state general government sector have no net debt but it is true that their trading enterprises do have debt. They are out there investing in the future of the country—putting in place critical economic infrastructure to put downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates. If they were not doing that, the country could not operate. 914 914 15:12:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 1 Ms LIVERMORE —My question is to the Prime Minister. 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —If the member for Flinders wants to ask a question, he will have to come to the dispatch box at an appropriate time to ask it; he cannot do it by an interjection, so he will sit there quietly. 83A Livermore, Kirsten, MP Ms LIVERMORE —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how does the government propose to expand Bureau of Meteorology services? 914 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. At a time of climate change across Australia, it is very important that the Bureau of Meteorology provide a proper range of services not just for our national needs but for local needs as well. Of course this has been highlighted given the extreme weather events we have had in recent times in Queensland, New South Wales and elsewhere. In the case of Rockhampton, I know from the honourable member of the excellent work done by her local Bureau of Meteorology office there. That is why I have asked the minister responsible to ensure that the Bureau of Meteorology there not only continues to operate but also continues to operate all the meteorology services that it has provided in the past. These are of particular importance to local areas in regional Australia and in rural Australia. Of course, beyond that, we need for the same reasons to ensure that meteorology services are delivered in those other areas which have been the subject of recent debate as well: in Cairns, Townsville and Launceston—where I have also received representations from local members. If you look across the meteorology system in the country, you see that there are particular gaps. I refer in particular to one which exists around the Queensland town of Emerald. Today I am announcing that the government will be funding a new radar in Emerald to better meet the needs of that community: its farmers, its families and its businesses. Emerald has a high level of need for these sorts of services, as we have seen recently in the unseasonal weather events in that community. I look forward very much to working with the member for Flynn to ensure that this new radar is properly rolled out and the systems and meteorology services associated with it. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I will pick up on the interjection from the Leader of the National Party, who once again comes in on cue. Why is there a gap when it comes to the delivery of meteorology services in Emerald? The reason is that for the last 10 or 11 years nothing has been done about it. I have before me here a letter to the current Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts from the Emerald Shire Council addressed to you know who: it is the member for Flinders, who has been particularly vocal in this place in recent days. It says: We have lodged two previous submissions, the last one in 2003. Specifically, I refer to a letter of response from the Hon. Greg Hunt, MP, received by council in December 2004. Since the receipt of this letter, we have had no further correspondence or advice in this matter. That is three years of inertia, three years of inaction, three years of not providing effective meteorology services to local communities that need it. Since then, we have had these extraordinary developments in extreme weather events in and around Emerald, directly affecting that community, and we have here an epistle of indifference from the member for Flinders. We are acting on this. We have committed to ensuring that Emerald forms part of the Bureau of Meteorology network in Queensland and—in response to the representations of the member for Capricornia, the member for Flynn and other members, including the member for Leichhardt and also the member for Bass—the retention of those meteorology services in those areas. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister was referring to a letter, and I ask that he table that letter. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Was the Prime Minister reading from a document? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —I was reading from a document, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the document confidential? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —The document is marked ‘confidential’. 915 915 15:16:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 Mr PYNE —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his answer yesterday in relation to the release of emails between himself and Graham Edwards. We look forward to their publication. In that answer, he pointedly ignored my request that he release any correspondence between himself or Graham Edwards with Julian Grill concerning arrangements with Brian Burke. I repeat that request. Further, will he detail and release what discussions, correspondence, emails or meetings he has had with Sarah Burke in relation to the journalists dinner on 12 December 2005? 916 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I indicated yesterday, in response to the honourable member’s question concerning Graham Edwards, that I was not aware that we had any such correspondence. We are still checking. I do not think that is the case. If we find any, as I indicated yesterday, we will be making that public. On the question of any correspondence with Mr Grill, I am unaware of any. If we find any, we will make that public. 916 916 15:17:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 Mr RAGUSE —My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the government’s efforts to ensure child-centred family policy and whether there are any obstacles? 916 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —I thank the honourable member for his question. There is, of course, no doubt that children are Australia’s most precious asset, and our family payments system really must be used to support the raising of children. The government are already engaged in a number of important initiatives in this area. First of all, we are making sure that we develop a national child protection framework. We have to respond to the carer payment (child) report. Most recently, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer and I announced terms of reference for a Productivity Commission inquiry into paid maternity leave, with a particular focus on the needs of newborn children. One of my first acts as a minister was to introduce income quarantining, or income management, for 14 Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory to make sure that those welfare payments were being used for the benefit of children. In opposition, we announced that we would give authority to state and territory child protection authorities to enable them to quarantine welfare payments for the protection of children. The previous government, in the run-up to the election, adopted this policy. We heard a lot from them in this place and in the newspapers about their plans to link welfare payments to school attendance and to the protection of children. The previous minister’s plan was reported in the newspaper as: Any parents receiving welfare who were not sending their children to school would have their welfare cheques quarantined. Mr Brough was quoted as saying: There will be thousands. He went on to introduce legislation which we in opposition supported. On coming to government, when I asked my department for advice about how this measure was proceeding—I wanted to know what the previous government had done to put these very important measures in place—I found, to my dismay, that the previous government had not funded it; they had not funded it at all. They had issued the press releases, they had given the media interviews, they had put the legislation into the parliament, but somehow they had neglected to fund it. There was no money at all. Not a cent had been allocated by the former government for welfare payments nationally to be managed in the interests of children. It was nothing more than policy by press release by the previous government. There was not one cent to fund this very important measure. If you have a look at the press release from the former minister, he said: The welfare reform changes announced today by the Prime Minister— that is, the previous Prime Minister— are a key measure— RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson interjecting— PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —‘A very important measure’, the Leader of the Opposition says. Whatever words might be used, not one cent was allocated to these critical measures. Unlike the Howard government, we intend to provide the national leadership that is necessary to make sure that these very important reforms are implemented. 917 917 15:21:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to a report in today’s papers about the Investing in Our Schools Program. I also refer him to his statement of 20 February 2007 about the Investing in Our Schools Program, when he asked himself, ‘Do I think that it is a useful program worthy of bipartisan support?’ and then answered his own question by saying, ‘You bet.’ In light of that statement, why has the Prime Minister cut $800 million from primary school budgets? 917 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. The program funded by the previous government, as you would know if you were being truthful in this place, concludes in 2008. It concludes after four years. I recall that when the former Prime Minister made the final announcement of a funding allocation he said that it was ‘the final allocation’ for a four-year program. If the honourable member for Casey is going to stand at the dispatch box and seek to engage in a debate on schools policy, I would suggest he do so honestly, because that question was not an honest reflection of the previous government’s policy and the honourable member for Casey is fully aware of it. 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr Anthony Smith —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. The Prime Minister said it was a program worthy of bipartisan support— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Casey can resume his seat. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I refer to the standing order which goes to disruptive conduct. Very clearly, the Prime Minister was answering that question. The sole point of that point of order was to disrupt the orderly proceedings of the House. I ask you to take action. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Prime Minister can continue. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —To reinforce the point I just made in response to the question of the honourable member, if you go to the forward estimates for this period you just see, effectively, blank, blank, blank, blank, going out beyond the period concerned. The honourable member knew that before he asked the question. I think if we are going to have an honest debate here about education policy it has to be framed in honest terms. Those opposite are here defending a policy which they constructed to conclude in 2008. The Prime Minister at the time, when he announced the last allocation of funds, said that it was ‘the final allocation’ of funds. What we have here is an entirely bogus question delivered by the member for Casey. He knows it full well. Presenting such a question to the parliament in that manner I think belittles him, frankly, in terms of the honesty which underpins him and the standing I previously held for him. On the question of schools policy, I say this: this government is passionate about an education revolution. This government believes in investing in our schools. This government is committed to a $2.5 billion plan to construct trades training centres in every one of Australia’s secondary schools, government and non-government, right across the country and, on top of that, to deliver $1 billion over four years to ensure that our kids in year 9 and above have access to computers in schools. There is a $62.5 million plan over four years: Local Schools Working Together. These represent effective investments in building up our schools into the future. We are a party and a government who are passionate about the future of education in our country, passionate about schools, passionate about the need to invest in our schools and passionate about the future which our kids have before them, and that is why you have billions of dollars worth of new programs being invested in the future of those kids. I would have thought that the honourable member for Casey, in advancing that question, would have reflected a little more honesty in the way in which he put it forward. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister just reflected on the character of the member for Casey. If he wants to do that, we would welcome a substantive motion on it and we will have a debate about who is telling the truth in relation to the funding. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I find no point of order. The member for North Sydney has had his opportunity to make his point. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, further to the point of order: it is an offensive reflection and it should be withdrawn. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I think that if members would review the writings about this in House of Representatives Practice they would see that most of the comments that were made from the equivalent of this chair down in the old place that are referred to were made by Speaker Snedden. Speaker Snedden simply put that people who go into public life, get themselves elected as members of parliament, are often called upon to take things that outside seem a bit harsh. If in fact it is the case that people are concerned that a person’s political honesty is reflected upon in the way in which things are put to the chamber, and that that is something that we should be mortified by, perhaps we are not allowing ourselves to have the type of robust debate that we should have. I have indicated that I am not really very happy when question time is used to make points about personalities. I mentioned that to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation yesterday. I would rather the contest be a contest of ideas. But on this occasion I think that we would be getting a little overly precious. Even though the member for Casey might feel a little aggrieved, I am sure that his skin is thick enough to take it on this occasion. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, you have just given us a dissertation from the chair about this matter. The previous practice of Speakers during my time in this place, from Halverson onwards, has been that when there have been offensive comments made they have asked that they be withdrawn. I well recall that only last year numerous members of the then opposition stood up in this place and asked for the withdrawal of a comment about the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister. At that time it was asked that the offensive comment be withdrawn. In our attempts to establish what are the new rules under Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. I ask the member for Casey if he was offended by the comments made. 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr Anthony Smith —Mr Speaker, I am offended, because— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw unreservedly. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Given the offence which has been taken by the member, I of course withdraw. 918 918 15:29:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 Mr HALE —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What is the government doing to improve health services in the Northern Territory, following the previous government’s intervention? 918 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Solomon for his question. He, probably alone in this House with the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, has the closest interest in the way that we are going to continue with the previous government’s intervention. I do think it is important to be able to put on the record in this House that we intend to make sure that the previous government’s intervention does turn into providing lasting change in the health sector—in particular for our Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. I know that the chamber is well aware of the child health checks which have been and are continuing to be undertaken. As of yesterday, 6,199 checks have now been undertaken. We are committed to honouring the $100 million that was committed by the previous government over the next two years to improve primary health care and health workforce provision in the Territory. But we are also committed to so much more than the previous government ever put in. We promised in the election to support more Indigenous health services and we are going to deliver on those. We are already taking steps to deliver on those, from the $260 million for early childhood education and maternal nursing services through to an extra $50 million in alcohol treatment services that were announced just last week, of which $8 million is directed towards the Northern Territory. All these commitments and many more are about us getting down to work, rolling up our sleeves and delivering the services where they are needed. I would also like to provide to the House some information about the follow-up services that are being provided as a result of the checks that have been done for children in the Northern Territory and to reaffirm our determination to make a real difference to the health outcomes for Indigenous children. The House might be interested to know that from an analysis of the children’s health checks—the first 4½ thousand—35 per cent of children have been referred to further primary health care services, a big chunk of those already being provided by existing services; 27 per cent of children have been referred for dental care; 10 per cent of children have been referred to a paediatrician; and 7.8 per cent of children have been referred to specialist ear, nose and throat services. I want to take the time to go through how those services are being provided because it is interesting that in the two areas where there is the most demand for follow-up care—primary care and dental care—the Rudd Labor government has already made significant additional commitments and these are also the areas where the previous government totally dropped the ball. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Warringah have already admitted on the record that workforce shortages were the fault of early decisions of the Howard government. And we know—in fact members have been reminding us today—that the Howard-Costello government cut funding to dental care. I want to deal with this issue. Opposition members interjecting— 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —Before members opposite object, members might want to hear a sobering bit of information about what the previous government did in dental care. Eleven years ago when the previous government was elected, the government made a decision that it would not contribute to dental care. It made a decision that it would not— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott interjecting— 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —The member for Warringah, who I know is good at maths, will be able to work out that most of the children were born after the Howard government was elected and now some 30 per cent of those Indigenous kids need dental care. The member for Warringah, even if the rest of you do not know, will know that not a single cent was spent for any child in the Northern Territory on dental care in the last 11 years. Even the government’s chronic care program did not service in four years a single person under the age of 25 in the whole Northern Territory. Don’t come into this House and tell us that they object to us providing money for dental care when not one cent was provided to provide dental care by the Commonwealth for Indigenous children. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance and things that are self-evident truths: that is manifestly not true and I ask the minister to come back to the facts. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The leader can raise relevance. If there are things about the matter contained in the response that he has a problem with, there are other forms of the House available. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —I am very proud to be part of a government that is going to be providing money to the states and territories to provide more dental services. I might also highlight that, of the hundreds of children that have been referred who need ear, nose and throat surgery, 500 children have already been organised to have the surgery undertaken in April 2008 as part of the blitz, and I would note when talking about this sort of surgery that the Rudd Labor government’s $150 million for elective surgery, $5.3 million of which went to the Northern Territory and will pay for an additional 500 elective surgery procedures, will be particularly focused on ear, nose and throat surgery. We are of course proud of the fact that when we see these problems—and everyone in this House, whatever their political view, understands that health services are desperately needed in the Northern Territory—we are putting money in to help fix them. We know that much more needs to be done to reduce child mortality in Indigenous communities and to improve the life expectancy gap. We are starting to do that and we hope we are going to have the House’s support to continue doing that. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 920 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers 920 920 15:36:00 Mr GARRETT,MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 0 Mr GARRETT —Mr Speaker, I want to provide an additional component to an answer to a question from the member for Flinders yesterday. I advise the House that the government is well aware that state authorities are taking important steps to improve the quality of treated sewage and waste water that is discharged off the coast and that the government supports those steps. I also point out that the National Water Quality Management Strategy and its recycled water guidelines have moved away from the ABC classifications—which were never standard anyway but which varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction—and, instead, promote recycled water that is fit for purpose, using a risk management framework which has been developed to assist states and local governments to better protect the environment and human health. 920 Questions to the Speaker 920 920 15:37:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 0 Mrs GASH —Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. Why were people with Parkinson’s refused entry into the gallery yesterday on the basis of their T-shirts spelling out the word ‘Parkinson’s’ being classed as political, when other T-shirts with ‘Kevin 07’ and ‘Your rights at work’ were permitted entry? 920 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I understand that the action was taken as a result of a standard practice that has developed for the way in which these matters are dealt with at the door. I invite the honourable member for Gilmore and any other members that have problems with the action taken to come and speak to me so that we can more fully discuss it. Those that made the requests, I believe, acted in good faith on the basis of the way in which these things have been handled in the past. But we can always learn lessons from occurrences like this, and I am happy to discuss it. As I say, if there are other members that have some concern, I am happy to discuss it with them, too. 921 921 15:38:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 Mr SLIPPER —Mr Speaker, my question to you is: despite the fact that the former government regrettably did not allow an official parliamentary reception for His Holiness the Dalai Lama when he visited Australia last year, now that His Holiness is visiting our country again, will you, as Presiding Officer, allow an official parliamentary reception for this very important Tibetan religious leader? 921 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —This is something that has exercised the minds of those of us in this place not only under the former government but before that as well. I do not believe that there is anything different about the policy for these matters at this point in time that would lead to different action. But I will come back to the member if there is any other advice that I might be giving him. 921 921 15:39:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 Mr TUCKEY —Mr Speaker, I refer you to the remark of the Prime Minister to this House that it had not previously sat on Fridays and your advice to me to contact the chamber research service with regard to that matter. Mr Speaker, can you confirm to the House their advice that there were scheduled Friday sittings during 1970 and, more recently, between February 1984 and September 1987, a period when your father occupied the chair, until and during 1986? Do you further recollect if your father officiated over question time on those Fridays? 921 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I point out that that was not really a question to me. I am glad that the chamber research service was able to provide some information to the member for O’Connor. Perhaps not as the occupant of the chair but, when I was elected, I can remember the frantic pace of going to Canberra airport on a Friday afternoon and that there was a question time and a truncated MPI—and I am not entering further into the debate. 921 921 15:40:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 Mr LINDSAY —Mr Speaker, I do have a question for you. Can you confirm that the parliament of India conducts a question hour on every day that that parliament sits? Can you confirm that the Indian government believes that the asking of questions is an inherent and unfettered parliamentary right of a member? 921 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I am not in the position to confirm what the Lok Sabha or any other aspect of the Indian parliament does. I am having enough problems keeping up to date with what the Australian parliament is doing. I am not pursuing that question. 921 921 15:41:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 0 Mr BROADBENT —Mr Speaker, there is no mention in the standing orders of the rules governing the photographers that are in the place. Has there been any change to those rules in this new parliament? 921 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —There has been no change. 921 Personal Explanations 921 15:41:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr NELSON —I do. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr NELSON —The Prime Minister in question time asserted that this parliament has confidence in the Treasurer. I do not, and neither does anyone on this side. 922 15:41:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Yes, I do. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I was misrepresented in two editions of the Australian Financial Review, which referred to claims that arising from the review of shipping the government will guarantee 80 per cent of market share for Australian shippers and their crews. I am not aware of where the figure of 80 per cent comes from. What I said was: This review will be about boosting Australia’s international competitiveness and finding ways to increase coastal shipping’s share of the domestic freight market. That is quite clearly the share of the market between shipping, rail and road. 922 15:42:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation today in question time said that I had said that inflation was a fairytale. That is not correct. What I have said is that inflation is too serious a challenge to be trivialised by the Treasurer’s fairytales and falsehoods about our economic history. 922 15:43:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —I do, on two occasions. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —Both arise from an answer to a question in the chamber yesterday. A report by Jessica Irvine in the Sydney Morning Herald today states that I said another interest rate rise was ‘well and truly in the pipeline’. In fact, if you look at the Hansard you will see that the term ‘another one well and truly in the pipeline’ is clearly a reference to the rate rise that occurred on 5 February. So there is no speculation about any prospective rate rise but clearly a reference to a rate rise that has already occurred. Secondly—and equally, I believe, innocently, but nonetheless important to correct—in the Canberra Times in an article by Andrew Fraser there is a reference to statements I made with regard to government advertising spending. I stated that it had increased, and it stated in the article: From $95 million in 2006, the previous administration had spent $368 million in 2007 ... In fact the $95 million baseline was 2002, not 2006. 922 15:44:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I do. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —In question time today the Minister for Health and Ageing claimed that while I was the minister not a dollar or a cent had been spent on Indigenous dental programs. Let me point out to the minister that there are numerous Indigenous health services which provide dental services, and these are funded by the federal government to the tune of many millions of dollars. 923 15:45:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 0 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr ANTHONY SMITH —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr ANTHONY SMITH —By the Prime Minister in question time when he said that the Investing in Our Schools Program had ended. The former minister and now Deputy Leader of the Opposition announced it would continue in this House in September— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr President, I rise on a point of order: that was an abuse as we have seen on a range of issues with regard to points of order or personal explanations today. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It may have been an abuse, but I could not hear it for the hubbub. The member for Casey knows that he has to go to where he has been personally misrepresented and just correct the record without debating. 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr ANTHONY SMITH —Mr Speaker, I am simply correcting the record. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! He must go to where he has personally been misrepresented. APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr ANTHONY SMITH —By the Prime Minister when he said in answer to my question that the Investing in Our Schools Program had ended. The former minister announced it was continuing. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I think that that is now the end of the matter. Nobody has the call. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr Melham —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday you said that if we wanted to raise points of order in relation to abuse or other matters we should do it at the time. Why raise this point of order? Standing order 68 in relation to personal explanations says: A Member may explain how he or she has been misrepresented or explain another matter of a personal nature ... Matters in relation to personal explanations are in relation to the person themselves, not what the member for Casey has just said and not what the Leader of the Opposition raised. Mr Speaker, I believe it is incumbent upon you to impress upon members not to abuse standing orders and, if they do, to take action. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The honourable member for Banks will resume his seat. Fact 1: the member for Casey was sat down. It is all over red rover. I just indicate, whilst I have not used the expression, that whether we like it or not the practice of the House has been to give both leaders—the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—a bit of slack and leniency. I can say to you that, throughout today’s proceedings, both have had that given to them. The dogs have barked; the caravan is moving on. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —I hope that is not a reflection, Mr Speaker! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —No, you are on the caravan! 923 Ministerial Statements 923 923 15:48:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport 1 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —I ask leave of the House to make a ministerial statement relating to the 2020 Youth Summit. Leave granted. DZU Ellis, Kate, MP Ms KATE ELLIS —One of the key messages that I heard while on the campaign trail in the lead-up to the most recent election was that Australians want their governments to think beyond their term of incumbency. This call is not a new one. For some time I have been aware that frustration about short-term thinking has been growing in the community. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) —Could people please leave the chamber quietly. There is a ministerial statement being made at this moment. Government members interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am referring to both sides; I am not pointing at anyone. I am asking people to leave the chamber quickly and quietly, and you are not helping. DZU Ellis, Kate, MP Ms KATE ELLIS —The consequences of that short-term mindset now have us a decade further down the track, hurtling towards challenges such as climate change, water management concerns, skills shortages and housing affordability crises, to name but a few. We are charged with the responsibility, therefore, of ensuring that we now build a modern Australia to tackle the challenges of the future. We recognise that in doing so we bear an important accountability to future generations for the decisions that we make today. Because we are a government that realises that the entire repository of wisdom and insight about how to respond to those challenges does not solely rest with us, the Prime Minister is calling together 1,000 of the nation’s best and brightest minds for the Australia 2020 Summit on 18 and 19 April. We realise that the nature and magnitude of the challenges before us require the ingathering of the particular genius of the breadth and depth of the Australian community. This is fresh new thinking. A crucial component of the genius that will be required to find ways to tackle these challenges and shape the future effectively is to be found in young Australians. We are a government—and I intend to be a minister—that not only talks about the fact that young people are our nation’s finest resource but actually taps into that resource and engages young people in the discussion about what they want their future to be like. That is why I was proud to announce earlier this week that I will be hosting a Youth Summit on the weekend immediately prior to Australia 2020. The Youth Summit will be a dedicated two-day summit held on 12 and 13 April in Canberra ahead of Australia 2020. The summit will bring together 100 young people, 15 to 24 years of age, in discussions on the same critical areas as Australia 2020. It has often been the case that young people’s participation in decision making is limited to discussion about what are perceived to be youth issues. But what I and this government realise is that the issues that young Australians are faced with and concerned about are whole-of-community issues. Indeed, when we ask young people for their views and visions, invite their insights and seek their proposed solutions, we realise that this generation of young Australians has a unique grasp of the challenges ahead and a particular experience of life that enables them to come up with solutions that we might not have otherwise considered. When we involve them, we find that they very often possess the new thinking so urgently required. My hope and expectation is that the group of 100 young Australians gathering on 12 and 13 April in Canberra will offer precisely this. A dedicated Youth Summit demonstrates the government’s commitment to young people being at the table when long-term challenges are discussed. Young Australians are already contributing to addressing these challenges now and will inherit full responsibility for them in the future. This event shows that the government understands the fundamental importance of involving young Australians because they will be the parents, business leaders and community leaders inheriting the consequences of decisions made today. But it is important to emphasise that the Youth Summit is not about tokenism or conveying an impression of participation. The Youth Summit will feed in a very real way into Australia 2020. The Youth Summit program will reflect the Australia 2020 program. It will produce a brief, overarching communique to the Australia 2020 summit and an attachment to the communique presenting three key youth perspectives on each of the Australia 2020 challenges. Indeed, it is intended that the energy, ideas and visions generated at the Youth Summit will become a catalyst for the discussions which follow at Australia 2020. Ten of the summit participants, along with the Youth Summit co-chair, former Young Australian of the Year, Hugh Evans, will go on to participate in Australia 2020 the following weekend. I am delighted that Hugh Evans has accepted the invitation to co-chair the Youth Summit with me. Working on something like Youth 2020 is a natural extension of the work Hugh Evans has been doing all of his life. He established the Oaktree Foundation, Australia’s first entirely youth run and youth driven aid and development agency, which is now providing more than 1,000 people with a chance of getting an education for the first time in their lives. He also established the Youth Ambassadors program with World Vision and he was the first ambassador in the program. He is a passionate advocate for young Australians. Hugh cares about making a difference and takes every opportunity to ensure that young Australians’ voices are heard. Just referring to the biography on Hugh Evans’s website makes it perfectly obvious why we have invited this young man to help lead the summit: At just 23 years of age, Hugh Evans is dedicating his life to helping the most underprivileged people in this world. Hugh’s passion for helping others began when he was 12 years old and became involved in World Vision’s 40-Hour Famine. He started organising the Famine at his school and personally set himself very high targets. Over the next few years, his school became the highest fundraising school for the 40-Hour Famine in Australia. At age 14, a sponsored trip to the Philippines to see World Vision’s work first hand impacted Hugh’s life immensely. Sleeping in a slum, Hugh witnessed an entire community built around a garbage dump and saw children scavenging and dying around him. It was a turning point in his life. This experience led him to found The Oak Tree Foundation, Australia’s first entirely youth-run and youth-driven aid and development agency. With over 250 volunteers under the age of 25, it is a movement of young Australians who seek to empower developing communities through education in a way that is sustainable. “I stand for providing people in the developing world with greater opportunities and I think that a critical part of that is education and how important education is in empowering developing communities.” In its first year, Oak Tree raised over $100,000 to develop a community resource centre in the Valley of Embo in South Africa. This centre now provides more than 1,000 people with the opportunity to receive education for the first time in their lives. Sustainability is important to Oak Tree. This means the projects undertaken have to be owned by the community, run by the community and ultimately working to enhance the community. Hugh believes young people can do anything given the opportunity. The Oak Tree Foundation “provides an avenue for many other young Australians to also make a difference in this world”. Young people are encouraged to use the gifts they already have and what they are already passionate about to serve the poor. Hugh also established the Youth Ambassador Program with World Vision, which enables young people to go and see the work and participate themselves. Following its approval, Hugh travelled to South Africa as World Visions first Youth Ambassador. A passionate humanitarian, volunteer and youth leader, Hugh remains humble. He believes people see him as “someone who can act as a representative of young Australians, of Australians that actually want to be out there in the world doing something really good. I am someone who really cares about making a difference in the developing world so if that is what I can be seen as, then that’s cool.” Hugh’s sincerity, humility and genuineness are what have inspired so many people, young and old, to work towards helping those less fortunate. He is an inspiring individual. Youth Summit participants will be selected through a public call for nominations. The selection process will ensure suitable demographic representation, including Indigenous representation. People with disability and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are encouraged to apply. The selection process is also designed to make sure that Youth 2020 includes young Australians from regional and metropolitan areas across all the states and territories. The website Australia2020.gov.au has been set up, containing information and a mechanism for online nominations. There is a dedicated Youth Summit section on the site. In the two days since the Youth Summit was first publicly announced, the department has already received over 200 requests from young people asking for nomination forms. A 2020 steering committee of five young Australians will make recommendations on delegates for the summit. It is also important to note that the Youth Summit is occurring within the context of the government’s broader commitment to establish an Australian Youth Forum. I have previously conveyed to the House that one of my priorities this year is to engage with young people and the youth sector, seeking their input on the formulation of a framework for the AYF. The Youth Summit will provide a key opportunity for me to peak directly with 100 young Australians as part of that consultation process. Indeed, the AYF will be formally on the agenda for discussion during the Youth Summit program. I am proud to be a member of a government that recognises that young people’s perspectives, views and visions are valuable and worth listening to and acting on. I am proud to be part of a government that knows that young people are not just our future but also an important part of the present. I am proud to be Minister for Youth in a government that recognises that our present-day decisions and actions will impact on the future lives of today’s youth. And I am proud to be a member of a government that not only commits to give young Australians a voice but intends to work in partnership with them in shaping the future. 926 15:59:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —by leave—I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Macarthur speaking for a period not exceeding 10 minutes. Question agreed to. 926 15:59:00 Farmer, Patrick, MP 00AMO Macarthur LP 0 0 Mr FARMER —The coalition welcomes the minister’s announcement that she will host the national Youth Summit this year. The Youth Summit offers an excellent opportunity for young Australians from all walks of life to come together to discuss some of the important challenges facing our nation today: our security, our prosperity and our ever-changing world. I am pleased to welcome this new initiative as a continuation of the previous coalition government’s work on supporting and engaging the very best of our youth. In particular, the Youth Summit builds on the success of the coalition’s National Youth Roundtable program. From 1999-2007 the National Youth Roundtable brought together young Australians from each state and territory and every walk of life to discuss key issues facing Australia’s youth. An annual event, the roundtable was a direct way for young Australians to tell the government what they thought about the issues that really mattered to them. Equally, it was an opportunity for the government to consult the views of a diverse group of young people on important policy issues. During the roundtable, young Australians would meet with ministers, representatives of the Australian government departments and community leaders to discuss and develop their ideas. Importantly, the outcomes of each roundtable were fed into policy development processes for the federal and state governments and their departments. The National Youth Roundtable offered participants a unique experience. I would urge the government to guarantee the program continues long into the future. During its time, the coalition supported and established a range of other programs dedicated to encouraging the best of our young people: the National Indigenous Youth Leadership Group, which provided a consultative mechanism for young Indigenous people to provide advice to and discuss issues of importance with the federal government; the Ausyouth Project, which provided services to promote, coordinate and facilitate youth development across Australia; and the source website, a gateway to youth information. These programs, services and resources—just to name a few—also provided entertainment for young people. The Youth Summit offers an opportunity to build on these programs. I encourage the minister to learn from their achievements. I also offer my support to the decision to include Hugh Evans as co-chair to the Youth Summit. Hugh is an outstanding individual who has done an incredible amount of valuable work in a short space of time. For his achievements he was named the Young Australian of the Year in 2004. He is a shining example of what young people can aspire to and what they can achieve. The Youth Summit offers the potential for real dialogue with Australians on issues that matter to them—not only to the young people of Australia but indeed to all Australians. I seek assurances from the minister, however, that the delegates to the summit will indeed be drawn from a broad cross-section of Australia’s community. In particular, I ask for more transparency on the selection process for delegates and would welcome information on the steering committee of five young Australians who will make the recommendations on the delegates. I would like to know how the steering committee will be appointed. I would also like to know if they have already been selected and who they are. The coalition are committed to doing everything that we can to ensure that young Australians are supported by all sections of the government and our community so that they have every opportunity to fulfil their dreams and aspirations. Young Australians need freedom to dream and support from all levels of government to fulfil their dreams. They need to know that, if they have the drive and the determination to make a difference to this country, this government will not place a ceiling over the top of them. This is why I support the call from the minister to host this summit. It is also why I feel it is very important that it does not just turn into a weekend at Kate’s but becomes a springboard for action. 928 Matters of Public Importance 928 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government’s failure to give Australians confidence that they have an effective plan for managing a $1.1 trillion economy. 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— 928 16:04:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —At the heart of everything in terms of Australia’s prosperity and security and the confidence Australians can have in their future and that of their families is the Australian economy. There is nothing more important. The Treasurer, in the 14 press conferences and interviews that he has done on the economy, has used the phrase ‘previous government’ on no less than 51 occasions. When he has done that, he has done so to criticise the economic record of the previous government and the economy which he and his Prime Minister inherited in late November 2007. It is very important that Australians be reminded of the economy that was given to the incoming government late last year. The first point is that when there was a change of government last, in 1996, the previous government inherited a $96 billion debt. Today’s government has inherited not only no debt but more than $60 billion invested in funds for Australia’s future. The previous government came to office in its first year with a $10 billion deficit—not an $18 billion surplus that will be delivered by the economy itself. Over 11½ years of the previous government there was continuous growth in the Australian economy, growth which exceeded that of the OECD countries and most of the developed nations throughout the world. Home loan interest rates, which are a significant concern to millions of Australians and Australian families, under the previous government were lower at every time than they were under the previous Labor government. In fact, they averaged 5½ percentage points less than under the previous government. Unemployment, the single biggest lifetime cause of poverty, plummeted from 8.2 to 4.3 per cent—almost by a half—and the number of long-term unemployed dropped from just under 200,000 to 69,000. All Labor’s debt has been repaid. All of the things done by the previous government to repay that debt, and which had been opposed by the Labor Party in opposition, now save the new government $8.8 billion a year. Every year, as a result of Labor’s debt having been paid off, the Labor government and the Treasurer have nearly $9 billion available to them which they would not have had. In six of the last eight budgets of the previous government, income tax was cut. At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, 80 per cent of Australians pay no more than 30c in the dollar in income tax. We also had, under the previous government, the lowest level of industrial disputation ever recorded in close to a century. We also had inflation running at an average of 2½ per cent. The independent Reserve Bank of Australia, given the task of keeping inflation between two and three per cent, averaged inflation over the life of the previous government at 2½ per cent. The economy that the Treasurer now seeks to talk down, the economy which the Treasurer bemoans inheriting, was described recently by the Economist magazine as ‘the wonder down under’ and ‘the envy of Western countries’. In fact, the Financial Times recently described Australia’s economy as, ‘Lucky Australia. The economy receives an almost spotless record card.’ I wish to correct the Financial Times. There was no luck involved. There were a lot of very hard decisions made by the previous government and by the previous Treasurer, who was very competent. Very important and difficult decisions were made, almost all of which were opposed by the now Treasurer and the Labor Party, which was then in opposition. The economic management of Australia over the last 11½ years is such that we saw Australia and Australian families through with their mortgages, their car loans and their credit card debts. In government, we saw Australians through the Asian financial crisis and the flight of capital out of South-East Asia in the late 1990s. We saw this country through the recession in the United States in 2001. We saw it through the tech wreck, we saw it through SARS and we saw it through terrorism and the September 11 attacks. We saw the Australian economy and Australian families through the highest oil prices that we have seen for decades. We also saw Australia through the worst drought in a century. Since the election, however, things have changed. There was a change of government in late November last year. Australia has a new government and a new Treasurer, and we respect the decision of Australians. However, it is worth noting that we have had most significant market volatility. The All Ords has dropped by 11 percentage points since this government came to office. We have also had the Reserve Bank of Australia increase home interest rates by 25 basis points and, for the first time in more than a decade, we have had the banks increase interest rates themselves, giving Australians an average increase in interest rates of 40 basis points or $70 a month on the average mortgage. That is under the new Labor government. In its monthly business survey the National Australia Bank on 12 February recorded the lowest level of business confidence since the September 11 terrorist attacks and the biggest six-month slump in a decade. So far, in less than three months under a Labor government, we have gone from a confident, prosperous Australia in sound economic hands with a very competent Treasurer to unprecedented, in recent times, market volatility, we have had a 40 basis point increase in interest rates with $70 a month on the average mortgage for the average Australian and we have had the National Australia Bank, along with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Commonwealth Bank, recording significant reductions in business confidence. Over the next six to 12 months Australians will have every reason to be concerned about their future and the hands into which the Australian economy has gone. The government’s response to this has not been a response; it has not been a plan. Instead, we have had a slogan. We have had the mantra of a five-point plan. Because I sit here very close to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, I observe that neither of them can get up and actually tell you about the five-point plan without referring to a piece of paper. The sixth point that should be in that plan, if it was a plan, is that of wage pressures, about which the Reserve Bank spoke considerably in its statement only two days ago. The challenge that must be put to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister of Australia is to prove to Australians that their workplace relations reforms will not put wage pressures on the Australian economy and further drive inflationary pressures. It also needs to be explained by the Treasurer why he says, as part of his so-called five-point plan, that the government wishes to deliver a surplus of 1½ per cent of GDP, noting that the last three budget outcomes were 1½ per cent of GDP. In other words, without cutting a cent from government expenditure, that is what the economy is likely to deliver. He should explain to us why, if for example it is important for the Commonwealth to have no debt, as delivered by the previous government, and it is important for the Commonwealth to have surplus budgeting, we currently have $40 billion in state debt, which is headed to $80 billion over the next three years. I will be very interested to hear the Treasurer’s explanation for that. As the shadow Treasurer, the member for Wentworth, asked today, as I am sure he will again very shortly: what is the Treasurer’s plan for dealing with an Australian economy where we have growth rates in Queensland and Western Australia, driven in no small way by the resources boom, of 6.3 per cent in Western Australia and 4.9 per cent in Queensland in the last financial year? In New South Wales, where I live, our economy is growing at 1.8 per cent. The Victorian economy is at 2.7 per cent and the South Australian economy is at less than one per cent. What is the Treasurer’s plan? At the same time, we see remarks being made by the Reserve Bank of Australia in relation to monetary policy and comments being made by the Treasurer which are ill informed at the least in relation to fiscal policy. What is the Treasurer’s plan for Australians, who are literally sweating on this, such that he will not club the Australian economy? We cannot afford to end up in a situation where the people of New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania find their economy is shrinking, find their jobs are disappearing, find their mortgages are getting more expensive and find small businesses are harder to run because of the decisions being made or not being made by the Australian Treasurer because he has no plan for this country. Australians sense it. They know that he is in the back room reading books on the economy. They know that he does not quite know the job, despite the fact he spent three years as the shadow Treasurer. There is a sense when he gets up to speak, whether in this parliament or in any other part of the country, that he does not actually know what he is talking about. I say, on behalf of millions of Australians with home mortgages and car loans—of which I am one: we are relying on you. We need you to perform. We need you to understand the Australian economy. We need you to respect the fact that you, the Treasurer, and the Prime Minister have inherited a world-class economy. We need you to inspire confidence in our markets. Australians need the Treasurer of this country with great confidence and consummate knowledge to reassure them that their mortgages are in safe hands. That is absolutely essential. As of late last year, Australians decided to change the government, but they knew that Australia had been very well governed. They knew, most importantly, that their economy, their home loans, their car loans and their credit cards were in safe hands. We had the unedifying sight last week of the Treasurer of Australia, who has a $1.1 trillion economy in his hands, saying: ‘The labour market is tight. It is the tightest it has been in a generation.’ He was asked, ‘What does that mean?’ He said: ‘It means it’s very tight. It means it’s low. That is what it means: very low.’ Yes, if you were watching a Monty Python film, it would be funny. But we were watching the Treasurer of Australia, with our $1 trillion economy and our mortgages in his hands, get up and say, ‘It’s tight; it’s very tight.’ Then, yesterday, we had the Treasurer of this nation, in response to a question, get up and say, ‘Sometimes I will have the details on hand and sometimes I will not.’ It depends on what day it is! Australians have to pay their mortgages every day and they have to have the detail right. They rely on the Treasurer of the country to make damn sure that he has the detail right. No Australian should lose his or her home because of incompetent management by the government of the day. This business about suggesting we had inflation out of control, as alleged and asserted by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, is an absolute nonsense being perpetrated on innocent Australians. It is also important for Australians to remember: okay, the Treasurer did not know what NAIRU is, but when Mark Skaife goes out there at the Clipsal 500 this week, I reckon he is going to know what the gauge in front of him means, he is going to know what it means for the performance of his car. Australia cannot afford to have a part-time Prime Minister who decides not to turn up with his ministers when the parliament is sitting and answer questions. That is bad enough. But, now, we have a Treasurer who may or may not have the detail, who does not know basic economic theory, let alone practice, and a Treasurer who cannot possibly give confidence to the Australian people. (Time expired) 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before I call the Treasurer, can I point out that the Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —That is because he had something worth while to say. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Mackellar has just returned from an hour outside. If she would like to spend 24 hours outside, she can do so. So I suggest she reflects upon that. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert —Wayne’s world! 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The member for Fadden will remove himself under standing order 94A. The member for Fadden then left the chamber. 931 16:20:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —I do welcome this debate today. It is an important debate. My message is very clear: the economy is strong, the nation is prosperous and the Commonwealth government is very, very optimistic about our future. And I have said that repeatedly in this House, but what I have also said is that this country faces two very big challenges. It is true we face the challenge of international market volatility—there is no doubt about that—and that has ramifications here and it has ramifications around the world. Everybody is aware of that. And everybody is aware that, as a consequence of that, there is slowing world growth, principally emanating from the US. But one of the things I am very optimistic about is that this may not necessarily have an impact on this country because of strong growth in the developing world. But it is a very big challenge. The second big challenge that we face is the challenge of inflation. It is a very significant challenge for this country and it is one that we take very seriously. We do take very seriously the fact that we have the highest underlying rate of inflation in 16 years, precisely at the time that we have already had seven interest rate rises in three years. Now we face the highest underlying inflation in 16 years and, according to the Reserve Bank only a week or so ago, that underlying inflation will be at or above the target band for another two years. This is a very big challenge for our country. We have not faced a challenge like this for a long period of time. But we do believe that by pulling together, by displaying foresight and patience and by seeking long-term solutions, not short-term solutions, we can achieve our objectives to pull that inflation down. It is absolutely critical for working families, who are under tremendous financial pressure, that we succeed in doing this. Therefore, it is very important that all of our political leaders understand the magnitude of the problem. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer do not understand the magnitude of the problem. We have even had the shadow Treasurer disputing the fact that underlying inflation is 3.6 per cent—denying that it is on the Reserve Bank website and going into some great hairsplitting exercise to try and deny the figure. The Leader of the Opposition has done a number of doorstops as well. He did a spectacular doorstop on 5 February. This is what he had to say, according to the Liberal Party website: It’s very important that Mr Rudd and Mr Swan don’t engage in what they describe as the blame-game [inaudible]. Unfortunately for the Leader of the Opposition, there is actually a transcript of what he really said. What he really said was: It’s very important that Mr Rudd and Mr Swan don’t engage in what they describe as the blame game, saying that it’s all the fault of inflation. What else is driving interest rates if it is not inflation? This is extraordinary. He thinks that interest rate rises have nothing to do with inflation. That is like saying sunburn has got nothing to do with the sun. Do not come into this House and lecture people about economic literacy. This is one of the clangers of all time. What is the Leader of the Opposition’s policy to fight inflation? Have we heard anything in this House in recent times from him that could in some way be a policy to fight inflation? If he puts out a document, I know what it will be: inaudible. We have not heard a squeak from the opposition of any plan which will cope with the inheritance they have left the Australian people. The highest elevated inflation in 16 years has been their parting gift to the people of Australia. The opposition came into this House today and yesterday and somehow pretended that decisions of the Reserve Bank are not decisions taken by an independent body. Why is the Reserve Bank in the position that it is in at the moment? It is in the position it is in at the moment because of the opposition’s lax fiscal policy. They pushed all the weight over to the Reserve Bank and put all of the weight on the monetary policy. In the last four years, the former government had the highest increase in spending over any four-year period in the last 15 years. That is why Australia is in the position it is in at the moment. The Reserve Bank has been backed into a corner by lax fiscal policy and by the fact the previous government ignored 20 warnings from the Reserve Bank about the effect on the inflation rate of capacity constraints in the Australian economy. What are those capacity constraints? They are the skills shortages. The former government left this country a huge skills crisis. At precisely the time the rest of the world was investing in skills and education, they took our investment down. The most damning thing that can be said about the Leader of the Opposition is that he was the education minister responsible for that. That shows you how little he understands about the key policy areas that drive the economy. I will tell the Leader of the Opposition another thing: you cannot aspire to be first in prosperity, you cannot aspire to have continually improving living standards, if you are coming 16th or 25th in education. His legacy is a situation where we have not invested in skills and have not provided political leadership when it comes to infrastructure. That is why we have the highest elevated inflation in 16 years, something that the Leader of the Opposition wants to continually deny. That brings us to the shadow Treasurer. The shadow Treasurer actually did have a few things to say about inflation. Contrary to his denial in the House today, he did say inflation was a fairy story. If we have got a shadow treasurer who cannot understand and does not even grasp the most basic fact that we have got elevated inflation, God help the opposition. I can understand that he might not have a great appreciation of what life is like around the kitchen table for most Australians. He is so far out of touch that he makes Peter Costello look like he is in touch. The shadow Treasurer is so out of touch he can go out and describe inflation as a fairy story. The former government were out of touch. At precisely the time they should have been using the fruits of the mining boom to reinvest in the future, to invest in education, to invest in skills, to provide political leadership so we could have some First World infrastructure, they were having a party—and what a party it was. There it was the other night on Four Corners. The member for North Sydney was forced into the most humiliating admission that he was not told that Work Choices was going to make working families worse off. The coalition have a hide to come in here and complain about whether people know a technical definition when the member for North Sydney sat in the cabinet room and passed a bill that ripped away the wages and working conditions from average working families. He then went on TV and said: ‘Oh, nobody told me. I’m only a minister.’ If you really want to see what went wrong in this country over the last three years, it is all there on Four Corners. The shadow Treasurer was there too, down at Quay Grand, wandering into the room when they were all having the meeting about the future of the Prime Minister, with a briefcase full of knives. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to relevance. This bloke has no idea about the Australian economy. If he does not know what he is talking about, he should not address the MPI. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—There is no point of order. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The member for Dickson should really be the last person to say that people do not know what they are talking about. What about you on the doors yesterday? You went out there and basically hit him in the face. You could not tell anyone what it was. You did not know, and that is the whole point. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Dickson is warned! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —What we have over there is a motley collection of people who do not stand for anything anymore. For the last three years they have argued that Work Choices was the solution to the economic challenges facing this country. E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Stirling is warned! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —We had the member for North Sydney in the House repeatedly claiming that it would lead to higher wages. He was simultaneously claiming in the House that our abolition of it would lead to higher wages as well, because what we had was simply voodoo economics. We are getting a lot more voodoo economics today from the opposition but no plan to tackle inflation. The Leader of the Opposition said that our five-point plan does not have any substance, so let us go through what it really means— Opposition members interjecting— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Absolutely. Let’s go through it. The most important thing that we are going to do in our five-point plan is show some restraint. We are going to pull back on public demand—the public demand that you let rip through your reckless spending—and that is why we are engaged in a very serious budget process. We have set the target. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott interjecting— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —That is right—at least 1½ per cent of GDP. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott interjecting— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —I would refer the member to his own budget papers. You were so ambitious that you put it at most at 1.2 per cent. The second thing is that we will allow the automatic stabilisers to work—something those on the other side would never do. One of the reasons the Reserve Bank has been backed into a corner is that you would not do that. You spent and you spent and you spent and you spent. That is what occurred. So we are going to show some restraint. Another thing we are going to do is encourage private savings. We have put an instalment in with our First Home Saver Account—something that could not be done in 11 long years by those opposite. The other thing we are going to do is tackle the chronic skills shortage. It is always going to be left up to the Labor Party, as the protectors of the Australian workforce, to make the investments in the future for the workforce of tomorrow. That has always been the historical task of the Australian Labor Party, and we come to it with relish yet again. The record of the conservative parties is always to run down these essential investments which are so important to wealth creation and which go to the core of a modern productivity agenda. They have been completely missing. So is it any wonder that productivity hit the floor in recent years with the failure of the coalition to invest in the drivers of growth? That is why we are sitting here now, looking at the highest elevated inflation in 16 years. That brings me to infrastructure. We have talked about it a lot in the House in recent days, and those opposite will be hearing a lot more about it. The coalition wanted to play the blame game when it came to infrastructure. They wanted to sit back; it had nothing to do with the Commonwealth government. Huge national projects were left to the states—nothing to do with them. What has been the consequence of that? Infrastructure bottlenecks—bottlenecks holding back export performance, bottlenecks clogging up our cities. We are proud to say that we will partner with the states to solve these problems. There will be no more short-term fixes like those we had from the Liberal Party. The Labor Party is going to look after the long term. The Rudd government has got its eye on the long term. All those others there have got their eyes on each other. They cannot even look at each other. The shadow Treasurer was up in the gallery last night, handing out his forms about Work Choices and all those alternative plans. He has been spied already. All around the Sydney business community, people are saying: ‘Malcolm is going to do Brendan in soon. Malcolm is going to do him in soon.’ That is what the Sydney business community is saying. They are out there doing it. Lastly, we are going to put in place measures to enhance labour force participation and labour force supply. These are important measures and are linked to the measures that we will put in place for skills and education. They are intimately linked with the education revolution. The one thing those on the other side of the House never recognised was that average working people deserve some incentive in the tax system. When they work hard, they deserve reward for effort—and they are going to get it from this government. We are committed to easing the pressures on working families. We are committed to fundamental reform, not only in tax but also in federal-state relations, because we understand that it is the long term that is important— (Time expired) 935 16:35:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —I am becoming increasingly concerned about the state of mind of the Treasurer. An incident having occurred in the gallery— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The gallery will desist. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —Not only is he displaying a woeful ignorance of economic history and indeed economics but he is now suffering from delusions. He has just told the House that I was in the press galley last night when, in fact, I was in Sydney, addressing a gathering of my constituents. It is puzzling. I do not know who he thinks he saw, or whether he is becoming so anxious he is imagining I am there when I am not. It is not just imagining people that is the Treasurer’s problem; he also repeatedly misstates and misrepresents economic history. For example, in his remarks just a moment ago he said that the Reserve Bank has had to put up interest rates because of the Commonwealth failing to run a responsible fiscal policy of its own. In other words, instead of the Commonwealth running the massive surpluses that it did—1.6 per cent of GDP last year, 1.5 per cent the year before, 1.5 per cent before that—the coalition government should presumably have run an even larger surplus, perhaps of two per cent or three per cent. Who knows? He does not stipulate a figure. But the sad thing for the Treasurer is that this claim is not borne out by anything said by the Reserve Bank. There has never been a statement by the Reserve Bank during the period of the Howard government to the effect that they would not have to put up interest rates if only the Commonwealth would run a larger surplus. That is a complete myth. That is as mythical as his view that I appeared in the press gallery last night. Indeed, two distinguished Reserve Bank governors have said very authoritatively that monetary policy—and I am now quoting Governor Glenn Stevens when he was the deputy governor—is the most important determinant of long-run inflation performance. The former governor, Ian Macfarlane, in his Boyer lectures of 2006, said, ‘In the past 60 years, there has never been a period with a high rate of inflation that had not been supported by accommodating monetary policy. Similarly, there had never been a major fall in inflation without it being accompanied by a tightening of monetary policy.’ What the Reserve Bank has said about fiscal policy is that the strong and consistent surpluses that the government has run have contributed to financial stability in our system. The Treasurer’s myth about the Reserve Bank is just that. Indeed, what the Reserve Bank has said is completely at odds with what he has asserted. Let us talk now about the really critical issues for Australians: inflation, interest rates and unemployment. Financial policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy are very difficult, because governments and central banks are bound by statute and good governance to manage and seek to achieve objectives which are in some senses competing with each other. We try to seek to maintain full employment but we want low inflation. We want price stability so that we can have low interest rates. And, to an extent, they conflict with each other. That is, indeed, at the very heart of the questions that the Treasurer has been utterly incapable of answering this week. The question about the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment was not a trick question designed to see whether he knew what NAIRU was, although any other Treasurer would have known that. Certainly when the member for Higgins was the Treasurer he had no difficulty answering questions about it. But the term itself is not complicated, because it defines itself. What it speaks to is this: how low can employment go before you start to trigger inflation? That is the question. It is a vital question. We now have unemployment at a 35-year low of 4.1 per cent. One of the great achievements in the Howard years was the ability to run this economy with very strong growth—the most recent numbers are around four per cent, although the bank is now forecasting that that will come off in line with global conditions—compared to our peers, very low unemployment and inflation through the cycle of between two per cent and three per cent. If you go back 10 years or even less than 10 years, many economists said then that you cannot have unemployment below seven per cent without triggering runaway inflation. In other words, they were saying that the NAIRU—the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment—is in the order of seven per cent. While it is not one of those statistics which you can be completely precise about, very few economists would say that it was materially more than five per cent. Most would say that it is somewhere in the four per cent range. People will contend about where it is. But the fact is that it has come down. What that means is that because of the strong economic management of the Howard government we can run an economy with stronger growth, manageable inflation and more Australians having jobs. At the same time, the participation rate is at an all-time high. That is delivering the key objective of economic management, which is sustainable prosperity for all Australians. That is what this is all about. These questions about inflation and unemployment are ones that the Treasurer appears not to have been able to turn his mind to at all. He tried to get out of his difficulty, after his embarrassing period in question time a few days ago, by first suggesting that he had not answered the question because he did not want to nominate a specific number for the NAIRU. That did not wash, so his latest contrivance, which came out the following day, was to say that it was not really a very important statistic or concept anyway. And yet his own department thought it important enough to publish on its website a very insightful paper on the NAIRU as recently as December 2007. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —Dr Steven Kennedy’s paper. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —This is Steven Kennedy’s paper, as my colleagues have observed. Then we moved on to another really challenging question that again the Treasurer seems to have no interest in or is paying no attention to. We have very strong economic growth in Australia and we have very low unemployment. But, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out and as I have been endeavouring to get the Treasurer to address during question time, it is by no means uniform. What we have seen is very strong economic growth in Queensland and Western Australia and very modest growth in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. Indeed, in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, the economic growth last year was significantly below the 10-year average. We have seen very dramatic falls in unemployment in Queensland and Western Australia, compared to very modest falls in the other states. What we have, on any view, is a two-speed economy. We have very strong growth, fuelled by external demand, in the mining states, and much more modest growth—indeed, very low growth; in South Australia, it was only 0.8 per cent in the last financial year—in the other states. So a big challenge for economic policy and for a Treasurer is: how do you constrain inflation across the board, recognising that these inflationary pressures are in large measure being driven by the strong growth in the mining states, recognising that an increase in Australian domestic interest rates is not going to stop any of those huge mining projects going ahead in Queensland and WA, because they are being fuelled by external demand? There is a real risk that the blunt instrument of monetary policy, or indeed poorly executed fiscal policy, will have little effect in the boom states and flatten the economies in the other states. That central question is one to which the Treasurer refuses to turn his mind. He has no plan for this country’s economic future and no capacity to develop one, because he is not even prepared to consider the vital challenges that he faces. 937 16:45:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer 1 0 Mr BOWEN —The Leader of the Opposition has lodged this matter of public importance about the so-called lack of an effective plan for managing the Australian economy. There is a certain irony about this matter of public importance, because the government which did not have a plan for Australia’s future was thrown out on 24 November. The government which did not have a plan to bring Australia’s level of investment in education and skills up to international standards was thrown out on 24 November. The government which did not have a plan to let Australians compete with the rest of the world on the basis of their skills and innovation was thrown out on 24 November. The Australian people voted in a government with a plan for Australia’s future. The Australian people voted in a government willing and able to invest in skills, education and infrastructure. The only plan that the previous government had was called Work Choices, and the Australian people passed judgement on that plan on 24 November. Of course, the shadow cabinet also passed judgement on that plan this week and rolled the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. To cover up their lack of a plan in that election campaign, they developed a scare campaign. Remember the ads? ‘Seventy per cent union officials will ruin the country.’ Those terrible union officials! ‘Labor is anti business.’ That was their excuse for a plan—a scare campaign. Well, a scare campaign does not fix inflation. A scare campaign does not fix the bottlenecks in the supply chain of this country. A scare campaign does not put downward pressure on demand and interest rates. Only a plan will. They delivered a scare campaign; we delivered a plan. We have a plan to compete on innovation and skills. They had a plan to cut wages and have a race to the bottom. We have a plan to increase productivity. They had a plan to slash working conditions. That is the essential difference between the two sides of the House. They did not develop a plan when the Reserve Bank gave them 20 warnings on the growing inflationary pressures. They did not develop a plan when the Reserve Bank warned that the economy was overheating. They did not develop a plan because they were not capable of it. Of course, they have not learned. They still do not have a plan. They are the alternative government of Australia. Remember what the shadow Treasurer’s plan to fight inflation is? It is an oldie but a goodie. Remember his plan? ‘Ignore it and it shall go away.’ ‘Don’t talk about inflation because you’ll exacerbate inflationary tendencies.’ He has issued press releases saying, ‘The Treasurer is increasing inflationary pressure in Australia by talking about inflation.’ His plan is: ignore it and it will go away. The Reserve Bank minutes came out yesterday. I am sure we all read them. We all know about them. What did they say when talking about their decision to increase interest rates? They said: In debating this recommendation, members agreed that a key issue was that inflation had increased, and was running at a higher pace than had been expected prior to the release of the December quarter CPI. On a year-ended basis, CPI inflation would rise further in the March quarter. I would expect that the shadow Treasurer last night penned a very strongly worded letter to the Governor of the Reserve Bank, complaining that he was increasing inflationary expectations in this country. Has the shadow Treasurer called each and every member of the Reserve Bank board to complain that they have been talking about inflation too much? Silence—he has not put in the call. Why didn’t you call, Malcolm? He has not put in the call and he has not penned the letter, because he is full of hollow words. All he can come up with is to say that the Treasurer of this country should not talk about inflation. When the Reserve Bank talks about inflation, we have deathly silence from the shadow Treasurer, because he does not want to get into a public spat with the Reserve Bank governor. He does not want to get into a spat with the Reserve Bank board. He has been caught out. He has been caught out saying we should stop talking about inflation, and what does the Reserve Bank do? It issues a warning: inflation is growing. The Treasurer says that the inflation genie is out of the bottle. The Reserve Bank comes out and says ‘inflation would rise further in the March quarter’. Deathly silence—he is not going to criticise the Reserve Bank because he does not want to be at war with the Reserve Bank. He does not want that; he just wants to be making cheap political points against the Treasurer of the country. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I rise on a point of order, Mr Second Deputy Speaker. There are forms of the House in which the member can ask the shadow Treasurer questions, as you would be aware. If he wishes to ask a question— 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Is that your point of order? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —he is entitled to do so and the shadow Treasurer, I am sure, is quite happy to respond. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. There is no point of order. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: this is a deliberate tactic. This is the 20th point of order today. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —They did not have a plan then and they do not have one now. Perhaps they did not have a plan because they did not think they had a problem. Remember what our old friend the member for Higgins said? ‘We’ve got inflation exactly where we want it.’ The old ghost of Christmas past in by-election alley up here—he thinks he had inflation right where he wanted it. They did not have a plan because they did not think they had a problem. They left us with the highest underlying inflation in 16 years, and that was exactly where the former Treasurer wanted it. I am glad about that! It is not where we want it, it is not where the Reserve Bank wants it and it is not where any objective, serious economic commentator on the future of this nation would want it. Perhaps that is why they were happy to leave Australia’s investment in education at 5.8 per cent of GDP—17th in the OECD, behind Poland and Hungary. They did not care about the supply side. They did not care about the skills and education crises in this country because they had inflation right where they wanted it. Perhaps that is why they were happy not to invest in infrastructure. Perhaps that is why they were happy not to invest in preschool education and to leave Australia’s investment in preschool education at one-fifth of the OECD average. They did not care. They did not think they had a problem. They did not have the wit to come up with a solution. They were happy to oversee a reduction in investment in higher education in Australia of seven per cent when the OECD average was an increase of 48 per cent. That is what they were happy to do. We have an alternative approach. We do have a plan. We hear a lot about reform under the Howard-Costello years and what great economic reformers they were. We hear it almost universally from that side of the House. We do not hear other people commenting on that. We hear a lot about what great economic managers they were. Well, let us hear a bit more about it. Let us hear Andrew Charlton, the respected economist, who said: … in the 1980s and early 1990s the Australian economy was wholly transformed. In the late 1990s and early 2000s it was merely tinkered with. Howard and Costello have been coasting. They were coasting on the miner’s back, happy to let the commodity boom increase demand in Australia but not happy to make the important, fundamental reforms to the Australian economy, not happy to invest in infrastructure and skills to put downward pressure on inflation, not happy to invest further in our future by racing to the top by competing in skills and innovation—just happy for a race to the bottom by cutting wages and by cutting working conditions. What are the implications of their lack of reform? Eleven interest rate increases in a row. What is the real impact of this? As a Western Sydney MP, I will tell you the real impact: housing foreclosures doubled and people are losing their homes. That is the real legacy of their government. There are other members here who are seeing this day after day, just like I am, across the country. These people are entitled to know not only what the plan of the alternative Treasurer of this country is but what he thinks. They might get an insight. He will remember walking through the doors of the parliament after an increase in interest rates under the previous government. We remember. What did he have to say? What was his comment? ‘I think the interest rate hike has been overdramatised.’ He said that there was not a problem. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price —Who said that? DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —The member for Wentworth, the alternative Treasurer of Australia. The interest rate increase ‘has been overdramatised’! Well, the people in Western Sydney do not think it has been overdramatised. Eleven interest rate increases in a row means they are losing their homes in record numbers. This is his government’s legacy, the legacy of its lack of a plan. Those people do not think that we are being overdramatic when we say that we need to put in place a very conservative fiscal policy to put downward pressure on interest rates. They do not think that we are being overdramatic when we say that increasing government spending by 4.5 per cent a year needs to stop. They do not think we are being overdramatic when we say that we need to invest in infrastructure and skills to put downward pressure on interest rates by fixing the bottlenecks in the Australian economy, like the Reserve Bank asked the former government to do 20 times. (Time expired) 940 16:55:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 0 0 Mr BROADBENT —I am an observer of this parliament and I have observed four things today. First, I say to the member for Mitchell: the last time there was a crowd like this assembled for a maiden speech was for the speech of the member for Banks in 1990, when the first seven minutes of my maiden speech was drowned out by the applause for his maiden speech. I have not forgiven him yet! The second thing I observed today is that the Prime Minister of this country did not endorse his Treasurer at the table. The third is that the Assistant Treasurer just outshone the Treasurer. If you have two things going badly for you, you do not want be outshone by your assistant, and that is exactly what happened. The fourth thing I observed today—if I can just get this out without interruption—is that the shadow Treasurer outshone the Treasurer of the day, which must be embarrassing for the new Labor government. The Treasurer said that they are the great protectors of the workers of this nation. I can tell you that, in my area, the paper and pulp producers, the power industry workers, the farmers and the working families voted Liberal. When the unionists down in my area were asked who they were going to vote for, 40 per cent of them said that they were going to vote for Russell Broadbent in McMillan and Peter McGauran in Gippsland, because the rhetoric that was coming from the Labor Party before this election campaign said very clearly, ‘You are expendable for our city votes.’ Take this on board, Assistant Treasurer. That is the truth. That is the rhetoric that came through to them. You can talk about that till the cows come home, but that was the case. You have not got a plan. You have proved that you have not got a plan. There is no plan coming from the government. You said you had a plan before the election. The moment you were elected, there was no plan. You want us to give you a plan. As you did with the ‘me too’ before in the election campaign, you want us to give you a plan. You want 1,000 people to come here and give you a plan. What about the governance of the nation? You copied the Howard government’s policies. You have not got a plan to govern for a $1.1 trillion economy. The Australian people need confidence in the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer and all of those representing the Labor government in this place before they put their hard earned savings, their homes, their farms and their businesses in the hands of this new Labor government. Today, they have not got that confidence, as was proven by the Prime Minister himself. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— MT4 Broadbent, Russell, MP Mr BROADBENT —Would our minister at the table like to keep his mouth shut so I can get out what I need to say? The government has inherited one of the strongest, most robust economies in the world. Everybody in this House should recognise the expertise of the Howard government in the management of the economy over the last 11 years. The inheritance they have delivered to this new government is not only a robust economy but also the lowest unemployment in all of those years. Those who are my age or older will remember how high unemployment was in this nation. You all knew somebody who did not have a job. Now most of you do not know anyone who does not have a job. There are jobs and opportunities out there. The member for Newcastle spoke today about the loss of jobs in the steel industry and about the opportunity to get out and get a job. The former government have returned the most robust economy to any government ever; it has never happened before. Oh, the Kennett government delivered to the new government in Victoria a very large surplus, which it has now spent. The government, rather than inheriting a $6 billion deficit, has received a $15 billion credit to this nation. The stewardship of how it handles the economy is now to be tested. (Time expired) 941 17:00:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —Listen to the cheek of the contrived claims of the opposition about this side not having the confidence of the Australian people, just after the federal election when people made an emphatic choice that this side of the House has their confidence to run our $1.1 trillion economy. What fiscal irresponsibility when those opposite spent millions of dollars on advertising for Work Choices and hundreds of millions of dollars on regional rorts. Who can forget the Tumby Umby Creek that we spent millions of dollars clearing before it was subsequently cleared by rainfall? No wonder the excellent member for Grayndler, the Leader of the House, pointed out that we should be calling the National Audit Office ‘the Nationals Audit Office’. We ought to be going through every piece of expenditure of the previous government and seeing the gross irresponsibility in Work Choices, regional rorts and the fake technical colleges that were built around this country—the gross capital expenditure that was spent on them when they did not have any students. Over the past few days the honourable member for Wentworth and the honourable member for Bradfield have sought to use this great forum in a cynical manner, asking questions of my colleague the Treasurer that do not address the economic issues that matter to ordinary Australians, using obscure formulas, such as NAIRU, which I understand the Governor of the Reserve Bank regards as surplus to requirements. The shadow Treasurer will no doubt accuse it of knowing nothing about monetary policy either. As ever, those opposite are doing nothing to either help or ease the growing burden of inflation impacting on ordinary people and their families. To deny that inflation as it currently stands is a problem—as the shadow Treasurer has said repeatedly—is something that I cannot believe. On this side of the House we can only conclude that the member for Wentworth is more focused on a figure much closer to his heart, that of the Leader of the Opposition’s record-shattering nine per cent approval rating. Perhaps by understanding that inflation is being persistently forecast at the higher end, or exceeding the target band set by the Reserve Bank—as the member for Prospect has just explained—the Leader of the Opposition argues that lowering expectations should be taken more seriously. The member for Wentworth might be able to grasp the seriousness of the problem his party has unceremoniously dumped on working families. The shadow Treasurer and his colleagues may in time even get through the first step on the road to fiscal policy rehabilitation. Hope is a wonderful thing. It is a feeling I commend to the House. Unlike those opposite, we are committed to dealing with the economic challenges facing Australia that the previous government washed its hands of after 11 long years, rather than revisionism writ large. Instead of the Costello cruise control, the Rudd government will, under the able management of the member for Lilley and the member for Melbourne, work to claw back the significant structural economic problems left virtually untouched by the Howard-Costello regime. Thanks in no small part to the previous government’s inaction, Australia is unique among large-scale exporters of minerals in maintaining not just a significant current account deficit but one that remains impervious to virtually unprecedented terms of trade as a result of the runaway expansion of China and the demand for our exports. With a current account deficit in the vicinity of $5 billion per month, the impact that such an imbalance has on both interest rates and a highly valued Australian dollar has helped to ensure not just that the inflation genie is out of the bottle but that it stays out. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired. 942 Private Members' Business 942 942 17:05:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —by leave—I present the whips general principles relating to the selection of committee and delegation reports and private members’ business. In presenting the report I point out to all honourable members that this has been agreed to by the Chief Opposition Whip and me. It is, in the main, consistent with that used by the Selection Committee—that is, that the whips shall accord priority to private members’ business, with the addition of 2(d)—‘in a manner that ensures appropriate participation by independent members’. If some members have a view that the guidelines could be improved, I can say on behalf of the Chief Opposition Whip and my own behalf that we are more than happy to entertain them. 942 942 942 17:06:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —I present the report of the recommendations of the whips relating to the consideration of private members’ business on Friday, 22 February 2008. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Pursuant to standing order 41A, the Whips recommend the following items of private Members’ business for Friday, 22 February 2008. The order of precedence and allotments of time are as follows: PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Order of precedence Notices 1       Ms Parke: to move: That the House: expresses concern about the shortage of organs available in Australia for life saving operations; notes that where a donor is available, Australia has one of the best records in transplantation outcomes; supports the efforts of the Minister for Health and Ageing and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister to increase the rate of organ donation in Australia; congratulates the organisers of Australian Organ Donor Awareness Week across the country for drawing attention to the need for more Australians to become registered organ donors and to discuss their choice with their families; notes that the report of the National Clinical Taskforce on Organ and Tissue Donation sets out a number of directions for improvement in Australian policies and practices; and encourages Members actively to encourage organ donation in their electorates. Time allotted—40 minutes. Speech time limits— Mover of motion—10 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 2       Mr Lindsay: to move: That the House: supports the provision of the highest quantity health services to Australians; notes the continuing advances in medical science, making available new diagnostic tools; and recognises the need to extend the availability of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanning to regional Australia. Time allotted—40 minutes. Speech time limits— Mover of motion—10 minutes. First Government Member speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 3       Mr Bradbury: to move: That the House: notes: the recent increases in interest rates; the impact that rising interest rates are having on families, particularly in western Sydney; and the Reserve Bank of Australia’s warnings in its latest Statement on Monetary Policy of the risks to the Australian economy of continued inflation; and supports the Government’s five-point plan to fight inflation. Time allotted—40 minutes. Speech time limits— Mover of motion—10 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 4       Mr Johnson: to move: That the House: acknowledges its support for the advancement of democracy around the world, including Pakistan; and recognises the importance of ministerial accountability in our Westminster system of government. Time allotted—30 minutes. Speech time limits— Mover of motion—10 minutes. First Government Member speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 2 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 5       Mr Danby: to move: That the House: notes that 2007 marks the 75th anniversary of the Great Ukrainian Famine—Holodomor—of 1932–33, caused by the deliberate actions of Stalin’s communist Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; recalls that an estimated 7 million Ukrainians starved to death as a result of Stalinist policies in 1932–33 alone, and that millions more lost their lives in the purge that ensued for the remainder of the decade; notes: that this constitutes one of the most heinous acts of genocide in history; that the Ukrainian Famine was one of the greatest losses of human life in one country in the 20th century; and that it remains insufficiently known and acknowledged by the world community and the United Nations as an act of genocide against the Ukranian nation and its people, but has been recognised as such by the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament of Ukraine); honours the memory of those who lost their lives; joins the Ukrainian people throughout the world, and particularly in Australia, in commemorating these tragic events; and submits that the Australian Government supports a resolution to the General Assembly of the United Nations, which may be submitted by the Government of Ukraine, that the Holodomor in Ukraine in 1932–33 be recognised as an act of genocide against the Ukrainian nation and its people. Time allotted—20 minutes. Speech time limits— Mover of motion—5 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 6       Mr Hartsuyker: to move: That the House condemns the Federal Labor Government for its decision not to proceed with the planned expansions of existing Centrelink call centres in Coffs Harbour, Launceston, and Hobart. Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time (approx 30 mins) Speech time limits— Mover of motion—10 minutes. First Government Member speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 2 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr PRICE —I point out to honourable members that the Chief Opposition Whip, with the assistance of the National Party Whip and other whips, has arrived at these decisions and they enjoy the support of the Chief Opposition Whip and me. Report adopted. 944 Bills R2913 944 Bills R2914 944 Mr PRICE (Chifley) 17:07:00 —by leave—I move: That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. I indicate to all honourable members that the Chief Opposition Whip agrees with this proposal. Question agreed to. Bills R2905 944 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 944 Mr BYRNE (Holt —Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) 17:08:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 944 Bills R2923 944 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 945 Mr BYRNE (Holt —Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) 17:09:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 945 Governor-General's Speech 945 Debate resumed. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Before I call the honourable member for Mitchell, I remind the House that this is the member’s first speech and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. 945 17:07:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —The 24th of November 2007 marks an important milestone both for Australia and for me personally. It is a source of mixed celebration and grief, for it was the coincidence of my election to parliament and the anniversary of my mother’s death from cancer when I was a 10-year-old boy. My mother was a teacher with a deep connection with special needs kids. She believed in caring for others and instilled the same values in my sister Lydia and me. Each day we attended her lessons after school that she held especially for us. It felt like an unfair hardship when the other kids were outside playing cricket, but I now realise that there is no way I would be standing here today without the gifts of love, support and knowledge my mother freely gave us. I want to thank my father, Richard, who is here today in the gallery, for taking up the mantle of the responsibility as a single parent with diligence and care. Dad sacrificed a great deal for Lydia and me and we never went without, even though our new lives were more modest than they might have been. My family is part of that great Australian story of post World War II migration. I pay tribute to my grandparents who worked so hard on their arrival from Greece in a new land. They succeeded in building a strong and extended family through difficult times. Today our family consists of small business proprietors, property owners and loving families. As a believer in the importance of the individual and as a person who has spent the odd occasion counting votes, I note that my grandma, Yaya, who is also here today in the gallery, has voted Labor at every election since her arrival in Australia in 1953. However, after my selection as a candidate, Yaya voted Liberal for the first time at the 2007 federal election. Opposition members—Hear, hear! HWO Hawke, Alex, MP Mr HAWKE —I hope to be able to reproduce that effect on others. I also recognise my uncles, aunties and cousins who have made the journey to be here today and whom I love greatly. Family is vitally important to me and it is also a fundamental mainstay of my community. I do not think it is an accident that Mitchell combines the highest level of couples with dependent children in Australia with a high rate of church attendance, charitable giving, income, property ownership and low levels of unemployment. The vibrant flavour of the Mitchell community, businesses and schools flows from the work, faith and family ethic of the place. It is a powerful combination. The self-reliant community of Mitchell is truly blessed, but there are many individuals, families and regions around Australia which are not as fortunate and sometimes rely on the government to make ends meet. I particularly note that the most rapid growth in government expenditure since Federation has been in human services and welfare payments, with governments taking up the slack of struggling families. The loss of human dignity involved in ever-increasing reliance on the state is a trend I want to resist. We need to ensure that government in this country does not become our unwanted father, mother, brother or sister. We must do what we can to ensure we promote the family as the model of a free, self-reliant, hope-filled life even though, as in my own case, it may not always be achieved for good reasons. A loving marriage and a caring environment in which to raise the next generation of young Australians is, at least for me, an aspirational goal. I think it is sensible to resist attempts to redefine, relax and reinterpret such an important institution. When you give away this ground, you never get it back. That was also a view strongly held by my predecessor, the Hon. Alan Cadman, who served the people of Mitchell for 33 years. Today I would like to acknowledge his extraordinary service in this place. Alan is widely respected amongst people in Mitchell, who appreciate the energetic service and representation that he gave in this place throughout his career. Mitchell houses so much history from the early days of European settlement, with places such as Bella Vista Farm and Castle Hill Heritage Park to name just a few. It is home to the site of the first and only attempted rebellion by convicts against early colonial rule, at the Battle of Vinegar Hill. But the north-west of Sydney is also home to one of the most important events in Australian history, one that has sadly passed with inadequate recognition. In 1789 the young colony of Sydney was in a crisis. The government farms in my electorate at Castle Hill had failed to produce any crops. The people were starving. In desperation in 1791 a convict named James Ruse and his wife were to host what Governor Phillip described as an experiment. Governor Phillip granted the convict James Ruse a small uncleared piece of land and made him an offer. If Ruse could successfully farm the land, not only would he become a free man but also that land would be his. By 1791 what began as an experiment had demonstrated that the individual, his family and his enterprise could do something that the government with all of its power could not. James Ruse and his family were the first Australians to successfully run a farm and the first citizens to take themselves off the government store and sustain themselves without government support. I am especially proud to represent a region of Sydney that is home to the first free enterprise in our nation’s history. Today Mitchell is home to an enduring legacy to the success of individuals and their enterprise. What began as a failed government farm today houses the Norwest Business Park, another vastly successful experiment. The Norwest Business Park hosts the headquarters of some 500 businesses. These range from the iconic Woolworths to the Australian start-up medical company ResMed, from the global multinational Wyeth to many medium and small enterprises. The park employs 20,000 people and in time this number will grow to 40,000. The Norwest Business Park covers almost the same amount of ground as the Parramatta CBD and is a shining beacon of private enterprise, innovation and investment. While I want to see Australia produce more great global companies, I know that almost all of them began as a thriving small business. It is family owned and operated businesses that form the sparkling golden seam of Australian commerce and I am proud to represent a party that so strongly supports small business. From my time as a manager for a major retailer I know how difficult it can be to compete against the big players. Well-meaning bureaucracy must not carelessly add weight to the burdens of the risk-taking, job-creating entrepreneur. We must work to reduce regulation, reduce the compliance costs and reduce the amount of time lost in working for the government. Most importantly we must make it easier for a person or family to start their own business and get it off the ground. There is something perverse in our attitude to risk when it is so simple to pour your entire life savings down the throat of a poker machine yet it is so complex, costly and restrictive to start your own enterprise and get it up and running. I was privileged to grow up in the suburbs in and around Mitchell. The citizens of those suburbs are at the top of the table for charitable donations. Baulkham Hills Shire has one of the highest birth rates in Sydney and one of the safest driving records. Crime is low. Voluntary organisations like Hills Community Aid Information Service and Hills Family Centre take on those who need extra help in our community and do a marvellous job. We have a high proportion of service clubs in a small geographical area. Some 11 Rotary clubs and six Lions clubs, the local SES, the Rural Fire Service and the wonderful 355 Committee Network are all well served by volunteers and a strong proportion of churchgoers and Christian people. One in every five people in Mitchell works as a volunteer. Our social fabric is strong not through government decree, legislation or handout but from the principles of looking after your neighbour and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. My own service as an officer in the Australian Army Reserve reinforced to me how important it is to serve some cause greater than self, and I want to acknowledge our famous local regiment, the 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers, and the Royal Australian Armoured Corps for providing much-needed mobility and firepower to the battlefield. Sir Thomas Mitchell, Surveyor General of New South Wales, after whom the electorate is named, was a great explorer and surveyor. If he were surveying Mitchell today he would note the inadequate and underdeveloped state of our infrastructure. He would note the poor state of many roads, the lack of a rail line, inadequate broadband and the overall failure of planning in one of the fastest-growing areas of Sydney. Successive governments have failed to deliver vital infrastructure. They have also failed to source other potential solutions, such as encouraging private capital to meet the enormous demands of growth. Urban fringe areas in so many of our major cities are suffering from governments who cannot or will not fund the infrastructure so sorely needed but will not allow the private sector to provide an alternative solution. This issue of Labor’s misguided attempts to plan for the future of Sydney by limiting growth affects almost all of the Mitchell electorate in one way or another. Central planning has produced policies that are denying young people and young families the opportunity to get ahead. By rationing land, they have caused land prices to skyrocket; by imposing high fees and regulatory imposts, they have caused long delays and extortionate costs; they have increased densities in suburbs against the wishes of existing residents and buyers; and dilapidated infrastructure, which was never designed for these sorts of densities, has become choked and overloaded. In short, it is not urban consolidation they have created but urban congestion. In and near my electorate, which covers some 12,900 hectares and is all within one hour’s drive of the Sydney CBD, there are thousands of hectares where minimum lot sizes remain between two and 40 hectares as a result of past archaic policies of urban consolidation. This is land which would be highly sought after for housing if not for the implementation of absurd policies that see minimum lot sizes as high as 100 acres within an hour’s drive of the Sydney city and only minutes away from other major town centres such as Castle Hill and the new Rouse Hill. Currently that land is sitting there doing nothing. It is too expensive for farming but it is much cheaper than the land right next door that is being sold for housing. It is an incredible waste of resources and a major contributor to Sydney’s unaffordable housing problem. Affordable housing is part of the great Australian dream, and if states continue to fail so badly in the provision of this basic function there must be a role for the federal government. We have already seen the erosion of housing affordability that the first three decades of these types of policies have produced. Measures should be taken to lift the restrictions against housing on the urban fringe and slash the exorbitant levies and charges that are currently applied. Young Australians deserve better, and I will work in this place to ensure that Mitchell can be an affordable place to live for young Australians. I have been fortunate to learn about strong advocacy. I joined the Liberal Party in 1995 when political correctness was at its height, after 12 years of Labor rule. I then went to work in the political sphere, gaining experience and insight into how to produce real outcomes from government. I want to acknowledge and thank those who gave me my political start: the Hon. Ross Cameron, Senator the Hon. Helen Coonan, the Hon. David Clarke and Ray Williams. I also thank those who have assisted me along the way: the Hon. Tony Abbott, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, the Hon. Brendan Nelson, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull and Senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells. Their support, friendship and service have given me the experience, inspiration and determination to be an effective representative. I owe a huge debt to the Mitchell FEC and its branches, to the New South Wales state executive and state council and to Nick Campbell, vice-president of the New South Wales division. I also want to thank my campaign managers and friends Andrew Jefferies, Matthew Connor, Mark Lewis and Dominic Perrottet. I also thank the New South Wales Young Liberal movement, the New South Wales Young Liberal executive and the Australian Liberal Students Federation. The Liberal Party is the party of Menzies, of John Howard and of James Ruse. It is the party of the individual, the small business owner and the hardworking mums and dads of Mitchell. It is the party of the defining spirit of this country that proclaims that if you have a go then you will get a fair go in return. I am proud to represent such a great political party in this place. But my election was not without some small degree of controversy. Some Liberals think that the election of such a progressive younger person to this place is the thin end of the wedge. For example, one elderly Liberal matriarch declared that the election of Alex Hawke to the federal parliament would be the death of conservatism in the Liberal Party. I want to reassure honourable members who may be anxious about this matter that I bear no hostility to conservatism. My brand of Liberalism is more interested in what we support than what we oppose. I want not just to resist those things that are harmful but to support those things that are good. I derive no satisfaction from opposing the growth of state sponsored welfare if I cannot fan the spark of family, enterprise, self-reliance and human dignity. I am more interested in arguing the merits of the high standards we have inherited than in obsessing about the failings of those who fall short—recognising, as I do, that all of us are but dust and clay. I am a big believer in the ideas of grace, forgiveness, redemption and a second chance—Christian values that have seasoned secular culture in a way that makes it more humane and our world more inhabitable. We Liberals must accept the responsibility to make our political values relevant and persuasive. We must reach out to each successive generation. I am for sustainable environmentalism and practical reconciliation. I am for the US alliance. I am for the state of Israel. I am committed to the war on terror. I want to see Australia fulfil its proper role as a regional leader, especially in supporting our neighbours and friends in Papua New Guinea, East Timor and the Pacific. I am a supporter of democracy as a global language, of trade not aid, of the rule of law and the power of the individual. Australia, thanks to the Howard era, is still a free and open society; a naturally egalitarian place not hidebound by rank or birth; a place where merit, work, character and tenacity are still the most important factors in determining a person’s success. There is more to be done and more that we can do for those who do not yet enjoy the benefits of modern Australia. This can and should be done through strong communities, by taking responsibility for one another and not by outsourcing the role to government. Two hundred and twenty years from our founding as a nation, life is much more complex than it once was. Understandably, government plays a broader role than it once did. But overreliance on the government is holding our nation back, eroding our enterprise, eroding our instinct to take responsibility for ourselves and for each other and, most of all, eroding voluntary association. My commitment to the people of Mitchell is to stand up in this place for our community—for its great spirit of enterprise, its individualism, its spirit of volunteerism and its aspirational goals. It has become fashionable to dispense with aspirational goals, especially among the modern class of urbane, professional politicians. There is a species of leader whose achievement is to offend no-one, who stands for nothing. He or she has the great advantage of never being guilty of failure because they never advocated a standard that they might fail. I prefer the approach of Theodore Roosevelt, who said: It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly … who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows … the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat. It is in that great spirit and in this great arena that I humbly devote myself to serving the people of Mitchell and the people of Australia for as long as I am fortunate enough to remain a member of this place. Debate (on motion by Mr Byrne) adjourned. 949 Bills R2912 949 Debate resumed from 14 February, on motion by Ms Macklin: That this bill be now read a second time. 949 17:30:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —I congratulate the member for Mitchell on a splendid maiden speech which managed to combine a robust expression of political philosophy and a hymn of praise to his splendid electorate. I cannot help but recall Alex Hawke’s statement of some years ago that ‘you don’t join the Liberal Party to be left wing’. It is good to see that he has not lost his gift for pithy expression in the translation to this House. The bill that we are now debating, the Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Allowances) Bill 2008, is an important but uncontroversial bill. It implements an election commitment of the former government, which in a slightly modified form was adopted by the former opposition as part of its ‘me too’ policy. The bill in question increases the utilities allowance for pensioners to $500 a year. It extends the utilities allowance to other beneficiaries of pensionable age and extends it further to disability support pensioners and people on carers payments of any age. It also increases the seniors concession allowance to $500 a person and it increases the telephone allowance for pensioners, carers and disability support pensioners with an internet connection. These are laudable objectives. These are worthwhile benefits. They will help some three million people at a cost of some $4 billion over the forward estimates period. So, obviously, the opposition supports these measures and I congratulate the government for moving so swiftly to bring these benefits to people who need them. I will make a few observations. We can only afford to pay these increased allowances because our economy is strong and has generated a very strong revenue base. I think the former government deserves considerable credit for that. The fact that the former opposition repeatedly stated before the election that there was not a sliver of difference between the then government and the then opposition on economic policy is perhaps the finest tribute there can be to the economic work of the former government and, in particular, the good work of the member for Higgins. I hope that the new government does nothing to jeopardise that economy and to put at risk the revenue base which makes these kinds of payments affordable. I should also point out that these latest improvements adopted from the policy of the former government are in keeping with the former government’s record of generosity towards pensioners. I remind the House that it was the former government that increased pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. It was also the former government which shared the benefits of our prosperity more equally than has perhaps ever been the case in a period of sustained economic boom. It is often said by members opposite that under the former government the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. This was not the case: the rich got richer—sure—but the poor got considerably richer too. In fact, work by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, based here in Canberra, shows basically that the top and the bottom deciles of income in our society—the millionaires and the merchant bankers on the one hand and the pensioners on the other hand—all went up by approximately the same high percentage over the life of the Howard government. Those whose positions improved most were low- and middle-income earners with children, which is as it should be under a government which wants to do the right thing by the battlers of our country. I shall conclude by raising two queries for the new government. I note that this particular election commitment was accompanied by an additional commitment to provide pensioners and other beneficiaries with reciprocal concession entitlements in every state. In other words, if I have a concession entitlement as a pensioner in New South Wales and I find myself on a bus in Melbourne, I should get the same discount, the same benefit, as a pensioner there. I note that the former government was heavily criticised for making a similar commitment some years ago but being unable to negotiate this with the states. While I know that the new government made a $50 million election commitment to fund this national pensioner concession entitlement, I do not underestimate for a second the difficulty of negotiating with the states. I think it would assist the House—and I am sure it would interest pensioners and other beneficiaries around the country—if members opposite, in debating this bill, could let us know what the state is of the new government’s negotiations with the states to try to bring about this laudable objective. The final point I make is that in estimates yesterday the relevant minister, Senator Sherry, neither confirmed nor denied a question about whether the government was planning, as part of the budget process and the cuts which the minister for revenue is vociferously promising us, to limit pensioner entitlements to the utilities allowance and to the seniors concession allowance. I think it would put to rest the potential anxieties of the three million people who stand to benefit from the bill we are now debating if the government was able to assure them that it was not giving now only to take away in the budget. I think it was a remarkable answer from Senator Sherry to simply say on something as important as this, ‘I cannot confirm or deny the matter raised.’ Surely it would not have hurt him or the government to say there are absolutely no plans to cut, reduce or in any way limit these particular benefits, and I call on members opposite to supply those words, the words that Senator Sherry was unable to supply in estimates yesterday. 951 17:39:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —I note that the member for Warringah has the opportunity to ask those questions directly of the minister during consideration in detail, and I assume he will take up that opportunity. I rise to speak on the Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Allowances) Bill 2008, which follows through on one of Labor’s key election promises. This amendment will offer older Australians, veterans, people with disabilities and carers further assistance towards making ends meet. This amendment will provide an increase in the utilities allowance from $107.20 per year to $500 per year, to be paid quarterly with payments made in March, June, September and December. This amendment will also extend the utilities allowance to include people who receive the disability support pension and carers, as well as those who receive the widow B pension, wife pension and bereavement allowance. The seniors concession allowance will increase from $218 per year to $500 per year, also to be paid quarterly. Also included in this bill is an increase in telephone allowances from $88 per year to $132 per year paid to veterans, income support recipients of age pension, senior health card holders and also those who receive carer payment or disability support pension. This increased payment is specifically for those who have an internet connection and recognises that cost. I am very pleased to be standing before the House to add my support for this bill, which delivers one of Labor’s key election promises. I know how important these additional payments are and how much they will ease the financial burden of those in our community who are eligible. In my electorate, around 28,000 people will benefit from this bill. These are people who struggle every day to make ends meet. These are people who have worked hard all of their lives to make this country a great nation. They are veterans who have sacrificed years of their lives and who have risked or experienced being imprisoned in enemy territory, incurring disability or injury in the defence of this great country and often risking death for our country. These are partners of those veterans who have raised families on their own and who stepped into farming and industry to keep the country going whilst their loved ones were away fighting for us. These are people who experience disability in their lives and who face challenges that few of us sitting here in this House can ever imagine. These are people who spend their lives caring for others, often under difficult circumstances. The increased allowances acknowledge the day-to-day struggle of people on low fixed incomes to make ends meet. The issue of trying to make ends meet has been expressed to me over and over again by my constituents ever since I became the federal member for Ballarat in 2001. Time and time again, I hear of the experiences of those who find it harder and harder to pay their bills. These stories come to me through my office, through emails, in person at my mobile office or at stalls at the local Trash and Trivia. Everywhere I go people are telling me that the cost of living is increasing and that it is becoming increasingly difficult to make ends meet. This is even more so for those people who are on fixed limited incomes. Their stories turned into a tidal wave in 2007, when I was lucky enough to travel this great country in my capacity as Chair of Labor’s Family Watch Task Force. I spoke to thousands of Australians in shopping centres, markets and street stalls all over this country and I take this opportunity to thank all of those families for sharing their very personal stories with me. I am very proud that this government is committed to trying to assist working families. Whilst this task force focused on families, I could not help but consider and listen to how the themes of high cost of living and difficulties in making ends meet impact on veterans, age pensioners, disability pensioners and carers. Some of these people, through no fault of their own, are unable to access the job market at all. An overwhelming number of constituents made this point during the election campaign, taking the initiative to telephone or call into my office to ask what Labor would be doing for those who live on pensions or benefits. It was particularly gratifying when we released Labor’s Making Ends Meet plan for older Australians, people with disabilities and carers during the election campaign, and the feedback that I received on that policy from the people whom it would directly assist confirmed this for me. My office received an overwhelming number of requests for this policy and then received a great response from those it would help the most. It was touching to hear the people of my electorate tell me that this would ease the burden for them, that it would help take the pressure off and that it would relieve the financial stress being experienced and, of course, the emotional toll that goes with it. This, along with our other election commitments, does help those who need it the most. As I stated previously, the cost of living is an issue for everyone but more so for those who are on low fixed incomes. The cost of housing, the cost of groceries, the cost of petrol and the cost of utilities are real concerns for the vast number of Australians, and I hear in question time that it has suddenly become a concern to the opposition—finally! Labor knows all too well the difficulties inherent in trying to make ends meet, because Labor went out and listened and then moved into action to develop a suite of initiatives to help the Australian community out. Labor has already announced an inquiry into grocery prices to ensure that Australians are not paying more than they should be at the supermarket. The inquiry will look at all facets of the grocery industry, from supply right through the chain to retail level. The report will be presented to the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs by 31 July and will then be scrutinised to ensure that the Australian community are getting a fair deal with their weekly grocery bill—something that has a direct impact on those on fixed incomes. The ACCC has also been asked to provide advice on how to establish a dedicated website that focuses on grocery prices as well as how they can deliver a periodic survey of grocery prices in supermarkets. This will help all citizens, but particularly those who find it difficult to physically shop around due to disabilities or caring commitments. These are real measures that will help people, but particularly those on fixed incomes. I am sure my colleagues would also agree with me that one of the major strains on the family budget is the cost of petrol. It is also one of the most frustrating issues for constituents, who constantly question why there is such a huge fluctuation in price, often unexplained. One very positive and responsible thing that the government can do is to ensure that we have a fully competitive fuel market in Australia. The appointment of Mr Pat Walker as the government’s nominee for petrol commissioner shows the public that the Rudd Labor government is serious about a fair go at the petrol bowser and will not tolerate unfair pricing or advantage flowing through, to the detriment of the Australian community. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo interjecting— 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms KING —I note the member for Moncrieff again at the table interjecting. The opposition showed no interest whatsoever in these issues. In fact, when I tabled the Family Watch report, which clearly showed how concerned families in Australia were about grocery and petrol prices, the then government ridiculed it—‘That’s not an issue, not a problem at all.’ Families in fact have never been better off, we were told. So I would like to hear what the opposition proposes to do. In the 11 years of the Howard government the average home rose in cost from four times the average wage to seven times the average wage. A three-bedroom rental has risen by 82 per cent whilst vacancy rates have been slashed in half. This is the legacy of the Howard government, which chose to ignore this crisis. The crisis that has escalated over a decade cannot be fixed overnight, but we must begin the process of alleviating this crisis right now. Labor has done this by developing policies implementing a First Home Saver Account, a Housing Affordability Fund, a National Rental Affordability Scheme and a better approach to land release. This will begin immediately to relieve the strain on those who have up until now believed that homeownership was a pipe dream. As well as the Rudd Labor government taking action on the cost of groceries, petrol and housing, the bill that we are debating today will take the action necessary to provide assistance to 2.7 million Australians who are doing it tough. I am especially pleased to lend my support to increasing the rate of telephone allowance from $88 a year to $132 a year, specifically for those who have an internet connection. Whilst this increase will be meaningful financially, it is also meaningful in terms of what it actually signifies for people. Extending this payment to recipients of disability pension and carer payments is a natural extension of this allowance. It acknowledges the benefits of internet use and the growing use of this technology amongst older people and people with disabilities and carers. For people with disabilities the internet can be a link to a world that may not be able to be accessed any other way. For those in the community with mobility issues the internet can be used as a way of dealing with day-to-day activities that can prove challenging—ordering groceries, online shopping and keeping in contact with loved ones. For those of us who have communication or anxiety issues the internet can be a safe form of connecting with others. Disability specific chat rooms have flourished, and this shows how accessible these sites are for those who are unable, for various reasons, to link into face-to-face support or social groups. The internet is also a powerful learning tool, giving many people access to a world that may not be able to be accessed any other way. It is no longer impossible to have a significant and important relationship with someone who shares the same challenges, interests or hobbies who may live halfway around the world. For carers it can be a connection to others who may be experiencing the same challenges or a link to a crisis service when it is needed the most. It can be a way of keeping in touch with friends when it may be impossible to get out of the house. It can be an instant connection to someone when you feel that you are all alone. It can be a way to relax when the opportunity to go out may not be available. With families often scattered across the country, older citizens can now keep in touch with their children and grandchildren. I must admit that I took great delight when I met with a very young 88-year-old who was communicating with her grandchildren in America for the very first time via the internet in one of my local community internet places, which was a wonderful thing to see. With increasing technological sophistication, and a soon to be much improved broadband network, grandparents can send and receive photographs, video footage and emails from their loved ones, their children and their grandchildren. This increase in telephone allowance for the purpose of assisting with the costs of an internet connection sends the message loud and clear that Labor is about keeping families connected to each other and keeping everyone connected to the community. It provides real assistance to those who need it the most. It acknowledges the modern world that we live in, recognises the modern challenges and provides a modern approach to meeting those challenges. Those in our community who receive a disability support pension, carer payment, wife pension, widow B pension or bereavement allowance, and those in our community who are under qualifying age and receiving a service pension or income support supplement, will for the first time, under this legislation, be entitled to a utilities allowance. This is long overdue. Labor recognises that these groups in our society are doing it tough and are entitled to some additional assistance. Labor recognises that the additional allowance—increased from $107.20 to $500—is also long overdue. These community members have been most patient as they have watched the cost of petrol skyrocket, the weekly groceries bills add up and the costs of gas and electricity continue to climb. This is the legacy of the previous government, which was obviously deaf to the calls from those on low fixed incomes and their advocates that budgets were strained to breaking point. Labor did not dismiss those calls. We listened carefully and then we got moving. We heard that quarterly bills added a great deal of stress at that time in many households, which is why the increased utilities allowance will be paid quarterly—at the time that bills are due. That just makes sense. This amending bill also increases the annual rate of seniors concession allowance from $208 to $500 for all eligible self-funded retirees. The original concession allowance was introduced in December 2004 and has, to date, been paid twice a year. This bill ensures that seniors concession allowance is paid quarterly, along with the utilities allowance. This timing of the allowances will provide the maximum benefit for this payment, alleviating the difficulties of finding the money to pay the bills that all seem to arrive at once. One of the things I would like to talk about within the context of this bill is the government’s plan to develop a new way of indexing the pension. This government intends to introduce legislation later this year that will change the way pensions are indexed, providing for a real formula that is based on the real prices that consumers are exposed to. The formula will take a basket of goods that reflects what pensioners actually buy—meaning more emphasis on utilities and food and less emphasis on whitegoods—and add this as a new element to the indexation formula. The end result will mean that the age pension will increase according to the basket of goods, the overall CPI or 25 per cent of male average earnings. Whichever is the highest will determine the new pension rate. This is another election promise that Labor is preparing to deliver. The speed with which Labor has got to work shows our commitment to those who are often silenced through their circumstances. These are the people that Labor has traditionally supported and, now in government, we are continuing that tradition—those on low or fixed incomes who continue to contribute to society despite the challenges that life has presented to them, those who provide the caring that makes our country a richer place, those who were willing to sacrifice their lives for our freedom, veterans and those who have worked hard all their lives and who now care for grandchildren or devote their time to volunteer activities in our communities. I am very pleased to stand here today, on behalf of all those people in my electorate who will benefit from these changes, and commend the bill to the House. 955 17:54:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —I listened to the previous speaker, the member for Ballarat, with a good deal of interest because, as she spoke, anyone who was listening and did not have a knowledge of the background of this bill, the Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Allowances) Bill 2008, would have thought that it contained original thought—that the Labor Party had managed to have an original thought that it put forward as policy as we went forward to the last election. But, to those people who are aware, this was one of those policies known as Labor’s ‘me too’ policy. It was a policy announced by the then coalition government on 23 October 2007 entitled ‘More Support for Pensioners, Self-Funded Retirees, People with Disabilities and their Carers’, only to be followed on 1 November 2007 by the Labor Party’s release of their policy called ‘Making Ends Meet: Federal Labor’s Plan for Older Australians, People with Disabilities and Carers’. So the bill has its origin in coalition policy. Indeed, it has antecedents. The policy was first developed for the 2006-07 budget when the coalition provided a bonus payment equal to the annual amount of utilities allowance for each person of age pension age eligible for that allowance. It was extended to other groups of older Australians who were recipients of the mature age allowance, partner allowance and widow allowance, and they also received the bonus. In the budget for 2007-08, the coalition provided a one-off pension seniors bonus payment of $500 to everyone of age or service pension eligibility for the utilities allowance or the seniors concession allowance. That was finally developed into the policy of 23 October 2007 which I mentioned previously and which is the antecedent of the legislation that is now before us. In other words, the very simple proposition I am putting is that, if the opposition—or, rather, the opposition as we now are—had not put forward this proposition when it was in government, this legislation would not be before the House because it was, as I said before, one of the ‘me too’ policies which Labor adopted. In proposing this utilities payment, it should be acknowledged that the coalition developed this policy within the framework of recognising the worth of individuals, not the collective that the government will continue to apply. We recognised that individuals needed assistance with their utilities payments as they came around, just as we had recognised this in our very much earlier policy when we said the CPI was not a sufficient index for the age pension and, indeed, for service pensions because veterans’ entitlements to these utilities and concession allowances are a fundamental focus of our policy and the ‘me too’ bill that we see. The policy that we introduced to change the indexing of age pension and service pensions from CPI to MTAWE—male total average weekly earnings—was simply to recognise that older Australians who had given enormous service and sacrifice in bringing up families and contributing to the wealth of the nation were not being properly rewarded for what they had done by the utilisation of the CPI, which of course had been Labor policy for 13 years prior to that. So we made that promise and, on coming into government in 1996, we in fact honoured that promise. And MTAWE became the index that increases were measured by. When we came into office and we started to see the growth of wages again—which of course they had not done under Hawke and Keating when the policies that they had introduced suppressed wages—we saw a need to ensure that pensioners were not left behind. It was this concern for the individual person who had made a contribution, not the collective—that group over there, and the individual can be sacrificed to the group—which prompted that change in policy. The bill that is before us enables an increased utilities allowance of $500 to be paid to people receiving the age pension, mature age allowance, partner allowance, widow allowance, service pension, veterans income support supplement, carer payment, disability support pension and DVA invalidity service pension; to holders of the Commonwealth seniors health card; and to pensioners, carers and people with disabilities. These people will receive $500 per person or couple. It will also be paid to self-funded retirees, who are eligible for $500 each. This legislation was born of the concern and recognition that a great number of people had a need for this increase. It is very important that our policy, which this bill reflects, was to increase the utilities allowance payment and extend it to disability pensioners, particularly, who had created quite a voice for themselves so that they would be heard. The then government, the now opposition, recognised that voice and the fairness of what they had to say and extended this to them. As I said previously, the then opposition and now government ‘me too’d’ that policy. I was also pleased to see that this bill fulfils the Labor Party policy to increase the telephone allowance for older Australians, carers and people with disabilities from $88 to $132, provided they are eligible to receive income support and have an internet connection at home. This also applies to veterans and their dependants, provided they too have an internet connection at home. This is recognition of the fact that the fastest growing group of people in the community who are taking up use of the internet is the over-55s group. Very early in the piece, when I first took over as Minister for Aged Care back in 1998, the over-55s made very low use of the internet and now, as I said, they have become the fastest growing users of the internet within our community. So it is pleasing to see that that has been delivered upon. The third thing that Labor promised was, again, a take-up of an earlier coalition policy, which was to negotiate with the states to have the states give reciprocity for travel concession. This is one of the real contentious issues that older Australians have had for many years. In 2001 we, as the then government, made a commitment to undertake to negotiate with the state governments to see that recognition take place. The Labor Party has said that, because all governments in Australia are now Labor, it will be able to negotiate an outcome which other people could not negotiate. It is true to say that the state governments would not sign on to the agreement—for whatever reason they had, they refused to sign on. Although the money was put forward by the federal government to compensate the state governments for the cost that they would have, it did not happen. In the papers that it put forward to be costed prior to the election, the Labor Party put forward $50 million to compensate state governments over four years for the cost of negotiating these reciprocity arrangements. There is not one word about that in this bill—not a syllable. It was with great fanfare that the Prime Minister, as he now is, announced the policy back then on 1 November 2007. He even put his picture on the press release, ‘Making ends meet—national travel concessions for older Australians’, in which he said: For example, a bus driver in New South Wales will be able to apply the standard concession when an older Australian presents a valid State Government Seniors Card even if it is from another State or Territory. This will include long distance rail travel on routes like the Indian Pacific, the Ghan and the Overland. Reciprocal transport concessions will help older Australians who like to travel to visit their grandchildren and see the country. Federal Labor will end the buck-passing between the States and the Commonwealth. He also said: That’s because all governments in the country are now Labor and they will be easily able to discuss these things and implement them because they are all Labor. And yet we get this bill before the House today, brought in early—and I commend that because it is important that the utilities allowance and concession payments be made, even though the indexation date has been postponed by the legislation from 20 March to 20 September. It shows that there is no movement at all on this important issue of the transport concessional card. I repeat that a big fanfare was made by the government saying that they would be able to achieve outcomes because they could all talk with one voice. And yet there is not a word; there is nothing in this bill about it and nothing to explain why it is not being dealt with. It is simply a bill to bring in what is basically legislation to enact a previous government’s commitment, the now opposition’s policy. I listened with interest to the debates in the House today, particularly during the MPI, about the way in which the government are going to deliver on other promises. The first one they made was that they would bring down interest rates. Since they have been in government, interest rates have gone up. They said they would bring down grocery prices. They have appointed a commissioner to oversight them. They said they would bring down petrol prices. Petrol prices have gone up, as indeed have grocery prices. So the three big issues for which they made promises—reduce interest rates, reduce grocery prices and reduce petrol prices—have failed, failed and failed. What is their policy to deal with this inflationary pressure, the effects of which these utility allowances are meant to meet some of the payments for? It is very simply this: they are restoring all the power of the trade union movement that had diminished in the last 11½ years—restoring that power to the unions so they will again become a monopoly player. The impact of that is to be inflationary. There is only one tool that the government has to use, and that is trying to force people out of jobs to increase the size of the unemployment pool so that pressure can be taken off inflation. The government can use all the weasel words that they want, but at the end of the day what Treasurer Swan is saying to the Australian people is, ‘You can’t have the full employment that the coalition government gave you and have low inflation.’ Well we did it. We said: ‘When the economy is booming and when there are surpluses and we’ve gathered in too much money’—we do not need that amount of money to deliver the things that are needed for people—‘we will give it back to you, the people. We will give you back your money.’ So people felt that when prices were rising and they got a tax cut, they had some more money in their pockets. This brought back the pressure to stop pushing for higher wages, which in turn brought back the pressure to start pushing higher prices to pay for the higher wages. In addition to that, it stopped the money remaining in government hands. Governments, no matter of which persuasion, like to spend the money they have in their hands. So, if we had not had that tax cut policy, we would have had the triple whammy: we would have had a government with the money still to spend, we would have had people pushing for an increase in wages and we would have had employers pushing for an increase in prices to pay for the increased wages. We would have gone up exactly the same way and down the other side, as we did under Paul Keating with the ‘recession we had to have’. Treasurer Swan stood here today and he said, ‘This is the highest inflation we’ve had’—four per cent I think we are talking about—‘for 16 years.’ You bet. What happened 16 years ago? We were coming off the back of the worst recession that we had had, engineered by Paul Keating. And what did we have? What was the result of that? It was one million people unemployed. When you have one million people unemployed, of course inflation will come down. And that is the blunt tool that this government is using. It can talk about the Reserve Bank and it can talk about its planned cuts in expenditure from the budget, but everybody knows that, because of the strength of this economy—the one that it has inherited—there will be in excess of 1.5 per cent of GDP in the surplus without it doing anything at all. But the Australian people have to know: the government is the enemy of full employment. It is the enemy of full employment because it is handing back the monopoly power to the trade unions to push for wage increases. And that has begun already—you hear the voice of the head of the CFMEU; you see the strikes that are starting already. So when we see a bill like this being implemented in legislation today, which is bringing in a coalition policy that was designed to make sure that individuals who are older are able to participate in the growth of the economy, we see this measure as a ‘me too’ bill. What we are really seeing are the hardships those people are going to suffer because of the policies that this government is going to implement. Gone are the restraints, full-on will be the pressure. The opposition will be supporting this bill. We are pleased to see a policy that we promised being implemented, even if we are unable to do it ourselves—but we are able to support it. We are pleased to see the $58 increase to recognise the importance of the internet—that is per year, I might add. We are disappointed that we have seen no progress talked about at all on the question of travel concession cards, and we are very disappointed to see that we seem to have a government that is hell-bent on dismantling the economy, which was in a strong condition when it inherited it. This will be to the disadvantage of ordinary individual Australians but will be to the huge benefit of the collectivist union movement. 959 18:12:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —Congratulations on your re-election to this parliament, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, and your election to the Speakers Panel. I know that you will shed your wisdom upon this House in that position and I look forward to speaking in the parliament with you in the chair. The contribution by the previous speaker was quite interesting. Yes, this side of parliament are about the collective good. We care about all pensioners, all senior citizens, all veterans, all people on disability pensions and all carers. We are not about the individual; we are not about our mates, as the previous government was. One thing that was a trademark of the Howard government was the fact that it always cared about the individual as long as they were its mates. This legislation is not about the mates of the Howard government; it is about those people who look to the government for support. The other issue that the honourable member for Mackellar raised was transport concessions and reciprocity with the states. I have to put on the record that the Howard government could never get agreement from the states. Why? Because they were locked in the blame game, they were not serious about it. All they wanted to do was have a go at the states. They would say, ‘We’ll commit this money’ and know that there was absolutely no way that they were ever going to deliver because they were too busy blaming the states for every problem that they had. I think the member for Mackellar really needs to make sure that she remembers facts as they were. As far as the Rudd government is concerned, we have made a commitment of $50 million to introduce a national seniors’ transport concession scheme for senior card holders, and that will be introduced by January 2009. The Rudd government delivers on its commitments. The Rudd government is not a government of core and non-core promises, as was the Howard government. It is a government that is very mindful of the seniors, the veterans and all of those people the Howard government made an art of doing over each and every time it introduced legislation into this parliament. The Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Allowances) Bill 2008 delivers on a Rudd election commitment. It delivers advantages to a large number of people throughout Australia. The Shortland electorate is the 10th oldest electorate in the whole of Australia and, as of the 2006 census, it has the 10th highest proportion of people over the age of 65. I know that over a very long period of time those people have been finding it very hard to survive under the mean-spirited Howard government that was previously on the government benches in this House. That is why this legislation will benefit the people that I represent so much. This bill increases the annual rate of the utilities allowance from $107.20 to $500 per household and provides for the allowance to be paid in $125 quarterly instalments rather than biannually. What does that mean? It means that pensioners, seniors and carers will be better able to manage their budgets. Bills for utilities actually come in quarterly, so people will not have to wait for those biannual payments to be able to pay their bills or manage their finances. The allowances are locked into the time that the bills come in. This bill extends, for the first time, the qualifications for the utilities allowance to people who are under pension age and receive a disability support pension, carer payment, wife pension, widow B pension or bereavement allowance and to people who are under the qualifying age and receive a service pension or income support supplement. I would like to concentrate on that for a little bit. The Howard government constantly refused to acknowledge the needs of these people. Every time the Howard government introduced measures for things like one-off payments and the utilities allowance to people on disability support pensions, my office was swamped with people who were in receipt of the disability support pension and were missing out. They felt very much that they were second-class citizens. They felt that the Howard government was discriminating against them. They would tell me that they had very high needs. Quite often a person who is on a disability support pension will have to pay much higher pharmacy bills because they require pharmaceuticals to assist them in their daily lives. They have a number of extraordinary costs, as do pensioners, but the Howard government refused to acknowledge the needs of these people. When I stood up in this parliament last year and spoke about the then government’s one-off payments and I brought this to the attention of then Minister Brough—a member who is no longer in this parliament—he stood up in this parliament and said, ‘People with disabilities have never been better off than they are under the Howard government and any problems they are having have been caused by the states.’ Isn’t that the blame game at its extreme? Firstly, he was arrogantly denying and not recognising the problems that people with disabilities have, blaming them, to a degree, for the fact that they have a disability; secondly, he was passing the blame onto the states and saying, ‘We are doing the right things; it is all the states’ fault.’ I feel that the people of Australia actually recognised the then minister’s treatment of people appropriately, and he is no longer in this House. Under this legislation, the seniors concession allowance will increase from $218 to $500, the same as it is for pensioners. They are being brought into line. Previously pensioners were receiving $107.20 and seniors were receiving $218. So both groups will now receive $500, and I think it is appropriate that pensioners and eligible self-funded retirees should be treated the same. The bill increases the rate of telephone allowance from $88 to $132 for certain income support recipients who have an internet connection at home. This is something that I think will be welcomed. It is available to pension-age income support recipients and to disability support pensioners—once again recognising that people with disabilities have the same needs as other pensioners—carer payment recipients and self-funded retirees who hold a Commonwealth seniors card. The internet is a very important way for people to communicate with others, and it is becoming more and more important each and every day. If a person is in some way restricted in their mobility—if they have a disability and are confined to their home, or if they are older and frail and cannot get out—the fact that they can use the internet actually brings the world into their home. So I think that this is a very important initiative. I would also like to mention the Australian seniors internet fund. The Rudd government will be establishing a $15 million seniors internet fund to establish free internet kiosks in key community locations such as senior citizens centres and neighbourhood houses Currently only one in five Australians over the age of 65 have access to the internet. There is a very active seniors group in my electorate, at Lake Munmorah, who have developed a very popular computer club. They are constantly seeking funds to expand it because there is such demand for the internet within that area and a number of them are unable to have computers in their home. This, to me, is an example of how the Rudd Labor government’s legislation will benefit constituents in the Shortland electorate. I would like to go through and highlight a couple of issues. Under the Howard government, senior Australians, people whom I represent in this parliament, were really suffering. The cost of living pressure facing older Australians on fixed incomes was increasing each and every day. It was only this week that a senior pensioner from Caves Beach in the Shortland electorate contacted my office and welcomed the fact that the grocery price inquiry was taking place. In Swansea there is only one supermarket and the prices there have increased by 20 per cent. She went along and spoke to the supermarket manager and was told: ‘Bad luck if you don’t like it. We are the only supermarket here; you’ve got to lump it.’ I think it is very important that we acknowledge the fact that the Rudd government are listening to the needs of people. We are actually recognising the fact that pensioners, seniors and veterans—the veterans who have fought for Australia—are doing it hard. They have done it really, really hard. It is because of that that we have made these changes. It is because of that that the transport concessions will be introduced. It is because of that that we are having the inquiry into grocery prices, and it is because of that that a petrol commissioner has been appointed. These issues have not arisen since the election; these issues have been on the table for a very long time. And these are issues that the Howard government constantly ignored. This legislation shows the different approach of the Rudd Labor government—a government that listens to and acknowledges what seniors have contributed to Australia in the past, acknowledges the fact that people with disabilities have the right to be treated in the same way as other people and acknowledges the fact that cost of living pressures make it very hard for those people. As I have already mentioned, this legislation delivers on key election commitments. There are no core and non-core promises. The Prime Minister has said that he will deliver on all the commitments he has made to the Australian people, and this is one of those commitments. The government has committed over $4.1 billion to deliver a plan to help make ends meet for seniors. There is a $3.7 billion utilities allowance increase. That is an increase of $500 a year for recipients. It has also been extended to recipients who were not previously entitled to it. The telephone allowance increase will have an impact on access to the internet. Once again, that is a very good initiative. The other initiative that I think is very important is that the government is developing a new index for pensions—a basket full of goods that more accurately reflects the goods and services that a pensioner buys. There is more weighting on food and utilities and less on whitegoods. I have pensioners talking to me constantly about how the increase in grocery prices is impacting on them. They have highlighted the increase in fruit, vegetables and meat prices in particular and have indicated that quite often they are unable to afford those items. They have brought to my attention that not only are prices going up but also, while some prices may remain the same, the actual content in the package has decreased. They say a new way of looking at how the index is developed is long overdue. Once developed, this will be added as an extra element in the indexing formula so that the age pension will increase by the new pensioners basket, the overall CPI or 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings, whichever is higher. In other words, we recognise that we need to revisit this. This is welcome legislation. It is something that the previous Howard government could have fixed, but they just ignored the needs of pensioners. They denied the fact that pensioners were doing it hard. As the then Prime Minister said, ‘Australians have never been better off than they are under the Howard government.’ I am very proud to be able to stand in this parliament today to support this legislation. It is legislation that is delivering on the Rudd government’s commitment to the Australian people at the last election. I know that I will be standing in this parliament time and time again talking on legislation that is delivering on commitments to the Australian people, because the Rudd Labor government is about delivering. The Rudd Labor government is not about weasel words; it is not about moving away from the commitments it has made. It is not about core and non-core promises. It is about delivering to the Australian people. I support the legislation before us in the House today. 962 18:29:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —I rise to support the Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Allowances) Bill 2008, which addresses the utilities allowance, the seniors concession allowance, the telephone allowance and a number of changes that the previous member mentioned in relation to the indexation processes. These measures will benefit a large number of people and are obviously intended to do so. In my electorate of New England, the issue of the age pension is one that is raised in my office and the public arena quite often. Only in recent days, the Northern Daily Leader, the major daily paper that comes out of Tamworth, ran a series of stories on old age pensioners and how they are struggling to make ends meet. I have made the point before, and I would like to take the opportunity with this legislation to raise the issue once again, that a nation which in recent years has been able to establish massive surpluses in terms of budgetary processes should be able to give a bit more back, even more than this particular package, to those who are of the generation that created the circumstances out of which those surpluses are now being generated. If we reflect on that group of people, we realise that they are mostly people who were not involved in superannuation schemes as people younger than them would be. There is greater opportunity these days to have some participation in superannuation arrangements and hence do a bit more for one’s own retirement. But a lot of the people who are struggling now—and a lot of members have spoken about these people—are of a generation that did not have that opportunity. In some circumstances they did not have the expectations that younger people of today would have in terms of their spending power and the activities that they derive from the economy. I would suggest to the government that, if there are going to be surplus budgets in future, our older people should benefit. Our older people—our pensioners and our veterans, and I know there are self-funded retirees as well—are the ones who created the circumstances for the economy to develop so that we could have surpluses in the budgetary processes. The veterans made many sacrifices to make sure that this land remained a free land and that we can have the democratic processes that we enjoy today. This bill encapsulates two groups who have made an enormous contribution to the society in which we live today. In my view, neither group is recognised to the extent that it should be. As I have said, if there are surpluses available, these are the first people that we should look to—not in some sort of vote-buying exercise but in an attempt to equalise the playing field so that, as members, we do not constantly hear of some of the hardships that pensioners are going through in their daily lives. The other issue I would like to raise is directly in relation to veterans of the Second World War. We still have an absurd situation where veterans who gave up their time to serve Australia in the Second World War but do not have what is called ‘qualifying service’, which means having an angry shot fired at them in combat, still do not receive gold card health benefits. They are dying at the rate of 1,200 a month, and most of those people are well into their 80s. Particularly given the economic circumstances where there have been surpluses derived, I would have thought that, given their age, these people should be treated exactly the same as other World War II veterans, irrespective of whether they served overseas but did not have an angry shot fired at them. These people are not going to be with us forever, so it is not a projection of funding for 100 years once the gates have opened. Many members in this House would have people in their electorates who gave up five years of their lives to serve their country, to be here to defend it while others went overseas. My father went overseas and he would have been a great lot of help if the Japanese had come to Werris Creek! He was in Egypt and it probably would have taken him a while to get home to defend my mother. The people who enlisted and stayed in Australia were available to go wherever they were sent by the government of the day. We are treating those two groups of people very differently. The people who went to Egypt qualified because they went to war. Those who stayed here just hung about. They did not do anything. But in terms of having the capacity and the training to defend the nation if called upon, if the Japanese had advanced through New Guinea and invaded Australia, they were the people who were going to defend our land, not other people’s lands. I call on Prime Minister Rudd to show some compassion for these people. It is time that we overcame this ridiculous notion of qualifying service. A man in my electorate trained for five years. On a couple of occasions he was going to be sent overseas and then they retrained him to stay here. Then he went into the paratroopers just in case something went wrong. In five years he had a number of accidents out of aircraft and suffered injuries. Now he is in his 80s and is suffering the consequences of those injuries. When he goes into a surgery for a consultation or any medical assistance, he can be with another 85-year-old man who happened to go to Egypt and they will be treated differently by the system. I think that is a disgrace. In my electorate a man called Ken Colton, who only died last year, had obviously been affected by this notion of qualifying service and felt he was regarded as a second-class soldier. It was not because he was not prepared to go overseas and fight but because the government of the day determined that his unit was to stay here. His unit was to go from Darwin back to wherever to defend the nation in case it was invaded. I make that plea once again. It has fallen on deaf ears for about six years. As I said, those people are dying at a massive rate. I make the plea that we recognise those who are left and provide those veterans with that little bit of extra help in terms of access to the gold card. The other issue that the legislation covers is disability. I take the opportunity, with a little bit of licence in relation to the bill, to raise this issue. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services is here, because it is an issue that he may well have some regard for. It is the issue of young people with disabilities who are currently housed in nursing homes. It is an issue of quite inappropriate housing—not that I am being critical of nursing homes. There are something like 6,000 young people who are currently housed in nursing homes which are essentially built for old people. A lot of those young people have a lot of life in front of them and really need different resources provided to them. A number of groups in my electorate have been working on a regional model so that services can be delivered to those young people with disabilities. A few years ago I travelled down to Hobart. I was in Tasmania on committee business, but I took the time to go to look at a model in Hobart called ADARDS. It was not an issue of young people in nursing homes; it was an issue of people with dementia. But the style and the model of the building and the way in which the services were delivered was something that we should all look at. It tailored the resources to the specific needs of the people. In that case they had dementia. In this case there are young people with disabilities that need to be housed in more appropriate circumstances than they are now. I look forward to working with the new parliamentary secretary on this particular issue and other issues in relation to people with disabilities. I have been a member of that voluntary committee within the parliament and have had a number of interests in that particular area. Deputy Speaker Burke, I do congratulate you on your appointment. One of the things the legislation is trying to do is make it easier for pensioners. There is something that we should look very closely at. I know petrol and grocery pricing is the political flavour of the day, to go across the chamber to what the government are going to do. I wish them well in their attempts. There are going to be a number of difficulties in looking at grocery prices. There are things that the government can do, and that the former government could have done, in terms of petrol pricing. A long time ago I did economics at university. I remember very little of it, and I have never practised in terms of being an economist, so do not denigrate my statements. One thing I do remember is that if a country has a comparative advantage in a trade area it should actually take advantage of it. That applies in a number of areas. In the petroleum field it applies. We have an absurd situation in this country. I know it was introduced for very good reasons, which were probably lies at the time, but the politicians of the day got away with it. I speak of the excise on fuel. If we really want to do something about fuel, we have the capacity to do something about it: we have a taxation regime. With the excise of 38c a litre plus the GST of 12c or 13c, you are looking at 51c a litre in tax. I know this new fellow that is going to fix up all the bowsers so we will all get cheaper fuel will do a tremendous job, but he will probably have an influence of about 2c. If you are living in the country, with the sales volumes that go through some of the bowsers at petrol stations and other places, that 2c will be more than subsumed in the margins of the operators. If the government are serious about putting Australia in a position where business activity can have some degree of comparative advantage, let us start looking at the taxation system that we have developed in this nation. I hope I am not verballing the man, but I think Tim Fischer was one person who, when the GST arrangements were being discussed through the late nineties, actually wanted to do something about the inclusion of the excise regime on fuel. I think he was overruled because the mathematics, in terms of the percentage of the GST to recoup the required income, would have meant that the GST may well have been about 13 per cent on sales. The boffins of the day assumed that 10 per cent was as high as you could go without revolt from the people. It just shows how some of our taxation system is derived. If the government are serious about looking at taxation—and I do not agree with the surplus that is being put back to the people; I think it will be inflationary and the government will pay a penalty for that; but they believe they are doing the right thing—and if they are serious about really taking the lid off taxation and the impacts that taxation has in terms of economic activity, they have to look at fuel taxation as one of those things that particularly impact on country people. It is not so bad in the city, where there is an option of public transport and other things, but in the country it is something that you just cannot get away from. As members of parliament we have our fuel provided by those hardworking taxpayers, so we do not necessarily feel it. But it is something that small business and other people are affected by. I will now get back to the bill. The other day, the Northern Daily Leader reported a story about a pensioner who had moved to a smaller village because of the lower cost of housing, but they still needed a vehicle to access services because there was no public transport there. This happens a lot in country communities. Obviously, the cost of a vehicle and the cost of fuel have an impact on the way in which people can survive on a pension. Many would say, ‘If you are a pensioner and you can’t afford a car, you shouldn’t have one,’ but in some cases that means a pensioner cannot get to a doctor or to a service. Pensioners cannot afford to pay the price of rental accommodation even in a town like Tamworth, for instance, so they go to the smaller communities where that cost is cheaper. There are a number of things that the government should do about the old age pension, but probably the most important one in my view is the indexation arrangement. This has been a farce for many years. It has not kept pace with the real cost of living for these people. I make the plea once again, which must be for about the 50th time. There is a new government. The old government was not prepared to have a serious look at this issue. It sort of dummied the pass to the veterans on many occasions—that might be a good election slogan; I must remember it! The veterans of the Second World War, whether they served overseas or stayed in this country to defend the nation from attack, are the very people who created the circumstances where we could have an age pension and a parliamentary system where issues such as this could be debated. It is time that we treated all these veterans the same in terms of their access to healthcare arrangements. 965 18:46:00 Shorten, Bill, MP 00ATG Maribyrnong ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services 1 0 Mr SHORTEN —Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, may I congratulate you on your election. I would also like to thank the preceding speakers for their contributions—in particular, the member for Ballarat and the member for Shortland, who are tireless campaigners for pensioners and self-funded retirees, and the member for New England for his interest in young people and nursing homes. I also thank him for his kind words. I certainly look forward to working closely with him on those matters and to visiting his electorate to investigate further the places to which he referred. The Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Allowances) Bill 2008 will give much-needed financial support to about three million eligible Australians, including pensioners and self-funded retirees, who are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. This bill will amend the social security law, the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 to give increased and more timely financial support to older Australians, people with a disability, carers and veterans. This bill will help older Australians receiving income support payments such as the age pension and veteran service pension by significantly increasing the utilities allowance. This measure will benefit over 1.7 million aged income support recipients, 250,000 Commonwealth senior health card holders, 700,000 disability support pensioners and 120,000 carer payment recipients. The annual rate of the utilities allowance will increase from $107.20 to $500, and it will be paid in quarterly instalments of $125 for singles and eligible couples combined. This equals a total annual payment of $500 for singles and $250 for each member of a couple. The allowance will be paid quarterly in line with the timing of utility bills. Paying the allowance regularly allows older Australians peace of mind and certainty that they will have the funds on hand to pay their bills. The bill also expands the qualification criteria for the utilities allowance to cover people under pension or qualifying age and receiving a carer payment, people receiving a disability support pension—particularly pleasing to me as parliamentary secretary for disabilities—people on the invalidity service pension, a partner service pension and income support supplement, a bereavement allowance, a widow B pension and a wife pension. This equals a total annual payment of $500 for singles and $250 for each member of a couple in one of these new groups. Under these two elements, more Australians will receive more assistance to help with their utilities costs. The bill also significantly increases the rate of seniors concession allowance which is paid to self-funded retirees from $218 to a total annual payment of $500 for each eligible individual self-funded retiree. In another change to make life easier for seniors, this higher rate will also be paid on a quarterly basis, on the same day as the utilities allowance. Lastly, the bill provides a higher rate of telephone allowance for older Australians, carers and people with a disability, if they receive income support and have an internet connection at home. This higher rate of telephone allowance will be available for eligible veterans and their dependants who have an internet connection at home. The new rate of $132 for singles will be available to those who have a home internet connection, which is an increase from the standard rate of telephone allowance of $88 a year. This will allow older Australians, as well as their carers, and people with a disability to stay in touch with their loved ones via the internet. Affordable home access to the internet has the potential to connect them to a whole new world of communication, information and entertainment. The member for Warringah wondered about our commitments to pensioners’ reciprocal transport concessions. The Rudd government is delivering on all of its election commitments, including the national reciprocal transport concessions for senior Australians. This would apply to all seniors who have a seniors card, enabling them to get transport concessions when they travel interstate. The Rudd government is committed to working with the states and territories to implement this commitment. In a brave new era of cooperative federalism, we are determined to succeed where the previous government failed or simply did not even try. We have put $50 million on the table, doubling the funding offer from the previous government, and we are confident of a result. In response to the member for Warringah’s second issue related to the budget: like the previous government, the current government does not discuss its budget processes. This legislation is the latest in a long line of Labor government social security innovations, proving—if any proof is necessary—that Labor is the party which cares about all Australians, which understands that families need support and assistance. The Whitlam government was the first to commit to indexing pensions to cost of living increases and it delivered in its first six months the single mothers benefit, the first Commonwealth income support payment for single parents. Then came the Hawke and Keating governments, which introduced the family assistance package, child support payments and replaced the unemployment benefit with the Newstart job search allowance—linking for the first time social security payments with an active employment participation strategy. The Hawke and Keating governments introduced the sole parent pension and set it at the same rate as the age pension. They replaced the ancient invalid pension with the disability support pension. Then came the superannuation guarantee charge, requiring employers for the first time to make private contributions to employees’ superannuation to protect workers from poverty in retirement, with a comprehensive system bringing financial security for all not just some. I have gone through this because Labor has always been the party which truly cares for and supports Australia’s working families, its older people and its pensioners. I commend the bill to the House. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 967 Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong —Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services) 18:53:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 967 Bills R2918 967 Debate resumed from 14 February, on motion by Ms Gillard: That this bill be now read a second time. 967 18:54:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, and congratulations on your election to this high office. I am pleased to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Assistance) Bill 2008. In the 2007 budget the Howard government announced an extension of FEE-HELP to the vocational education and training sector. This was to improve an anomalous situation whereby the VET sector had some courses with high fees but was the only sector with postsecondary qualifications without an income-contingent loan scheme. On 21 June 2007 the Howard government introduced the Higher Education Support Amendment (Extending FEE-HELP for VET Diploma and VET Advanced Diploma Courses) Bill 2007. This bill provided an amendment to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 enabling FEE-HELP to be extended to the vocational education and training sector, specifically providing financial assistance to individuals undertaking full-fee diplomas and advanced diplomas, and this was later extended to graduate certificates and graduate diplomas following evidence given to the Senate committee examining the bill. The intention of that bill was that VET FEE-HELP be available for diploma and advanced diploma courses; where full fees are charged; where there are arrangements for credit transfer for a higher education award; and only to VET providers that are corporate bodies. Unfortunately, due to a drafting error, the legislation did not allow for the writing of guidelines to reflect this intent. VET FEE-HELP will not commence until the second half of 2008—that was the intention—and so the problem will be easily fixed in time with this bill. The Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion carried on during the second reading speech as if she was the first minister who has ever had to amend a bill. I simply point out to the House that this drafting error was not picked up by either the then opposition or the Senate committee which examined the bill. It was not raised in submissions. It was found when the time came to write the guidelines. This is something that would have been corrected had the now opposition won the last election. It is something that is now being done by the current government. Having said that, the opposition appreciate that the full intent of our 2007 budget initiative to extend FEE-HELP to VET is reflected in this amended bill. Extending FEE-HELP to VET courses has been welcomed by stakeholder groups and the VET sector. Submissions were sought for the initial bill, and there was strong support for the bill from the Australian Council for Private Education and Training, ACPET. However, along with the International College of Hotel Management, they encouraged expansion of the bill to encompass vocational graduate certificates and graduate diplomas. This amendment was taken up by the Howard government and will allow for VET FEE-HELP to be provided for these courses when all other eligibility criteria are met. A Treasury working paper in April 2007 by Bruce Chapman, Mark Rodrigues and Chris Ryan entitled HECS for TAFE: the case for extending income contingent loans to the vocational education and training sector provides a sound economic argument in favour of extending income-contingent loans to VET students. Students should not be deterred from undertaking VET courses as a result of potentially short-term financial constraints preventing them from financing their further education. Higher education loans have been available since 1989 for Commonwealth-supported university courses—HECS-HELP—and in 2005 the coalition government extended this to include FEE-HELP for non-Commonwealth-funded courses at universities and eligible private tertiary providers. FEE-HELP was recognised in the Treasury paper as being an ‘important innovation in Australian higher education financing’. Research undertaken by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research shows that in 2005 there were 833,700 students who undertook fee-for-service VET courses—that is, full-fee VET courses—equating to 12.6 per cent of VET revenue. The intention of the bill was to extend income-contingent loans to the vocational education and training sector—broadening the base from higher education, where FEE-HELP is available to assist students to pay up-front costs. Fees payable by full-fee-paying students vary between courses and training providers. One example provided in the TAFE futures survey 2006 is $13,000 a year for hairdressing and $6,060 for a diploma in multimedia, with high equipment and teaching costs impacting on the up-front fees required for each course. The general FEE-HELP loan limit is currently set at $80,000—with $100,000 for dentistry, medicine and veterinary science. VET FEE-HELP offers a means of cost-sharing between governments and students. There is extensive research as to the benefits of cost-sharing, suggesting that, as there are benefits both to society and to the individual, cost-sharing offers an equitable solution for the financing of further education. However, as there may be a time lag before the student is able to realise the financial benefits of their education, government assistance in meeting the up-front fees for study may enable students to increase their qualifications, when without assistance there is a potential barrier to VET participation for some students. The TAFE futures survey of 2006 indicated that fees presented a major deterrent, particularly to those living in areas with a high dependence on social security and those in low-paid jobs. Particular note is made in this report of the increased difficulties faced by students in paying the additional costs associated with the higher level courses. Under the previous coalition government, payments were made to encourage the uptake of VET courses. These payments included income support, training vouchers, skills vouchers for basic training and tax-free wage top-ups. For apprentices there was support for tool kits and fees. VET FEE-HELP furthers these measures, specifically targeting full-fee, higher level qualifications. These payments are intended to assist in boosting the number of students undertaking qualifications in areas of skill shortages. Occupations facing skill shortages vary across Australia. However, in areas of high employment such as northern metropolitan Perth, shortages are evident for electricians, registered and enrolled nurses, motor mechanics, carpenters and childcare workers. Attracting people into these industries requires a multifaceted approach, improving incentives and addressing the reasons why people are reluctant to enter into these occupations. VET FEE-HELP removes the disincentive of up-front fee payment for full-fee students. This goes part of the way to boosting enrolments in these courses. With increasing demand for skilled workers, there is a need to assist those who wish to undertake VET courses that can lead to future studies. Over the next 10 years it is expected that over 60 per cent of jobs will require high-quality technical or vocational qualifications. However, to date only 30 per cent of the population have these required skills. Monash University research has indicated that this will require a 1.9 per cent increase in the overall number of VET qualifications gained each year. The courses eligible for VET FEE-HELP cover a wide range of industries, including hairdressing, construction, engineering and mining, electrotechnology, and hospitality and tourism. Skill shortages are apparent in a number of these areas across Australia and offering VET FEE-HELP to students wishing to undertake studies in these areas helps address these shortages. Limitations have been placed to ensure that VET FEE-HELP is only extended to those courses for which higher education credit transfers are possible. These qualifications can then lead to further education prospects. This amendment provides a minor technical correction to the original legislation, ensuring that the extension of FEE-HELP is restricted to those originally intended to receive it, identified as eligible full-fee-paying students undertaking TAFE diplomas, advanced diplomas, graduate certificates and graduate diplomas with VET providers who have credit transfer arrangements with a higher education provider in place for each of their qualifications and providers who are corporate bodies. This was the original intention of the bill introduced by the former government and, as such, the opposition supports this bill. 969 19:03:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —I rise to support the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Assistance) Bill 2008. Largely what this bill does is to lend support to the original intention of the VET FEE-HELP provisions when they were introduced into the Higher Education Support Act 2003. Like any parent these days, we all want the best for our children. In my instance, I am very fortunate that two of my sons have progressed through the vocational education system. I know that as a parent we do want the best and also realise that not everyone is going to want to access tertiary education. Therefore, we need to have varying pathways to guide young people in the direction of a career. I think it is very important that we have proper pathways for students who wish to continue with further study and, as I say, do not simply have, or seem to have, only the option of tertiary education. The bill before us lends support to the original intention of VET FEE-HELP, and that is to assist students with the up-front costs of full-fee VET courses. However, the way it was originally drafted could see VET FEE-HELP being provided much more broadly than was originally intended. This bill helps direct the VET fee assistance in relation to both full-fee courses which are offered under the VET system and courses which go on to give higher education credit transfer, which is very important when we are talking about increasing the skills and abilities of students. Hopefully, in undertaking these courses, having the ability to transfer credit will lend itself to higher educational attainment as well. I think it is important that we reflect on the developments that have been made in the VET system. For most people, vocational education once meant TAFE colleges. These days a revolution has occurred in vocational education, and private providers are providing a very significant service in vocational education. The intention of this provision is to make sure that those private providers provide all the information that is required by the Minister for Education in order to attract up-front VET fee payments for students undertaking those courses. These are matters which probably should have been taken care of when this was originally dealt with in the last parliament, but something that I think is common ground to both sides is that we want the system to work. Moreover, not only do we want it to work, we want it to work in the manner that was originally intended, and that is like what occurs with FEE-HELP. VET FEE-HELP is there to assist to some extent the decision-making process of students going to undertake courses to increase their skills and who, as a consequence, have to shoulder the burden of up-front fees. This is what the scheme is designed to do. It is one that should probably have been looked at more fully when it was originally put forward, but it is one which we are certainly prepared to now commit to and finalise. It will provide opportunities not only for young people but also for those students who are committed to increasing their skills, particularly with a view to being in a position to compete in the ever-changing modern job market. As I understand just from the research that has been conducted in my electorate of Werriwa, it is predicted that, in the not too distant future, over 60 per cent of the positions which will be made available for localised employment will require some form of technical or vocational educational qualification. Certainly they may not always be at diploma or advanced diploma level, but it is interesting that people are now looking to the future, planning the recruitment of skilled labour and making assessments at this stage that they will be looking for people to have VET qualifications as a prerequisite for employment. If that occurs in Werriwa, I imagine that it will not be far from the mark in the electorate of anybody else in this House. I am happy to stand here and support the bill. It will at least bring this matter to a proper conclusion so that VET FEE-HELP can be brought to bear to assist those people who it was originally intended to assist and to apply to those courses to which it was originally intended to apply. To that extent, I support the bill. 971 19:10:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 0 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —In following the member for Boothby, who spoke earlier, I will just very briefly make a couple of points in relation to this debate. Obviously the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Assistance) Bill 2008 is a technical amendment to the reforms that were announced by the previous government in the last budget to extend FEE-HELP to the vocational education and training sector. The legislation came in in June and passed through the parliament. There was a technical problem with the legislation and, consequently, the new government is now amending it. I share the views of the member for Boothby, who pointed out quite eloquently that, when the Minister for Education introduced this bill, she seemed to be acting as though the need for a technical amendment to correct an error is something that has occurred one or two times since Federation. I say in a friendly manner—she will know that is certainly my nature—that she should prepare herself for many more amendments in the years to come. I do not say that with any disrespect to her officials who are here, but bills do get amended. Whilst I can understand the minister hyping up the fact that the amendment is necessary and that there was an error made at the time, and blaming the previous government for that and everything else she can think of on any other issue, it is the case, and she knows it—and let the Hansard show that the minister, who is at the table, is smiling—that she will face many amendments to her own legislation. It might not be for a few weeks or months, but the minister will be back in here, I presume consistently, attacking herself for the technical errors in future bills. We are very, very glad to hear that and we will be the first to give her praise if she does not ever have to pass an amendment to any bill that she introduces, be it in workplace relations, education or social inclusion. We are very glad to hear that there will not be any errors. She made that declaration in the first week of parliament. She looks relaxed; her officials look slightly less relaxed, and I can understand that. They cannot agree, but rest assured that they know that, just as this bill is being amended, there will be many other amendments. My understanding is that this was perhaps picked up in the explanatory memorandum but not the bill. But the important point that the member for Boothby made was that this was always going to be picked up. In fairness to the departmental officials, who now work for a new government, I certainly believe that this technical error was always going to be picked up with an amendment. It was picked up in good time, because these new measures—which are very welcome and will have a major benefit to the vocational education and training sector—start in the second half of this year, so hyper claims about cost blow-outs and major catastrophes with regard to the need for the amendment do not really apply. We are here in the second week of the sitting in February supporting the amendment, and it will go through very quickly. You will have many months before the new scheme actually starts. By then, I am sure that she will personally be going through other legislation that she introduces—and she has a very busy load with workplace relations, education and social inclusion; we accept that—line by line to ensure that there are no technical errors made or amendments needed. But these amendments to the substantive bill illustrate the importance of the measures announced by the former minister during last year’s budget which were legislated through the parliament. They will make a major contribution to vocational education and training. They were very much welcomed by the sector at the time. I do not specifically recall the Labor Party, when they were in opposition, demanding that FEE-HELP be extended to the vocational education and training sector—they may well have, but I do not recall that being something that was regularly spoken about by the then opposition. I am glad that they support the initiative that we introduced during last year, that they support it wholeheartedly and that they realise that these reforms, which were the past government’s reforms, will make a very major contribution to the sector. So we are supporting this amendment bill. We will support the other amendments that the minister will need to bring forward in the future years as well, if they are of a technical nature. We will be happy if they do not come forward—because she has announced that there will never be another amendment. That is fine. But if it turns out that, due to no fault of her own, these things slip through, then we will be there to play a bipartisan role on technical matters. 972 19:17:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 0 Ms GILLARD —in reply—I thank every member who has contributed to this debate. I thank the shadow minister for education for his contribution. Clearly, he is a forgiving man, and I think that is a delightful personality trait! I would hope that I will not have to rely on his forgiving nature too much in the future. But, should I ever need to rely on that, clearly he is someone who, by dint of personality, will be forgiving should that time come. In relation to the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Assistance) Bill 2008, as I indicated at the start of this debate, it completes the arrangements consistent with the original policy intent of the VET FEE-HELP legislation introduced last year. These amendments were necessary to allow the legislative guidelines that sit under the VET FEE-HELP legislation to be drafted in line with the intent of extending the higher education FEE-HELP arrangements to the VET sector. If one were being unkind, one would say that the failure that this amendment bill seeks to rectify was caused by the previous government’s ineptitude; if one were being a more generous soul, one would say it was in the nature of things. But, whatever analysis one brings to it, clearly there were flaws in the original legislation and we need to make sure that they are rectified, and this has been given a very high priority by the Rudd government. It is essential to bring this legislation forward to assist students studying in high-level VET programs this year. VET FEE-HELP assistance will be restricted to full-fee-paying students while requiring credit transfer arrangements for diploma and advanced diploma courses that can be assessed on a course-by-course basis. This will provide the greatest degree of flexibility to the sector while ensuring that VET students get appropriate recognition for subsequent studies in higher education and receive credit for what they have already done. Aligning student financing arrangements between vocational education and higher education in this way will reduce the administrative burden on dual-sector providers—and I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, are familiar with the operation of those in Victoria, as am I in my local electorate—and will help improve the movement of students between the sectors. It will underpin the move to higher skill levels in Australia’s tertiary education system, a key contribution to improving productivity. Once again I thank all members who have participated in this debate. I thank the opposition for their support for this legislation and their quick processing of it. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 973 Ms GILLARD (Lalor —Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion) 19:20:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 973 Bills R2915 973 Debate resumed from 13 February, on motion by Mr Bowen: That this bill be now read a second time. 973 19:20:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —The Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008 seeks to introduce a number of measures that lapsed in the previous parliament. I am particularly pleased to see the provisions relating to a carbon sink forest. Part of the previous government’s commitment to dealing with climate change was taking on the battle against deforestation everywhere in the world—in Australia and internationally. We established the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, which was a world-leading effort to take on that part of human activity, deforestation, which constitutes 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. In that respect we were genuinely leading the world—we brought together an international conference—and it is no accident, and in large measure due to Australia’s hard work and our leadership, that deforestation was such an important issue, and its connection with the greenhouse challenge such an enormous issue, at the Bali conference. I am also delighted to see the tax offset for the equine workers hardship wage supplement payment. Again, that is a carryover from the previous government. And I know that my colleague the shadow minister for finance will be pleased to see the provisions relating to superannuation lump sums paid to a member having a terminal medical condition; again, that being placed back into the legislative process here in this bill. But this bill also contains a malign element which should not be bundled up with what are, essentially, administrative matters—that is, it picks up items of legislation that lapsed in the last parliament. The linking of those very important and very positive measures with a piece of legislation to remove tax deductibility for contributions to political parties is designed to make it difficult for the House to properly consider the important issue of campaign finance. I foreshadow that we will be moving an amendment to address that matter later in this debate. There is nothing more important in our democracy than contestability. The thing that keeps governments honest is the fear that they may be turned out. If we get to a point where governments—and this would apply to governments of any political persuasion—were so entrenched in their incumbency that they could never practically be removed then we will have lost what lies at the very core of the democratic process. At the moment, we have the Australian Labor Party in government in every parliament in Australia. The Australian Labor Party not only has the benefits of incumbency, which are considerable, but also has the benefit of an enormous financial advantage in terms of fundraising and money for campaigning. In every election over the last decade, we have seen the Labor Party—be it at state or federal level—outspending by many times the Liberal Party in their campaigns and in particular in their advertising in the media. The question that we have to ask ourselves, as Australians committed to a contestable democracy, is what price democracy if one side of politics has an inordinate share of the financial resources available for campaigning? How has that come about? Years ago, the trade unions would give money to the Labor Party and business, particularly big business, would give money to the conservative parties. There was a rough equivalence. What has happened in recent years—and I speak with some personal knowledge of this, having formerly been the honorary federal treasurer of the Liberal Party—is that the larger public companies have either ceased to make political donations at all or, when they have made donations, split them fifty-fifty. Of course, state governments are controlled by the Labor party and have enormous leverage over property developers and the hospitality industry. Look at what the Labor government in New South Wales has done for the hoteliers of that state by putting poker machines in every hotel. That is a wonderful contribution to the social welfare of the people of New South Wales! It has done a great job for party fundraising but it means that the Labor Party now has at least as large if not a larger share of contributions from the business sector as the Liberal Party. All of this is publicly disclosed; this is all a matter of fact. This is not a contentious observation. At the same time, the Labor Party has 100 per cent of the donations that come from the trade union movement. So, as every year has gone on, Labor’s financial advantage has become greater and greater. That has put us in the position where we have to ask ourselves: what price democracy? Where is the contestability? Look at a government as hopeless, flawed and failed as the New South Wales Labor government and it got re-elected not least because it was able to spend five times as much on television advertising as the opposition was. There is no longer a contestable democracy if one side of politics has such an enormous advantage. Senator Faulkner is seeking to entrench that advantage even greater; he seeks to take Labor’s existing advantage and make it greater still. This proposal to remove tax deductibility for donations obviously affects the Liberal Party but it does not affect the Liberal Party exclusively because, of course, it means donations to the Labor Party are non-tax deductible as well. If the government were seriously committed or interested at all in removing tax deductibility for donations to political parties then it would take some action with respect to the activities of trade unions—because trade unions are tax-exempt, union fees are tax-deductible and the unions are the largest single source of funds of the Australian Labor Party. If they were serious about this and said, ‘No, we only want to have after-tax dollars, dollars on which tax has been paid, going into political parties,’ then, when a trade union gave a million dollars to the Labor Party, it would be obliged to gross it up for the tax and pay the tax to the Australian Taxation Office. Then you would get some degree of equity, but we see nothing of the sort. What Labor is seeking to do is take a playing field, the contestable playing field of democracy, upon which the great political parties of this country contend—and it is already tilted in favour of Labor when it comes to financial resources—and tilt it even further to give itself incumbency and an ability to resist a challenge from an opposition with the same kind of impregnability that it has been able to achieve in the states around Australia. This is a big moral issue. It is not just a financial issue; it is not just a political issue. It goes to the very heart of our democracy. We cannot afford to allow our democracy to become less contestable than it is today. I am, and have been for many years, very committed to campaign finance reform. I would love to see a day when no unions or corporations could give donations to political parties. I would love to see a day when only individuals on the electoral roll were able to give money to political parties—with an annual cap. I would support that but this is a big issue and one that this parliament owes the nation a careful consideration. That is why we will be shortly moving an amendment to take this obnoxious element of this bill—and indeed all the related campaign finance issues—to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for careful consideration. 975 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 975 975 19:30:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —I wish to raise two serious matters: the cutting of health services and the cutting of education services within the electorate of Flinders. Most particularly, as members of this House may be aware, on 31 January this year, under the watch of the Rudd Labor government, Warley Hospital, a bush-nursing hospital which is community owned and has lasted for 84 years, closed against the will, against the desire and against the good interests of the people of Phillip Island. Warley Hospital closed because, out of an act of pure ideological vindictiveness, the Rudd government stopped a payment of $2½ million which would have given that hospital contemporary life and a long-term future. It would have given the people of Phillip Island significant health care, not just over the next decade but over the next generation and over the next half-century. Let me go through some of the facts very briefly. This is a hospital which had received significant federal support over the last decade. But, most importantly, it had been starved of assistance from the state of Victoria. The hospital had warned that it would face a difficult future if it were not able to receive public beds. This community owned hospital served the people of Phillip Island for 84 years, but it was being denied access to public beds to serve the public on Phillip Island. It was finally knocked back late in 2007. At that point the hospital sought emergency assistance from the federal government. This occurred on the eve of the election. A promise was immediately made by the Prime Minister, through the Prime Minister’s office, and the health minister, Tony Abbott. That promise was to guarantee the future of Warley Hospital. That was followed by a short process of inquiry to receive as much information as possible, which led to the pledge of $2.5 million in order to guarantee Warley Hospital a future. Warley Hospital was the centre and heart of the Phillip Island community. It was not a so-called private hospital, as the health minister in this place has sought to argue. It was a not-for-profit, community owned and community generated bush-nursing hospital. It provided services such as accident and emergency services after hours, postoperative recovery services and the very important service of palliative care, of providing a home and place for those who are facing their last days, in a way which was accessible to residents of Phillip Island so that family could be near those who were facing death. This is a fundamental role and it has been a part of the island and part of the health services, as I said, for 84 years. After the election was over, contrary to expectations, the new government did not accept the pleas and the requests of the Phillip Island community, the board of Warley Hospital and of all of those involved. Instead of matching that promise made by the previous government, we saw Warley Hospital axed. The money was denied and, worse than that, there was no response from either the Prime Minister or the health minister to letters sent in late January by the chairman of the board of Warley Hospital. There was no response to the request that they face the people of Phillip Island and explain why this hospital was about to be closed down, and there was no response in the most important element, which was the desperate request for funding. This hospital has gone. The evidence from the local community is that people are being sent to Wonthaggi, a hospital that is itself experiencing serious difficulties, so it sometimes takes two or three hours before they can find a hospital to treat people with accident and emergency problems. This is a real blow to the community. On another occasion I will deal with the impacts of the loss of the Investing in Our Schools Program on primary schools such as San Remo Primary School, Cowes Primary School and Lang Lang Primary School. But now we grieve for the loss of Warley Hospital. (Time expired) 976 976 19:35:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to the speakership. I did have a previous opportunity but at the time, in question time, you were being so stern and there was such a profound silence in response that I did not like to spoil the moment. As much as I miss sharing a bench in this chamber with you, and I miss your wise counsel, sharp wit and great humour, I am so proud that it is being shared with the Australian public. The question time tragics in my electorate are telling me that they very much appreciate the new style of the new Speaker. It is grand final time in the A-league and I am proud to inform the House that on Sunday evening the Newcastle Jets will play the Central Coast Mariners in the grand final. I notice that the member for Robertson, a rival in this, is here and I am sure she is supporting her team. While we have made the finals in each of the three years of the A-league competition, this is our very first grand final. Last year the member for Hindmarsh’s team knocked us out; I enjoyed very much watching that game with him in Adelaide. So in Newcastle we are abuzz with excitement. That we have reached this point is a tribute to the owner, Con Constantine; the club’s executive and staff; its coach, Gary van Egmond; and all of its wonderfully talented players, not to mention the dedicated fans. On the weekend, former Socceroo Craig Foster wrote that the Jets, along with Queensland Roar, were the best teams to watch this season—a fine tribute to our young squad, from a great of the Australian game. The city of Newcastle has got right behind our Jets in the three years of its existence, and it is great that we now have two teams—the Jets and the Knights—competing at the highest level, in two national football codes and receiving such wonderful support. Like thousands of Novocastrians, I am looking forward to travelling to Sydney on Sunday to cheer them home. But also like many thousands of Novocastrians, I will miss the home-ground atmosphere. Like them, I was also very disappointed that, had we qualified first for the grand final, we would not have had the opportunity to host the grand final at our home ground—EnergyAustralia Stadium—because our stadium’s capacity, currently around 24,000, is just not sufficient for a grand final crowd. It is also not big enough to host Asian Cup or World Cup matches, which require 40,000 seats—competitions which Australia has indicated it may bid for in the near future. It would be a tragedy for our region if we were to miss out on those opportunities because our stadium still is not up to international standard. I was first elected into this place in 2001, and I continually lobbied the former government for federal assistance to help upgrade our stadium. Ten thousand signatures on a petition were lodged, but not one cent was forthcoming for Newcastle. I am pleased to report to the House that the Rudd government is following through with its commitment at the last election to contribute $10 million to help create several thousand more seats at EAS. YT4 Scott, Bruce, MP Mr Bruce Scott —It sounds like pork-barrelling to me! Roll out the pork! 00AMP Grierson, Sharon, MP Ms GRIERSON —We expect this funding to become available in April or May this year and I would be very surprised if it is not spent already. Adding to the state government’s recent funding, we are now moving forward after 10 years of neglect by the Howard government. I hear the member opposite saying ‘pork-barrelling’. I remember the former Treasurer’s team, the former Prime Minister’s team and the team of the former member for Lindsay, Jackie Kelly—and I remember quite a few announcements of stadium funding, but none for Newcastle. I will keep working with my colleagues in government, with the Hunter International Sports Centre Trust and with the community to make sure more funding becomes available to build the new western grandstand we would all so dearly love to see. In the past we have missed out on hosting Rugby World Cup matches. An economic study done by the local university shows that we have missed out on $130 million in economic activity that it is estimated a redeveloped stadium would bring in. The city of Newcastle now boasts two codes and two top-ranking teams—the Jets and the Knights—using the stadium year round. I congratulate the Knights on their victory in the opening trial game for the 2008 season, and our Jets have qualified for the Asian Champions League in 2009. We really do want to be part of the Asian and World Cup bids in 2015 and 2018. I will be cheering the Jets home in Sydney on Sunday, and hoping the member for Robertson is not quite as happy as I am on the day, and I will keep working towards the day when we can cheer them home in a grand final at EnergyAustralia Stadium—and when we can cheer on the Socceroos in international matches held at EnergyAustralia Stadium. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I simply say to the honourable member for Newcastle that while the chair is supposed to be benevolent in most matters, within the A-league there is only one victory—a Melbourne victory. 977 977 19:40:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —Mr Speaker, I rise here today to ask this new Labor government, led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, to honour the commitments the previous coalition government made to the people of rural and regional Australia—particularly the communities in my electorate of Maranoa and those who were redistributed from Maranoa into the new Labor seat of Flynn. The Labor Party has criticised the National-Liberal coalition over the highly successful Regional Partnerships program. We have been accused of pork-barrelling, a charge that I reject outright. I am not going to apologise to this Prime Minister or his Labor counterparts for working hard for the people of Maranoa. I certainly am not going to apologise for the hard work and the tireless efforts of my constituents to better their communities. In my electorate of Maranoa, the Regional Partnerships program, together with the Balonne Shire Council, for instance, and the Queensland government, has provided the people of Dirranbandi—a town of about 500 people—with a community swimming pool. Together with the Barcoo Shire, the Regional Partnerships program has built a community centre for the western town of Stonehenge, a town of around 40 people. Aramac Shire was able to build a medical precinct. Charleville was able to build a skate park for its young people. The Tara Shire Council was able to provide its community with extended day care facilities. And in the Diamantina shire, Birdsville was able to build a medical clinic. The Rudd Labor government has accused the Liberal and National parties of rorting and pork-barrelling the Regional Partnerships program into coalition electorates. So does that mean that the new member for Flynn and the Prime Minister—a Queenslander—is not going to support the extension of aged facilities in Blackall, which is now in the new Labor seat of Flynn? Will his own member for Flynn support him? And where is Chris Trevor, the member of Flynn? He has been very quiet since his election in November. What is he going to say to the communities of Muttaburra, Tambo and Alpha, who have been told that their projects, previously approved by a coalition government, might not be able to go ahead after all? ‘Sorry, the coalition was pork-barrelling. No motel for Muttaburra. No new business and cultural centre for Tambo. No new showgrounds and rodeo ring for Alpha’? Does the member for Flynn want to tell his constituents that the Labor government—which boasts to be a government for all Australians—is happy to put $2 million into the Tree of Knowledge project in Barcaldine, which is obviously a symbol of the birth of his own party, but does not want to improve the aged-care facilities in Blackall? When the member for Flynn visits the pool in Muttaburra, built with Regional Partnerships funding, will he tell them that it was a result of pork-barrelling? Or is he going to realise it is a vital asset to the Muttaburra community—a place to teach kids how to swim, a place to gather socially, a place which provides hydrotherapy to the elderly? When the new member for Flynn goes to Blackall, is he going to tell them that he will not help provide them with more aged-care places because it is pork-barrelling? If he is going to go up there, I am happy to go with him to that part of the old Maranoa, where the Regional Partnerships program helped to build community centres, pools, saleyards and medical clinics. I am happy to go there with the new member for Flynn, and when he points out that he considers that these are pork-barrelling projects, I will be happy to look on those projects with pride. I certainly will not be apologising. These Regional Partnerships projects are vital to the outback communities of Queensland. Since 2003 there has been some $10 million provided to Maranoa communities through this program. The Maranoa electorate covers almost one half of the land mass of Queensland. It covers the equivalent of almost 3½ times the land mass of Victoria. And yet during the six-week election campaign, Labor promised $5.3 million for regional projects for the seat of Flynn alone. I will support those projects, because they will help those communities, but do the Prime Minister and the member for Flynn think that the $2.4 million Barcaldine Tree of Knowledge project is more important than the motel accommodation for Muttaburra or the aged-care facility in Blackall? Will they honour our commitments to the other communities of rural and regional Queensland? If the new Prime Minister is serious about governing for all Australians, he must not abolish this highly beneficial program; he must continue to support all the communities of outback Queensland. After all, he says he is from Queensland and he is there to help. I call on the member for Flynn to go and see the Prime Minister and make sure those projects, supported and approved by the former coalition government, proceed. (Time expired) 979 979 19:45:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —Mr Speaker, I too would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on gaining the high office of Speaker. This is also my first opportunity to speak freely in this new parliamentary term and my first chance to note for the record the views that stem from my constituents within Hindmarsh and to speak about those who take a chance in life with the aim of better caring for themselves and their family. I am speaking about the many people who take a risk in developing or buying into a small to medium business—the people who are up to the challenge of being their own investor, boss and, in many cases, primary employee. I am also talking about the family enterprises—be they the corner shop, the trades, contractors, hairdressers, bakeries, food processors, mechanics, component producers, artists or tourist operators—where mums and dads work together on the product, the marketing and the accounting, and usually out of a very small business premises that may even be the family home. Businesspeople such as these come from all walks of life and, naturally, engage in an almost infinite variety of enterprises. Their spirit of self-confidence and hard work is to be encouraged—not just in sentimental terms from afar but also, where possible, with effective assistance. This Labor government believes this wholeheartedly. Some used to say that one of the goals of the Labor Party was the transformation of members of the working class into that which owned their own means of production and a level of economic independence. Businesses around the country, whether they are starting from the ground up or whether they are established, receive assistance towards all of these ends through community organisations run by the very people of the business sector whom others may wish to learn from and possibly emulate. These are business enterprise centres, and they provide terrific services to budding and expanding businesspeople. At no cost or minimal cost and with full confidentiality, they provide independent advice on starting, maintaining or expanding a business, on import replacement or on developing export markets. There are two business enterprise centres within my electorate of Hindmarsh and both of them do an exceptionally good job. One of them is in the inner west of Adelaide and one is in the inner south. Successes in such ventures mean a secure income for the businesspeople themselves, their contractors and their employees and, of course, it also means a more dynamic and affluent community in general. I visited the two business enterprise centres that service the area of Hindmarsh as one of my first duties after being elected to parliament in late 2004. I visited with then shadow minister Tony Burke, who was keen, to say the least, to see what was happening on the ground in Adelaide’s western suburbs. We visited both the Inner Southern Business Enterprise Centre, which is located in Morphettville, and the Inner West Business Enterprise Centre, which was then located in the inner western suburb of Mile End. Such centres do warrant Commonwealth support. Too many times we have heard of smart technological and business ideas leaving local areas for other states. Too many times we have heard about products that could have been developed in Australia being developed overseas. Many reasons exist for such losses, but this Labor government is committed to assisting small businesses to succeed where possible. Labor is committed to providing the backing to enable people who know about small to medium business to provide advice and help to those who are in unfamiliar territory. Businesses tell me and my colleagues that they want a one-stop shop for advice to consolidate and grow their businesses—and this Labor government is committed to assisting this to continue into the future. Two such commitments were made toward the Hindmarsh area in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election. The current Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Emerson, committed $300,000 of annual federal funding to both the Inner Southern Business Enterprise Centre in Morphettville and the Inner West Business Enterprise Centre in the western suburbs. 980 980 19:50:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise this evening to call on the federal Labor government to deliver on its funding promises to my electorate of Forrest. In particular, I refer to funding for the Bunbury port access road and the Bunbury outer ring road—projects which I strongly promoted during the election process. Federal Labor must understand that when it makes such funding promises it needs to actually deliver, giving very clear planning and timing direction on the rollout of funds. The member for Batman stated during the election campaign that the Rudd Labor government would work in partnership with the Western Australian government to deliver a new deal on the Bunbury port access road and the outer ring road in Forrest. In fact, federal Labor committed $136 million towards the Bunbury port access road stages 1 and 2 and the outer ring road stage 1. They beat a path to the local newspapers and announced it at every possible opportunity to ensure that the voters of Forrest were well informed on what the Labor Party would do once they were in government. The Prime Minister was quoted in the Australian on 9 February saying: ‘We were serious about our commitments to the people before the election. We intend to implement those commitments.’ But now, some three months on, there is still no sign of any of this funding and, indeed, it is impossible to get any response from the minister’s office as to when it is likely to happen. The Mayor of Bunbury himself stated to a group of industry professionals on Monday, 18 February 2008 that he had made numerous calls to the minister but he was still waiting to have questions answered as to when this funding would happen. This is a critical regional infrastructure project and crucial to the issue of public safety. Four major highways converge at the Eelup roundabout in Bunbury, creating the worst black spot within the entire state. The Bunbury port access road and outer ring-road projects will allow trucks travelling north and south on the Old Coast Road and South Western Highway to bypass Bunbury and directly access the port. The Bunbury port access road will link the port to the new Perth-Bunbury Highway and South Western Highway. I am most concerned for the logistical infrastructure planning that has already gone into developing this project—a project, I might add, that will provide essential improvement to traffic flow and public safety by eliminating the bottleneck at the roundabout and making it safer for everyone. The roads dovetail into the expansion plans for the Bunbury port and the future Bunbury waterfront concept. I call on the Labor government to keep its promise for this much-needed road funding and to allow the funds to flow urgently for this vital regional project. Further delays will only add to the escalating cost blow-outs. Projects such as these affect the lifestyle, wellbeing and road safety of all those who live and work in the south-west. They are urgently needed to cater for the increase in industry and population growth. Federal Labor is overdue to deliver on its promise to the residents of the south-west and actually start the process. If these funds do not flow immediately, then it will be clear that federal Labor is not committed to road safety and regional development in the south-west of Western Australia. I call on the government to get on with the job at hand and provide the already approved funds to facilitate the expansion of key economic and social infrastructure in Forrest. 981 981 19:54:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —I want to speak about two very important election commitments the Rudd government has made to the Australian people in the area of dental health and what this will mean for my electorate of Isaacs. I want to start by recalling the actions of the former Liberal government in this area. In one of its more miserable acts, the Howard government scrapped Labor’s Commonwealth Dental Health Program on taking power in 1996, which ripped more than $100 million from public dental services. This had an enormous impact on the lives of ordinary Australians in need of dental health care. The Howard government followed this act of meanness with more than a decade of blindness to the problems affecting dental health. And there are many problems: one in four adult Australians has untreated dental decay; one in five Australians cannot afford to get the dental care they need; one in six Australians has avoided eating certain foods because of problems with their teeth over the last 12 months; and 50,000 Australians are hospitalised each year for preventable dental conditions. Statistics produced by the National Oral Health Plan indicate that there are more than 220,000 people on public dental waiting lists in Victoria alone. Nationwide the figure is over 600,000. Despite this, the Howard government continued to avoid a national solution to a national problem, leaving it to the states to clean up the mess. State and territory governments have more than doubled their investment in public dental care over the past decade, from $205 million in 1995-96 to $503 million in 2004-05. In my own state of Victoria, the state Labor government has provided an additional $158.2 million to oral health over the past seven years. Despite this extra investment, the length of public dental waiting times continues to be unacceptable. At the Central Bayside Community Health Services in Parkdale, in my electorate, the public dental waiting time for dentures was 30 months as at June 2007. Over in Springvale, at the Greater Dandenong Community Health Service, the waiting time for general services was 32 months. At the Frankston Community Health Service, the waiting time for general services was 35 months. The fact that it will take a pensioner more than three years to get a denture is truly appalling. This is the direct consequence of the actions of the previous government in relation to dental health. In contrast, the Rudd government will establish a Commonwealth Dental Health Program to provide up to one million additional dental treatments. In addition to this, the government will assist working families by establishing the Teen Dental Plan. Under this program, families who receive family tax benefit A will be able to claim up to $150 towards the cost of an annual dental preventative check. These programs are focused on ending the blame game between the federal and state governments and getting on with the job of providing access to dental care. These two initiatives will be welcomed by people in my electorate of Isaacs. The first program I mentioned, the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, will see $290 million provided to facilitate up to one million treatments. That is one million additional treatments that this government will provide over three years. It will help to relieve the pressure that has built up over the last 10 years. I know that the families and pensioners who need to visit the Central Bayside Community Health Services in Parkdale or those who need to visit the Greater Dandenong Community Health Service or those who need to visit the Frankston Community Health Service—all services which do wonderful work in the community—will welcome this funding. The other program I mentioned is the Teen Dental Plan, which is a program to provide up to one million teenagers with a subsidy of $150 towards the cost of an annual check-up. I look forward to seeing the benefits of these programs in my electorate and throughout Australia. 982 982 19:58:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —The north-south pipeline is planned to take 75 gigalitres of water annually out of the Goulburn Valley across the Great Dividing Range to Melbourne. I want to know why the Victorian government has defied the ruling of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, on this project. Despite the announcement that, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, it is a controlled action, the Victorian Minister for Planning has announced that an environmental effects statement is not required and that instead he will simply produce a project impact assessment report. I want to know why the EES is not to happen. I want to know what the minister in this House, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, is going to do about the Victorian planning minister’s refusal to supply an EES. I hope that he will take notice of the extreme circumstances that are now confronting people who are seeing this water being taken away. I also want him to make sure that he has read very carefully the flora and fauna impacts, which have already been documented quite comprehensively, given that this pipeline is to not only go through pristine forest but also take the environmental flow out of Eildon Dam—flow which is supposed to help prevent blue-green algal blooms. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 pm, the debate is interrupted. 982 20:00:00 House adjourned at 8.00 pm 982 Notices The following notices were given: 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms Burke to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the collection of horse disease response levy, and for related purposes. (Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Bill 2008) 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms Burke to present a Bill for an Act to deal with consequential matters relating to the enactment of the Horse Disease Response Levy Act 2008, and for related purposes. (Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008) 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek 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, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008) 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Tradex Scheme Act 1999, and for related purposes. (Tradex Scheme Amendment Bill 2008) R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese to present a Bill for an Act to establish Infrastructure Australia and the Infrastructure Coordinator, and for related purposes. (Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008) 2008-02-20 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 9.30 am. 984 Statements by Members 984 984 09:30:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —I wish to raise before the House the urgent need for action in relation to the Murray River. I want to set out two elements: firstly, the problem and, secondly, the solution. The problem is clear. After 88 days in office the new Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, has had one meeting with the Victorian Premier. This issue is real; it is important; it has an impact on lives. Those throughout the Murray-Darling Basin and in particular those in South Australia and near Adelaide suffer extraordinarily from any inaction in relation to the adequate and fair provision of water resulting from the flows of the Murray. In 88 days there has been one meeting: this is a symbol of powerful inaction. We need action in response to that. The previous government set out a National Water Initiative. We pulled together the states, but for political reasons Victoria held out. This was an act of political thuggery which has very little parallel over the last 100 years. In order to make sure that there was not an agreement before the election, the Victorian government held out. There are real consequences for farmers, for people and for the environment. So the message now is absolutely clear: there must be an agreement in which the Victorian government—and I say this as a Victorian—gets to the table, agrees on a fair distribution, agrees on steps forward and agrees that it is part of the Australian Federation and that it has a responsibility to help with the distribution, the balance and the saving of water from the Murray. The message to the Prime Minister is very simple: your minister is not doing the job. You were elected as a government to do a number of things, one of which was to ensure that Australians had fair and adequate water supply. That is not happening. It is a signature failure in the first three months of this government that something as significant, something as important, something as timely and something as urgent as this has simply not been acted upon. So at this point, at this moment, at this time, the Prime Minister has to step in because his minister has failed. We need the Prime Minister to get the states together now—not to be engaged in some long industry working group—because there are farmers who are suffering in the Murray-Darling Basin, the Adelaide water supply is at serious risk and the Coorong is in an extraordinarily bad state. This is the time and the moment when we need prime ministerial intervention because the minister is failing. The Murray River needs an agreement and it needs it now. I urge the Prime Minister to step in today. (Time expired) 984 984 09:33:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —I want to talk about Work Choices and the effect it has been having in my electorate of Dobell, particularly in light of the flip, flop and flapping that we are seeing from the opposition on this issue. In my seat of Dobell over 30,000 people commute every day to Sydney. That puts the people of Dobell in a very different market situation to many other people and makes them far more vulnerable to the effects of Work Choices than perhaps some in other electorates. Unemployment is at over eight per cent in the seat of Dobell, so we do not have a pool of labour that can use its market position in any sense. So when the unfair Work Choices legislation came into effect it affected the citizens of Dobell far more than it did some of the other citizens around the country. Of concern to me and to the families in Dobell is the position of the opposition. We are not quite sure where they are in terms of Work Choices. We have the deputy leader out there one day saying that she needs to fight to the death on AWAs. Yesterday she made a press statement and quite clearly no-one could understand what her position was. We know the Leader of the Opposition will take any position that gets him a couple of votes in the caucus room because he is just concerned about his job and whether he will still be the leader next week. And what about the member for Wentworth? What position is he going to have on this issue? In his position, he is so far removed from reality and ordinary people that he certainly cannot understand ordinary working families and the pain that they have. What we have here is an opposition that is all over the place in terms of Work Choices. We as the government have a clear mandate from the Australian people. Work Choices was the single most important issue in the last election that was voted on by the Australian public. It is something they want to have changed and, even with all this indecision, this flip, flop, flapping, that we have from the opposition, we still have them in the Senate trying to draw this process out and make it longer than it necessarily needs to be. What we need from the opposition is for them to accept that they actually lost the last election. They lost the election largely because they were out of touch with the Australian people and largely because of their position on Work Choices. They need to take a reality check, move ahead and ensure that the position that the government put forward before the election is one that can go through as quickly as possible and is one that will not in any way be slowed down by the opposition. It is one that we need to have as quickly as we can. 985 985 09:36:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr LINDSAY —That was a waste of three minutes. Let me now show you how to use a three-minute segment doing something that is good for this nation. I was very disturbed to see in the paper this morning that there may be a roll-back by Labor of the 99-year lease system in Aboriginal communities in Australia. Those of us who know about these things—and I have 8,000 Indigenous Australians in my electorate—know about the three Ls that are the fundamental issues that have to be addressed if Indigenous Australia is ever to get out of the severe disadvantage that it finds itself in. Those three Ls are: leadership; law, order and governance; and landownership. That is why I am concerned about this apparent announcement today that Labor will roll back possible landownership for Indigenous Australians. I appeal to my Labor colleagues: we cannot continue to have Indigenous Australia living in Soviet style collectives—and that is what they are. I have just been to Vanuatu. The indigenous peoples there all own their own little piece of the village. They take pride in their little piece of the village. They can deal in that piece of the village; they can move to another village if they wish. They take pride in the home that they build on that piece of land that is theirs in the village. Why can’t we have that in Australia? Why can’t we have the opportunity for Indigenous Australians to be the same as any other Australians? Why can’t they take pride in their piece of land, build their house and look after it? That is what would happen if landownership were available. Of course, there is also another dimension to this issue: Indigenous Australians should be able to deal in their own land. That is what brings economic prosperity to Indigenous Australia. It brings jobs to Indigenous Australia. On Palm Island, in my electorate, nobody can own anything, so you cannot talk to the banks to borrow money because you do not own anything. Palm Island is probably the most beautiful island on the Barrier Reef, but we cannot take advantage of it. Indigenous Australians are denied the opportunity of having their own enterprise on Palm Island. It has to stop. I plead with the minister not to review this and to in fact extend it. I plead with the Queensland Labor government to extend it, get rid of this dreadful deed of grant in trust land title that currently exists in Queensland and give Indigenous Australia a fair go. With leadership in Indigenous communities, with respect for law and order and governance and with landownership, Indigenous Australia can take its rightful place in our country. (Time expired) 986 986 09:39:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —I do not know whether the manoeuvre of the member for Herbert, moving to the government side, was designed to show the opposition’s flip, flop, flap, but anyhow—whatever is behind it—I’m over here, if he’s over there. Twenty thousand people fled into Chad on 10 February, and another 150 people were killed in western Darfur after a continuing attack on villagers by the Janjaweed militia, backed by the Sudanese government in Khartoum. The United Nations has taken a very strong stand and asked that the hybrid United Nations force, UNAMID, be deployed there with 22,000 troops. That still has not happened. Australia has supported this very strongly at the United Nations and only the 8,000 African troops are there at the moment. They have proved ineffective to date because of their inability to transport themselves around to places that the Janjaweed militia attack. A tribal sheikh, Musa Hilal, described as ‘the poster child for Janjaweed atrocities in Darfur’ has been given a senior government position by the Sudanese government. Musa Hilal, who is accused of leading militias in a state-sponsored campaign to ethnically cleanse Darfur of non-Arab farmers, will act as special adviser to the minister of federal government in the Sudan. This follows the September appointment by President Omar al-Bashir of Ahmad Muhammad Harun, one of the two men sought by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, as state minister for humanitarian affairs. I think this indicates, very sadly, the attitude of the Sudanese government and why the United Nations force has not been able to be deployed there. The situation in Darfur overall remains that hundreds of thousands of people over the last four years have been murdered there. These are hundreds of thousands of black African Muslims, all Sudanese citizens, living in refugee camps in Chad. The United Nations—in an effort that was eventually not blocked by Russia or China, who receive most of Sudan’s oil supplies—agreed to deploy this United Nations force. But despite the UN resolution regarding the deployment of this force, this remains blocked by the government in Khartoum. On the ground in Darfur the situation continues with the massacre of innocent civilians, and Australia and other Western nations need to continue to put pressure on Sudan and its allies at the Security Council and the General Assembly to see that that United Nations force is put between the people of Darfur and the murderous Janjaweed and its backing by the Sudanese government. Unless there is a Western country that is willing to step up and provide the transport assets that will enable the UN force to be effective, I am afraid that the innocent people of Darfur will continue to be murdered by their own government. (Time expired) 987 987 09:42:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —I rise this morning to pay tribute to John and Marg Lawton of Benalla in my electorate. It was with great sadness that I learned of John Lawton’s passing on 11 February. John Lawton was an English World War II veteran who proudly fought in the Battle of Britain and also in South-East Asia, India and Burma. He always wanted to live in Australia and spent the remaining years of his life here. In October last year the family Australian flag was stolen, and I was very pleased to personally visit the Lawtons and give them a replacement. The two cut a dashing figure throughout that township of Benalla with their unique two-seater buggy, affectionately known in town as ‘the love buggy’. They proudly flew the Australian flag from their vehicle and together they were indeed a Benalla institution. Marg recounted to me how helpful the buggy was in getting around town. She said, ‘It gets John out and about and everyone talks to him while I shop’—a very useful pastime for any husband while his wife is shopping. Marg and John married in 2005 in the garden of their Benalla home. They adjourned to the Farmers Arms Hotel. At the reception, the couple happily spoke of their age difference—John was 88 and Marg was 68—to which the publican exclaimed in horror, ‘Child brides!’ John then admitted, without a hint of reticence, ‘Yes, I’m a cradle snatcher.’ Their beautiful story shows us the bonds of community, where local people interact and socialise, building the necessary social capital upon which happy, stable communities are built. The residents, the shops, the local health care providers, the local art gallery and the pub—all these aspects of life in Benalla were a feature in Marg and John Lawton’s happy coexistence. In the case of Marg and John, this was a love story that younger couples can only hope to emulate. Theirs is a great model for reinforcing the importance of marriage in giving stability to our society. I pay tribute to John for all he did. It was a well-lived life. I wish Marg all the best as she remembers the best times of her life spent with her beloved John and carries on during this difficult time. 987 987 09:44:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —Today I rise to indicate that I attended the Bangla Fair, which was held at Campbelltown Sports Stadium last Saturday. The Bangla Fair is a function put on by the Bangladesh Welfare Society of Campbelltown. This event draws around 2,000 to 2,500 people from all over Sydney. It is a very colourful, vibrant and culturally diverse event that occurs in the south-west of Sydney. This is the fourth time Campbelltown has hosted the Bangla Fair and it is the third time I have had the opportunity to attend. It is a celebration of a unique culture through food, music and other social activities. In addition to the Bangladesh community being able to celebrate their culture, it is also an opportunity to share that culture with the people in the south-west of Sydney. I was particularly impressed, as I have been in the past, at the organisation, commitment and also the embracing nature of this event in terms of the people who attended from the south-west of Sydney generally. I would like to pay particular regard to the President of the Bangladesh Welfare Society, Nazrul Syed; vice-presidents Mainul Islam and Habibur Rahman; the general secretary, Iqbal Farrukh; and an executive member, Aladdin Alok. In respect of the last fellow, I am personally aware of the amount of effort this young man puts into not only the Bangladesh community but the community around Campbelltown as a volunteer for various organisations. He is a very highly motivated young man who certainly puts the community first and foremost. I would also like to acknowledge that the founder of the Bangladesh Welfare Society, Abdur Raim Mollah, died last year. He was a former general secretary. His death has certainly been mourned by the Bangladesh community in my area, but, even more than that, his passing has been mourned by the community of Campbelltown generally. He was a very good man, a very good family man and a man committed to cultural as well as community ideals. He is very sadly missed. Events like this really do show the value of multiculturalism. That is something I am particularly proud of in my electorate and in the south-west of Sydney generally. It is something that shows that we can all live in happiness and in a way that complements one another. (Time expired) 988 988 09:47:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise this morning to talk about the various progress associations and residents associations in Fadden. I have said before in this place that Fadden is the fastest growing electorate in the nation. In the last six years it has grown by 31.6 per cent, compared to the closest electorate growth of 25 per cent. In such a high-growth area, with more people wanting to come to Fadden on the northern Gold Coast than any other electorate represented in this place, progress and residents associations play a significant part in organising communities, providing a voice for people and getting people together. The roles of progress associations are many and varied. They inform, they equip with research and guidance, they allow the combined voice of residents to be heard and, of course, they bring the opportunity for residents to join together to lobby for change, reform and outcomes. In Fadden, we have a number of very active and prominent progress and residents associations. A few that spring to mind are Paradise Point Progress Association, Jacobs Well Progress Association, Park Lake Residents Association and Helensvale Residents Association. I would like to specifically mention the Paradise Point Progress Association, so ably led for many years by Fred Woodley. This progress association has led the charge on many local community reforms within the electorate of Fadden. Recently, it has been working with the developers on the Paradise Point Esplanade and shopping precinct redevelopment, working on the ‘no cruise ship terminal’ campaign in the Broadwater, working to try to get the Broadwater dredged and, of course, raising environmental concerns about the desalination plant that is going ahead within the Gold Coast. I salute the Paradise Point Progress Association for taking an active involvement and interest in the community and especially Fred Woodley’s involvement in so ably leading the progress association with all that it is doing on the northern Gold Coast. 988 988 09:50:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 0 Mr BRADBURY —I rise to inform the House of a significant event that has recently occurred in the electorate of Lindsay. On Saturday, 9 February 2008 I had the privilege of attending the official reopening of the refurbished St Marys Council Chambers. On this important occasion I joined my councillor colleagues, including the mayor and the deputy mayor, Councillors Greg Davies and Jackie Greenow, who I know have been passionate supporters of this project. Originally opened in 1933, the St Marys Council Chambers served as the seat of local government in the district until 1949 and later served the local community well as a baby health centre and a library. It was a long wait for the St Marys municipal council, which was first incorporated in 1890. For more than 40 years after its first elections, the council lacked a home of its own. The council met monthly in the Protestant Hall, paying rent of five shillings per meeting. At the original opening of the building, Mr J Jackson MLA was reported in the Nepean Times as saying: I know of no sweeter word in the English tongue than ‘St Marys’. Any man entering this village from the hilltop gazing across the panorama, if he dwells here, can feel nothing but pride in the fact that in this township is his residence. It is a township that has a very wonderful history. As a serving East Ward councillor I wish to breathe some contemporary life into the words of Mr Jackson by echoing his sentiments today. The chambers is a beautiful building with heritage and local historical significance. It has a great deal of potential that can now be more fully realised. The chambers will become the home of many user groups—significant local groups building the social infrastructure on which our local community depends. I wish to acknowledge those groups—in particular, the St Marys and District Historical Society, the St Marys Development Committee, the Chrysanthemum Society, the Encore Sewing Group, the Porcelain Painters and the Tapestry Group. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the St Marys and District Historical Society and, in particular, to its indefatigable president, Norma Thorburn, and her husband, Tom. I wish to thank Margaret Dwyer, Lyn Forde and Charles Connelly for their ongoing involvement in the project. Mr Connelly, an old stalwart of the district, was instrumental in researching the building and putting in place this proposal. I acknowledge the leadership of Penrith City Council, its officers, including the general manager, the director of city services and its former facilities and operations manager, Mr Gary Dean. I thank Linda Sack and Michael Mendham. I also acknowledge the assistance of the St Marys Rotary Club. Also present on the day was Mr Tony Biddulph and his wife, Sheila. Mr Biddulph is the president of the St Marys Development Committee. I also saw the publicity officer, Isobel Lowe, and her husband, Neville. He was on hand, as he often is, to capture the occasion on film. It was a great occasion and I am certain that this facility will be a great tribute to the efforts of those who have contributed to it. 989 989 09:53:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —This morning I speak on behalf of the many residents of the federal electorate of Cowan, and no doubt every other electorate around the country, who are fed up with the extent of graffiti vandalism that afflicts our residential, business and public buildings and open places throughout our suburbs. While the numbers of sworn officers within the WA Police are woefully inadequate and getting worse, the police are unable to get on top of the problem. In Western Australia, just like in New South Wales and Victoria, so I am told, it is very clear that the state governments have no political will to address this problem. Graffiti is very expensive to remediate and is a seemingly endless problem for private citizens, business owners and local governments. The state governments prefer the soft option of reaction or, even worse, toleration. They, in fact, leave the problem to private groups and local governments—a soft option by soft, ineffectual and unresponsive state governments. I therefore have proposed that a plan be instituted to crack down on the sale and control of spray paint cans. In spite of the locking up of these cans in hardware stores, graffiti vandalism remains at epidemic levels. My proposal is that the state parliaments pass laws to require serial numbers to appear on all cans and that the sighting of photographic identification and the need to keep records be imposed on suppliers. In this way cans found in the possession of vandals could be traced back to the purchaser and action could then be taken by the police. Obviously, this would significantly increase the cost of spray cans. That would be acceptable, however, when compared with the cost imposed on innocent members of the community caused by the scourge of vandalism. These laws would impose a serious responsibility on purchasers. In cases where a can was found at the scene of vandalism or in the possession of a vandal, the original purchaser would have to have reported the theft of the can or subsequently face a fine. I recommend such a hard line on this matter with strict and absolute liability being applied. The people of my electorate have had enough and, I suspect, the country has had enough. The people of Australia want action, and I therefore recommend to the parliament this hard line to address the problem of graffiti. 990 990 09:55:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I rise to bring to the attention of the House the recent international achievement of the Adelaide Icicle Magic synchronised ice-skating team. Adelaide Icicle Magic recently represented Australia in the Cup of Berlin and the Prague cup. The results the team achieved need to be commended. In the Prague cup, Adelaide Icicle Magic came fifth and in the Cup of Berlin they came fourth. This is a very good result especially as synchronised ice-skating is not a well-publicised and popular sport here in Australia. The majority of teams they were competing against were ones from northern Europe, where ice-skating is a way of life. Adelaide Icicle Magic were the only team in the competition to represent Australia and comprised 17 young people. Synchronised ice-skating is a very difficult sport: it requires a group of ice-skaters to skate in unison with each other while looking graceful and remaining in time and completing complex manoeuvres. This is no easy feat. The teamwork, practice and dedication required to achieve this is great. The team trains for long hours at the local ice-rink in Noarlunga and is supported by a number of dedicated parents and other volunteers. Without these volunteers providing the day-to-day organisation and administration of the club, these young people would not have the opportunity to be involved in the sport that they love. I would like to congratulate the volunteers that support Adelaide Icicle Magic and also the volunteers at all the other clubs in my electorate, who work tirelessly for very little reward to ensure that young people get the opportunity to participate in team sports. It is important now more that ever, with the problem of childhood obesity, that we encourage children and young adults to participate in sports. It is important for both physical and psychological wellbeing that young people are active and engaged in exercise and sport. This is becoming harder with the attraction of computers and game consoles. The added social element that comes with playing a team sport also can teach young people the valuable life skills of working together. Therefore I would like to express my support for all the clubs in my electorate for the great job they do in supporting young people to be their best. 1000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ statements has concluded. 991 Bills R2905 Cognate bill: 991 Bills R2923 991 Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Mr Tanner: That this bill be now read a second time. 991 09:58:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —As to where I left off last night, I was talking about the issue of climate change during this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-2008. Clearly, this is one of the main issues that is resonating with mainstream Australia. Through the actions of the Rudd Labor government in its first days of office, we saw a very positive response to the views that were foremost in the minds of electors during the last election. We saw the Rudd Labor government ratify the Kyoto protocol which, quite frankly, brought Australia back to the international bargaining table on climate change. We have had 11 years where that has just not occurred. We have seen a government that has taken all care and no responsibility when it comes to climate change. On the first opportunity that this government had, it did what it always said it would do—that is, it ratified the Kyoto protocol. It is time that we started taking responsibility not just for the problem but for actually developing solutions. Being involved in tackling climate change should not simply be the province of doom and gloom. It should be the province of our best minds, working collaboratively together with the support of government, to do something responsible to address the issue of climate change and the level of impact that mankind has on a deteriorating environment. These are things that we do need to apply ourselves to. It is not just Australia—I have always acknowledged that—but for us to be in a position to influence the views and actions of others does mean that, as with any other set of negotiations, we must be at the table, and that is somewhere we have not been when it comes to something so fundamental to people as climate change. As someone who has spent a lot of time prior to coming to this place working in the renewable energy sector, I know the opportunities that currently exist out there, but I can only imagine what those opportunities are going to be like into the future. This is where we do need to commit funds as a form of incentive to commercialise innovation to develop the responses to climate change. This will be the hallmark of this government when it comes to developing responses to and taking leadership in climate change. Another matter I would like to briefly touch upon is the importance of high-quality investment in our people. As important as it is to invest in our roads, our infrastructure, our high-speed broadband services and the tackling of climate change, the investment we put into our people now and into the future is going to be just as important. That is why I support the Rudd Labor government’s commitment to high-quality education. It has been reported for years that there are problems with a tight labour market and a skills shortage has emerged—mainly the product of a lack of investment in skills development. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I suggest to you that skills training through local high schools, investment in computers in our schools so that kids between years 9 and 12 all have access to computers and computer generated learning and the view of Australia’s national innovation system all point to a future where Australians will not need to choose to compete on a race for the bottom in wages and comparable conditions but can aspire to benefit from the skills and the abilities of this nation’s primary resource—that is, its people. Our ability to compete in future is going to be directly related to the ability of this nation to harness the potential of its own people. It largely rests with us to generate those ideas and also to provide the infrastructure necessary to develop the youth of this country to secure the future of Australia. In conclusion, I am no longer troubled about the prospects of future generations in this country. After more than a decade of squandered opportunities under the Howard government, I look forward to the coming years of this government. I look forward to a government that actually does focus on developing an education revolution; a government that does focus on developing high-speed internet broadband so people can benefit, whether they be students or in industry; a government that will put the resources into developing national road and rail infrastructure to assist the development and the efficiency of our ports and our communication generally; and a government that will meet its challenges in respect of climate change. (Time expired) 992 10:05:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, and congratulations on your well-earned elevation to the deputy speakership. My comments today go to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-2008 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2007-2008. Before I make those remarks, I congratulate the member for Werriwa on his re-election but reassure him that he may no longer be troubled, as he put it, about the challenges young people face in the future. I would say to the member for Werriwa, who I value as a friend: you can never be complacent; you must always be vigilant. You may not be troubled today, but the young people of Australia require the best of all of us every day, and new challenges emerge. Remain vigilant, Sir, and that will be in the best interests of your young community. I am pleased you are not troubled at the moment. Many of us are troubled, though, by what we are seeing going on, and some of what we see going on is captured in these bills. The Labor Party are trying to recreate themselves as fiscal conservatives. We heard it right throughout the election campaign and it proved to be quite an effective appeal—one of those things where if you hear it often enough you might actually believe it. We have heard about targets such as surpluses of two per cent of GDP and the like. I think all bar two budgets brought down during the Howard government were in surplus. They were difficult budgets year on year, but there were nine surpluses. We know the hard work that is involved in that. We know also, before the Howard government was elected, of the spending bonanza of the Keating government. It could not save itself despite enormous spending and despite reassuring statements in the lead-up to, and even during, that election campaign that the budget was in surplus. We know that to be nonsense: the deficit was over $10½ billion and the incoming government had the difficult fiscal management task ahead of it of how to deliver on its election commitments and maintain the essential works and services the nation required, while ensuring we as a nation were not living off the bankcard, off the Visa card. The task of rebuilding the fiscal strength of the Commonwealth began under the Howard government. The Rudd government today is basking in the glory of work that others have done for it. It needs to do, frankly, nothing to achieve what it set itself as challenging goals. This seems to be the hallmark of the Rudd government’s early days—lots of spin, lots of theatre, but little substance. Here is another example: setting oneself a fiscal target that has already been delivered and gifted to you is no evidence of fiscal management. We look into these appropriation bills before the chamber today and we see an interesting story unfold—the claimed savings, the new expenditure, how it has been tough and difficult. In many respects, what Labor is doing is trying to create a budget crisis to justify wiping out things it did not like so much to put in things it wants to put in. That is an incoming government’s prerogative and I do not decry it, but let us be honest about what is actually going on. This is an attack on projects, initiatives and programs valued by many in the Australian public implemented by the former government but not to the liking of the incoming government. They are getting wiped out and replaced with other things. That is what is going on, and to mask it under some poorly created veil of a budget crisis is just utter nonsense. As time goes by, I think the Labor government will fall over itself as its own rhetoric comes back to haunt it. In these bills, there are a number of funding supplementations for agencies and programs, and many of those are welcome and worth while. However, the programs and initiatives that are not featuring in this document require some attention. You see embedded in these measures calls for additional two per cent efficiency dividends. That is an interesting approach; it does not show any considered or thoughtful review of what agencies and departments are actually doing. The government is just saying, ‘We want a two per cent yield out of all of you.’ That is hardly being fiscally conservative; that is hardly a zero based budgeting approach where one values and evaluates activity. That is an across-the-board impact. The challenges in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the department for which I used to have responsibility, include the increasing demands being placed on departmental staff. While the number of veterans is diminishing, they are ageing and, therefore, require more care. This required an increase in the coordination of the support that was provided. Anybody who takes a broad-brush look—as the Minister for Finance and Deregulation seems to have done—would not have even apprised themselves of that reality. So I say to those people, particularly the many public servants who probably thought it was a great result for the nation to have the Rudd government elected: be careful about the ham-fisted, clumsy, brutal approach that Labor is already displaying in its budgeting process. Be mindful that important projects, programs and activities can be cut for no other reason than they are disliked by the Labor Party. Be mindful, too, of the attack on rural and regional Australia in these two bills—so many resources are being dragged out of those areas. Another thing to be mindful of is where we started. Contrast the challenge facing the new government with the contrasts that faced the previous government when it was elected. In 1996 there was an enormous Bankcard bill from the $96 billion debt Labor had accumulated and a budget deficit of $10½ billion on day-to-day outlays. We as a nation were spending $10½ billion more than we were bringing in in revenue. That presented some real budget challenges. Those challenges were addressed and overcome and the fiscal circumstances of the nation were turned around. Now we have an incoming government with a rolled-gold economy, swimming in cash, that is saying there is some kind of budget crisis. It is utter, unsustainable nonsense. I think more Australians will come to reflect on this matter. To scream about a crisis at a time when they are rolling in cash is extraordinary. They set targets which have already been met and then claim credit for meeting them. That gives us another extraordinary insight into the behaviour of the Rudd government even in these early months. Let us be clear: to cut programs and projects because you do not like them is okay—make that case; and to say that funding should be directed to other priorities is okay—make that case. I note from some of the information provided here that people are getting stuck into rural and regional projects which are creating focal points for activity and enterprise in rural and regional communities—as though that is a bad thing. But if you look into where the money is being directed, you will see a little bit of that character coming through in some of the new funding allocations. Let us be clear: it is just a choice. Knock off things you do not like, even if they are working and making a meaningful contribution. Knock them off and put something else in there. That is okay. Governments can do that. But they should at least be frank about why they are doing that and be open about that being the motivation. They should not invent some kind of bogus fiscal crisis. The bills touch on a couple of important areas. We have touched on the efficiency dividend and the hairy-chested bravado the minister for finance displays when he says, ‘We’re getting a two per cent efficiency dividend out of everybody, regardless of the impact.’ That is not terribly smart, but that is a decision that has been taken. I have provided one very simple, familiar example about how that can be a very poor approach. Embedded in Labor’s policies are a number of undertakings which create obligations for agencies. Take the ABC, for instance. Nowhere in the ALP arts policy was there any commitment for additional funding, just some warm words. That is okay; that is the way much of the policy was developed. But embedded in it was a requirement that the ABC meet the Australian drama production standards that the commercial television networks are required to meet. The ABC do not currently have that obligation, but Labor is saying they should. That is also okay. But that will put a $60 million new requirement on the ABC to meet those Australian drama production requirements. It was not previously imposed upon them, but now it is to be imposed upon them. There is no extra funding but, in effect, there is a $60 million obligation jammed into the existing funding envelope of the ABC. What is going to be cut? How are they going to meet that commitment? The creative arts community, understandably, welcomed that commitment. But how will it be funded? The ABC have not received any reassurances from Labor policy that there will be any new funding or anything of that kind, just that Labor policy is to value the ABC—like the vast majority of Australians do. Welcome aboard to the Labor Party! How is the new $60 million obligation which is being imposed going to be accommodated within a budget that is not growing? These are some of the fiscal management challenges that are being created by the ALP. This is not fiscal conservatism; this is fiscal decreeing by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and then letting everyone else mop up the mess. I challenge the Labor Party to be clear on where the $60 million is going to come from. What is going to be cut in the ABC to finance this new obligation—an obligation which the ABC currently does not have, which the Labor Party wants to impose upon it, at a time when there are no additional resources to do so? The former government used to say to the ABC: ‘We’d like certain things done. We recognise these things are over and above the charter of responsibilities.’ We have seen the rollout of additional services, activity in rural and regional areas and some effort to ensure there is local content on ABC regional radio. These were all sound measures, but the budget came with them. If you are going to ask for additional effort and activity beyond what has been shaped as the strategic plan and priorities for the ABC from its global budget, you supplement the global budget. More demands on and more requirements of the ABC require more resourcing. It is not a difficult equation, but it is now very difficult for the ABC. The board is faced with this challenge: where is the $60 million going to come from to finance this couple of lines in the ALP arts policy which say that the ABC now needs to meet local drama production requirements, just as the commercial networks need to do? This legislation also talks about a topic quite close to me—that is, NetAlert. In estimates in the last few days we saw the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, doing a great jawboning down of NetAlert as a program, as a process, as a way of equipping Australian families with tools to help them manage their family’s interaction and access to the internet. Senator Conroy was decrying the take-up rate of NetAlert and the utilisation of the software funded through it. It seemed to be a reverse argument for his poorly conceived clean-feed idea. I do not know too many people who think that is a clever idea, given the dynamism in the internet world and how URLs can change quickly and you can get around some of the clean-feed devices. It emphasises the need for parental supervision—that it is key, supported by tools that help them manage a range of different people in a household using the one unit. Also, ISPs can offer value-added services such as making devices, technology and software part of the service. If parents want to go to whitelisting services and then shape access to those sites designed and specifically selected to be suitable for children of different ages, that would be fine too, but that is a collaborative approach where the parents are at the core of it. It worries me greatly that the Labor Party’s clean-feed proposal, already ridiculed and shown to be ineffective in the UK, would deny whatever somebody—and this is yet to be determined—thinks is inappropriate content. It would apply consistently right across all age groups and types of computer users, regardless of their circumstances, and we have already seen that it does not have too many fans. So what does Senator Conroy do? He does not address this issue but tries to run down NetAlert. There is further evidence of it in these bills. He is complaining that the take-up rate of NetAlert is not what it should be and, therefore, justifies ending the program. When you look at these bills, you see that Senator Conroy has sucked out the budget set aside for NetAlert—to communicate its availability, its potential benefits for households, the way in which families can interact with it and update protections in any way they see fit—to stop public education of the communications campaign. What a cunning plan, Senator Conroy. If you want to make sure no-one takes something up, do not tell them about it and, therefore, just suck the very budget out of something designed to inform the Australian public not only about the risks but also about some of the tools and assistance that are available to help people manage their family access to the internet. These are the things in these budget papers that people are less keen to talk about. Then there is the work around BroadbandNow, which tries to help communities that may be wanting to access broadband services to interact with those providing services and make sure they know what is available at their premises. That consumer help centre with its telephone and web information was a great tool. That BroadbandNow program was an ally to broadband users to access the kinds of services that they were angling for. That is going as well. Is the Labor Party simply setting up these programs to fail to justify its confused, poorly thought through, almost foundering at the first rock proposals for activity in this area? It is something that needs closer examination. I would also like to touch on a couple of budget issues that are very relevant to my electorate of Dunkley. During the election campaign we put forward a number of proposals for our community. Our local plan was very well endorsed. Our campaign put forward this local plan that took advantage of the momentum and opportunities being nurtured at a national level and translated them into very real and very practical outcomes for our local community. People came up to me and contrasted our campaign with the almost stealth like campaign from the ALP, which did not comment on any of the local issues and did not put forward any local plan—in fact, it simply traded on the cult of Kevin. The cult of Kevin was what was being perpetuated in the electorate. That was their campaign strategy choice, and that was a decision for the Labor Party. The local community did not seem to feature at all in that. I think that campaign reminded people of what was said by the last Labor member for Dunkley, back before 1996. At the time of the last Labor federal government, the Labor member for Dunkley quite openly said that our community had been forgotten. There were so many outer metropolitan areas, particularly down in the south-east, that just did not seem to feature on the radar screen. It was an interesting confession by the former member. He is a very decent bloke—perhaps that is what led to that confession. I am pretty certain that it resonated with the local community. It certainly did not help his electoral prospects, but it was true. We are already starting to see that again here. In appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4 there is no funding for the Frankston bypass. The former government made a commitment, if re-elected, to fund that in partnership with the states, because we have got EastLink dumping 25 per cent more traffic onto the Frankston Freeway—a freeway that is already clagged at the end where it intersects with the Frankston-Cranbourne Road—not to mention the extra traffic that is going to be drawn towards it as the area continues to develop. There is no mention of that—nothing. Then there is the support for our local young people who may be gifted and skilled but who may not be academically engaged in the secondary school community. We reached out to them with a commitment to build a new Australian technical college. That was welcomed with great enthusiasm in the local area as a real priority. In the secondary school where I was a former school council president, Monterey, these were the kinds of initiatives that we were dreaming of just to engage young people who might not necessarily have seen the link between the academic course of study they were exposed to and their future life prospects. These talented young people have skills and a promise for a bright future. We were aiming to give life to that. Young people are looking to pursue a pathway at a technical college designed for year 11 and 12 students and commence their trade qualifications and get a grounding in business management and those workplace competencies that employers are looking for. Employers are telling me that they cannot recruit anybody. This was a very sound and responsive local initiative and there was nothing but silence from the ALP. Sadly, you see none of these things embraced in these appropriation bills. There has been wonderful progress with the CCTV network in Mornington and a good early start in Frankston. There have been a number of commitments tackling not only hot spots around the taxi rank and linking the railway precinct with the entertainment precinct on the Nepean Highway but also the foreshore and some additional areas, including the Seaford station, where many commuters park their vehicles. The rollout of this technology was extremely well received. These are issues that are not in these appropriation bills. These matters were embraced and valued by the local community. These are things that I think the new government should take into account. I would hate to see our community forgotten again because we have now got another Labor government. (Time expired) 997 10:25:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-2008 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2007-2008, which seek appropriation authority for the additional expenditure of funds from consolidated revenue in order to meet requirements that have arisen since the budget. The total additional appropriation being sought is $3.3 billion, approximately 4.5 per cent of total appropriations. Many of the items that are not in these bills represent the first stages of our government’s commitment to rein in government spending. Many of the items not in these bills represent the last desperate gasps of the Howard government as it attempted to buy itself another term. During the election campaign we made a promise to the Australian public that we would manage the public purse with diligence. This government made a commitment to the Australian people that we would identify areas where reductions, savings and offsets could be made from the previous government’s spending program. Unlike the previous government, we know we have a battle on our hands. The onus is on us, as a government for all Australians, to manage fiscal policy responsibly. We are serious about tackling the inflation problem, we are serious about the impact that 11 interest rate increases in a row have had on borrowers and we are serious when we say that it is crucial for all levels of government to manage public finances appropriately and effectively. At present, underlying inflation is at 3.6 per cent—a 16-year high. This rate is now threatening to go even higher. Today is the day to act on the challenge of rising inflation. I acknowledge that the member for Dunkley may feel very passionately about many of the things that he has spoken on. However, the previous government failed to deal with inflation and we have been left to do it for them. Our government is serious about this challenge. Every decision we make on public spending has to be made on a long-term basis. These proposed bills are merely the start of a long road of thoughtful public spending. This government has already announced a five-point plan to fight inflation. The first point in this plan was to ensure that the government takes pressure off demand by running a strong budget surplus. This government will show fiscal restraint. This government is committed to a budget surplus above 1½ per cent of GDP. To achieve this is not easy. To achieve this, we need to make tough decisions today. During the election we said that we would have a review of spending. We did not attempt to hide it—we said we would have a review of spending. Now our razor gang has been working to cut the waste out of the budget. In the bills that I support today this government has identified $643 million worth of savings over the next four years, including $243 million in 2007-08. We want to put maximum downward pressure on inflation. We want to do everything in our power to ease the financial burden on working families that are impacted by interest rate and inflationary pressures. This is not just some academic exercise that we are engaged in. Everything we do in this place—every spending decision we make—has a direct impact on the capacity of working families to pay their mortgages, to buy groceries or to pay their childcare fees. There is still more to be done. The Rudd Labor government will continuously look at spending money wisely, and we will continue to review the spending of all departments to show fiscal restraint. These initial savings are just the beginning. More savings will be announced on budget night. The previous government squandered millions of taxpayers’ dollars to buy votes. Public money was pork-barrelled, public money was squandered and the economic opportunities of the mining boom were carelessly fed to the inflation monster that this government now has to fight. Four hundred and fifty-seven million dollars was spent on government advertising in a 16-month period under the Howard government. Three hundred and fifty million dollars was spent in a single year on Work Choices. Both of those initiatives alone represent the savings that we found in this budget. Imagine if the previous government had not spent that money on its profligate advertising campaigns. This bill brought to the parliament once again shows the Rudd government’s firm guarantee to the Australian public that we will follow through with our own election commitments. That is what we were elected to do. One of the key capacity constraints in the economy today is the skills crisis. Addressing the skills crisis was one of the core planks of our election campaign. This bill sees the implementation of the first part of our government’s agenda to overcome the skills crisis: $242.1 million will be provided to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to enable a number of programs that work to tackle our skills crisis. Of this $242.1 million, $100 million will go towards establishing the National Secondary Schools Computer Fund. These grants will provide up to $1 million for schools to provide new or upgraded ICT equipment for students in years 9 to 12. This is welcome news for the schools and students in my electorate who have already shown a keen interest in taking up this funding. Thirty-three million dollars will also be provided for the Skilling Australia for the Future program. This program will see 450,000 new training places over the next four years, at a cost of $1.3 billion. This program is set to start in April this year—Labor getting on with the job. In 2007-08 the Skilling Australia for the Future program will deliver 20,000 vocational education and training places that are aimed at people currently outside the workforce. Also, $92.6 million will be provided to the department to meet extra costs associated with the previous government’s Skills for the Future program and to extend the current program until our new program commences in April—all things that will assist in easing capacity constraints within the Australian economy. This appropriation also sees the implementation of the government’s election promise to establish Infrastructure Australia. Infrastructure Australia will be a statutory authority that will set a clear agenda for this government’s investment in infrastructure: $2.5 million has been allocated within these additional estimates to support Infrastructure Australia’s establishment by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Once this funding has been allocated and Infrastructure Australia has been established, their first task will be to undertake a national audit of Australia’s infrastructure—something the previous government neglected to do. It was more interested in pork-barrelling infrastructure projects in coalition seats than having a strategic approach to this country’s infrastructure needs. Infrastructure bottlenecks are just another area of economic efficiency that this government is tackling, and this first step is only the beginning. The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research will also be supplied with $15.2 million to introduce the Enterprise Connect program, replacing the previous government’s Australian Industry Productivity Centres. This program is designed to help Australian businesses become more innovative and to boost productivity, something that we will welcome desperately in regional Australia. During the election, in terms of the Health and Ageing portfolio, we promised to the people of the Ballarat electorate that a GP super clinic will be provided in the Ballan area. Once again I would like to reiterate this promise. A GP super clinic is needed in the Ballan area to attract doctors and other health professionals to service the needs of a growing community. Labor’s GP superclinic will be a one-stop shop for medical and allied health services. Once completed, the Ballan GP superclinic is expected to include: privately practising GPs; a range of allied health services, such as physiotherapy and podiatry; mental health services, including counselling; and desperately needed dental services. This will result in patients having to travel shorter distances, being less likely to be placed on waiting lists and being assisted in receiving the basic health care that they all deserve. Currently there is a lack of consulting space for GPs and allied health services in Ballan. A GP superclinic in Ballan will provide a great boost to this area and much improved health services for our local community. Today as part of this appropriation $33.1 million will be provided to the Department of Health and Ageing to provide upfront capital grants and recurrent funding for the establishment of 31 GP superclinics around Australia, and to provide incentive payments to GPs and allied health providers to relocate to these clinics. And I am happy to say that the Ballan GP superclinic is one of these 31 that I am supporting today. Additional funding proposed for the Department of Health and Ageing also includes $31.6 million for investing in hospitals and community health under the Better Outcomes for Hospitals and Community Health Program. You do not need to look too far in the electorate of Ballarat to see the ongoing impact that climate change is having on the world. Just last week, Ballarat’s famous high school rowing regatta was shifted to Geelong. It was shifted because Lake Wendouree in the centre of Ballarat has once again, for the second year in a row, dried up. This was once the home of the Melbourne Olympic Games rowing. The Rudd Labor government has also ratified the Kyoto protocol, demonstrating this government’s commitment to tackling climate change. The Kyoto protocol is considered to be the most far-reaching agreement on the environment and sustainable development ever adopted. But there are also practical solutions to fighting the effects of climate change that we need in my community. That is why during the election a Rudd Labor government promised the Australian people that we would make all of Australia’s 9,612 private and public schools solar schools within eight years. The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts will be provided with $50.8 million for the National Solar Schools Plan under these additional estimates. Federal Labor’s National Solar Schools Plan will allow all Australian schools to apply for: up to $20,000 to install two-kilowatt solar panels that will provide average greenhouse gas savings of up to 2.8 tonnes per year and up to $30,000 to install efficiency improvements so schools can invest in energy and water measures—a terrific initiative to help our environment. This plan will encourage improved energy and water efficiency in schools and set a great example to our future generations about what is needed to combat climate change. The sum of $31.8 million will be used to provide rebates to households that join the climate change fight by installing solar hot water heaters to encourage improved energy efficiency in homes. During the election Labor also announced a National Water Security Plan for Towns and Cities to secure water supplies by repairing water pipes and reducing leaks, wastage and evaporation. Dry conditions have contributed to a 30 per cent increase in the number of water mains bursting around Ballarat alone. Ballarat has over 1,435 kilometres in the underground network of water distribution pipes, some of it well over 100 years old. Labor wants to fix as many leaks in our water system as possible. There is yet another practical response to the fight against climate change. The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts will also be allocated $15.2 million in these estimates to take early action on the National Plan for Water Security. Within the allocation provided by these bills, $189.8 million will also be provided to the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to assist people with disabilities, their families and carers. An annual tax-free payment of $1,000 for each child under the age of 16 with a disability will be given to any carer who is receiving a carer allowance (child). This annual payment is a financial acknowledgement of the effort and the challenges that carers face every day. Carers provide a great service to the community and by acknowledging the increases in costs for carers we recognise the economic benefit to Australia as a whole of supporting them. There are many additional costs associated with caring for a person with a disability. Aids such as wheelchairs, communication aids and hearing aids can hit hard on a carer’s hip pocket. And let’s not forget about the hidden opportunity cost of the inability for carers to find substantial employment. This allocation will go some way to assisting those families in the Ballarat electorate who struggle to make ends meet while juggling both their own lives and also caring for their children. An amount of $9 million has also been allocated to increase the support available to people in disability business services. Also under these bills, funding of $723 million in additional appropriation for non-operating expenses is outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 4). Of this, a significant contribution of $466.4 million will be provided to AusAID for our nation’s contribution to the International Development Association. This funding will go to assisting some of the poorest countries in the world by helping them address the cost of basic health services, clean water and primary education, just to name a few. It will subsequently improve the long-term living conditions of those most in need. An amount of $17.6 million will be provided to the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research for the Innovation Investment Fund. An objective of the Innovation Investment Fund is to establish a revolving self-funding scheme, and the $17.6 million represents the profit on the fund’s investment. Also recognised within appropriations in Appropriation Bill (No.4) are additional payments to the state, territory and local government authorities. Payments to the state, territory and local government authorities of $172 million include such things as: a bring forward of $20 million under the AusLink program to assist the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government with an early initiation of projects; $63.7 million to the Department of Health and Ageing to provide funds to invest in hospitals and community health under the Better Outcomes for Hospitals and Community Health Program; and a $33 million increase for the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement, something that went into decline under the previous government. The government promised during the election campaign that we would show fiscal restraint, and that is what these bills represent. We promised a number of very important programs during the election campaign that will help bring inflation under control and will ease the capacity constraints that have arisen in the Australia economy. Those matters are important to take pressure off interest rates as well as taking pressure off inflation. Those are the promises that we made during the election campaign. It is absolutely critical for the Australian government to do everything in its power to ensure that hardworking families enjoy a strong Australian economy. But it is important that we make tough decisions when dealing with the public purse. We cannot go on with business as usual, pretending that nothing has happened. The tough decisions we have made begin with implementing our election commitments and cutting the waste out of the budget to meet our target of 1.5 per cent budget surplus of GDP. We have begun with investing in areas of economic inefficiency, such as the skills crisis and infrastructure bottlenecks. These tough decisions are complemented by transparency in initiatives like Infrastructure Australia, initiatives that will take the pork-barrelling and rorts out of funding and will ensure that this government is one that looks out for all Australians—particularly, I hope, all regional Australians, not just those who live in coalition electorates. We as a government have a responsibility to the Australian people. Australian families are the ones that have worked hard and paid taxes and they are the ones that are hit hardest by interest rates and inflationary pressures. They are the ones bearing the brunt of the previous government’s profligate spending and their inability or unwillingness to tackle the hard issues within the economy. These bills represent a responsible first step in enacting our election promises whilst equally showing fiscal restraint. The Australian people voted for this government on the basis of those promises. I support these bills. 1001 10:41:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —I need to begin my remarks by commenting on and referring to the speech made in the other chamber by the member for Kennedy criticising me in a very vicious and unprovoked way in relation to a whole range of issues. I once admired and respected the member for Kennedy, and I have to say that I just feel sadness at the way in which he has degenerated into a fantasy world. Every paragraph of his vicious assault on me contained factual errors. I will go through those quickly and briefly. He first criticised me in relation to the import of grapes from California, saying I allowed ‘grapes in from California in the same month that one-tenth of the entire grape production in California was wrecked by pierce’s disease’. That statement is factually wrong, but it also puts aside acknowledgement of the fact that our quarantine system and our import risk assessment is a science based process. The legislation specifically precludes the minister from having a role in making decisions about what products should come into Australia. The member for Kennedy went on to comment on pork, talking about a case before the High Court which he said produced a ‘scathing indictment of the quarantine services’. The case was actually before the Federal Court and the Federal Court determined that the permits to import pig meat were legal and the analysis to determine the roles associated with imports of pig meat was comprehensive, science based and rational. The member for Kennedy then went on to comment that ‘every single quarantine official said’ that black sigatoka had come in from the Torres Strait. That also is factually inaccurate. There have been previous outbreaks of black sigatoka and, as far as I am aware, no-one is aware of how the disease came into Australia. But, if the Jardine ferry has a role in it, then the member needs to remember that intrastate quarantine is of course the responsibility of state governments. The member for Kennedy commented that foot-and-mouth disease is endemic in the Indonesian archipelago. That is factually incorrect. He commented on citrus canker and allegations that citrus material was smuggled into Australia. I met the person who made those allegations. I found him credible, but in the end there was no collaboration for the stories that he presented. If the member for Kennedy has evidence that somebody smuggled citrus material into the Emerald district, then he must put that evidence forward. The Crown prosecutors examined the evidence and were not prepared to proceed with any kind of prosecution because they regarded the evidence as insufficient. The member for Kennedy claimed that I allowed beef to come in from Brazil, a foot-and-mouth disease country. The beef that he was referring to was processed beef. It came from areas where there was no foot-and-mouth disease. It was disposed of when not required in Australia, in accordance with New South Wales law. He then went on to say that I have made negative comments about ethanol—completely false. The reality is that I was the one who announced the very first commitment by an Australian government to ethanol. In the 2001 election campaign, we committed to having 350 million litres of ethanol in our fuel mix by 2010. I have been a committed and enthusiastic supporter of ethanol and actually delivered results. It is sad that in the bill currently before the House this government is actually cutting assistance to the ethanol industry in a very backward-looking initiative. He also spoke about an ‘outbreak of white spot which has devastatingly damaged the prawn-farming industry of Australia’. That simply has not happened. He then criticised me for supporting the harvesting of flood waters in Northern Queensland. Of course this is fundamentally a state responsibility, but as minister I funded over $1 million of projects to identify ways of harnessing the waters of Northern Australia in an environmentally friendly way to make better use of the opportunities that are provided in that area. He criticised my role in the introduction of the mandatory code of conduct for the horticulture sector and in the debate about the managed investment schemes. Frankly, he was never in the cabinet room so he has no idea what I argued in relation to any of those issues, but what he has said in those paragraphs is completely wrong and totally misrepresents my position. He also criticises me for commenting that we needed to address the issue of woody weeds, particularly the prickly acacia tree. Again, weed management is a state responsibility, but under my term as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry we introduced a range of major new eradication programs for weeds and I put before the parliament a practical way to take those initiatives forward in an environmentally friendly way. He criticised the assistance packages which the federal government has provided for the fishing industry, the tobacco industry and a number of other industries which have been adversely affected by deregulation. Does he suggest that the government should not have provided assistance to those industries? He accuses me of winding back the tobacco industry and then providing compensation for the farmers. The reality is that the wind-back occurred before my time as minister. The compensation package was after my term as minister, so he has given me credit there where it is not in fact due. He blamed me for the deregulation of the egg, the sugar and the dairy industries. There were no federal regulations to be eliminated in any of those sectors. It was the states that eliminated the regulation of the egg industry, the sugar industry and the dairy industry. We came in to assist sugar producers and dairy producers because the states would do nothing to mitigate the impact, the appalling impact on those industries as a result of deregulation. So we put in place a $2 billion assistance package at the request of the dairy industry and something like $400 million to support the sugar industry. The egg industry deregulation fundamentally occurred before my time, so his references there to compensation are also inaccurate. The member for Kennedy then went on to suggest that Ian Causley had resigned within four years because of his dissatisfaction with deregulation of the dairy industry. Ian’s name has been taken in vain. He retired, I think everyone would accept, because he had served a long and faithful time in the parliament—eight years after dairy deregulation. Then perhaps comes the saddest part of all. At the end, the member for Kennedy made a statement that he has made before: ‘every four days in Australia a dairy farmer commits suicide’—every four days. That would mean 90 a year, 720 since dairy deregulation has occurred. I know there have been suicides in the dairy industry and indeed in a number of other industries, and it grieves me deeply, but it is simply ridiculous to suggest that a dairy farmer is committing suicide every four days. We did put in place programs to try to support farmers through these difficult times. The statement is simply wrong. And finally he said that a sugar farmer commits suicide every two months. Again the statement is simply factually inaccurate. It is disappointing that the member for Kennedy resorts to these vicious personal attacks. His entire speech, with just one or two lines excepted, was a personal attack on me. I think it was unbecoming of him and certainly it did not reflect well on the processes of the parliament. The bill that we are dealing with, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-2008, essentially involves some new government programs, but I want to talk particularly about the savage cuts that are included in this legislation. The venom with which the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and the Labor Party in government are attacking people who live in rural and regional Australia is alarming. The cuts that are being dealt with in this legislation will attack the victims of inflation and higher interest rates, not those who are causing the problems. The biggest cuts to a range of programs have been in rural and regional areas. Many are targeting the poorest Australians. They will weaken the economy, not strengthen it. Labor said before the election that it would support the needy and the underprivileged, reduce petrol and grocery prices, deal with the skills shortages and plan for the future in areas of infrastructure and the environment. That was in 2007. Just a few months later Labor has cut funding that helped drought-stricken farmers and regional communities. It has speared research into alternative fuels. It has stopped a funding program for broadband internet access. It has smashed an apprenticeships scheme to skill rural workers. It has cut funding for the Bureau of Meteorology. It has abolished a program to help sea-change and tree-change communities deal with rapid growth. It has stripped funding for a program to protect children from internet perverts and it has sliced into one of the most important plans for Australia’s future: the National Plan for Water Security. Many of these cuts represent broken election commitments. The excuse that the finance minister has made for these cuts is that they will put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. The reality is that we all know that, even if these $600 million cuts were genuine, their impact on inflation would be negligible, particularly since an underestimation in one government announced program has already taken up $400 million of that money. Labor announced a program to give tax concessions to overseas companies in Australia which they costed at $15 million. We already know that the cost of that program is $400 million. So essentially all of these so-called cuts have already been lost. But many of the cuts are not real. The minister has gone to great lengths to point out that no farmer will actually lose any of their drought assistance, and yet over $110 million of the $600 million comes from drought assistance. This is because there was a lesser number of applications than expected and so the funds will not be used. So in this instance it is not a real cut at all and its impact on inflation will clearly be nothing. However, there are genuine cuts to drought assistance. The decision to take $10 million off research and development for drought is a real cut and it means that this critical area of research and development will be lost. Once more, it breaks a Labor Party election promise. Labor said they would not cut research and development; within months they have slashed $10 million from important research and development work. It has also decided to abolish the promotional campaign to make farmers and small business aware of their entitlements under the drought relief program. Labor is not technically cutting the drought assistance—not at this stage, anyhow—but it is not going to tell anybody how you can access it. It is not going to give any information to the very people who may need to access that information. In fact, I heard the Prime Minister say yesterday in question time that he is going to send the drought bus, which was part of the information program, up to Mackay, to the flood victims. The flood victims do need assistance, although Mackay has a fine Centrelink office and staff who have been able to do that work. The drought bus is being taken into the flood areas to keep it active because the government does not see a role for it anymore in telling drought-stricken farmers or businesses about their needs. These are real cuts that are clearly designed to disadvantage those people who need to access this funding. The government wants to address inflation issues, and that is reasonable—it should do that. Good economic management requires that inflation be kept under control. However, Labor is making much of its five-point plan to deal with inflation and, frankly, none of those five points will do a single thing to put downward pressure on inflation for at least a decade. It is an empty plan. It has no vision at all on how to deal with inflation in the short to medium term. Let us look at the five-point plan as announced by the minister on 6 February. The first point is: ‘achieve a budget surplus of 1.5 per cent of GDP in 2008-09, provided growth prospects remain as currently anticipated’. If, in fact, growth prospects remain as currently anticipated, we will have a 1.5 per cent budget surplus. The government do not have to do anything to achieve that. That has been delivered to them by the previous government and its sound economic management. So the first point is absolutely empty. The second point is: ‘examine all options to provide real incentive to encourage private savings’. No plan—just an inquiry. An inquiry into private savings is not going to deliver any downward pressure on inflation, and we all know that. The third point is: ‘tackle chronic skill shortages in the economy’. It is important to deal with the supply of labour and skills to our economy. But, if the only solution to upgrading skills is to build trade colleges, that will take at least a decade, and probably even longer, before it delivers any significant additional numbers of skilled tradesmen into the workforce. It is not a solution for inflation today—or even next year or the following year. It is something that may need to be done, but it is something whose benefits are a decade off. The fourth point is: ‘provide national leadership to tackle infrastructure bottlenecks’. It is a little unusual to have that claim coming from Labor, since it is the Labor states that failed to invest in the ports, neglected the rail system and ensured that bottlenecks were created in the first place. The previous government had committed huge funding sums to roads and to rail; and yet, in the first round of announcements, we are told that all of the commitments that the previous government made to infrastructure are now going to be sent off to a new bureaucratic organisation to be reviewed. So, in fact, nothing is going to happen to deliver relief from infrastructure bottlenecks for years while this bureaucracy re-examines all of the decisions that have been made previously. Never forget that the choice of priorities was not something that the previous federal government did alone. The state governments—all Labor state governments—were involved in the development of the priorities of the projects. The other very interesting thing that has come through from Senate estimates is that the promises that Labor has made are not going to be subject to any scrutiny. They are just going to go ahead. But ones made by the previous government are going to be dissected and dealt with again. Labor in the last election campaign promised to spend less money on infrastructure than did the coalition—less money. So how can their current programs do anything to deliver downward pressure on inflation? The final point is: ‘provide practical ways of helping people re-enter the workforce and remove disincentives to working hard—to lift workforce participation’. That is fine. Why, therefore, did the Labor Party oppose the Welfare to Work reforms, which were designed to increase workforce participation and to provide assistance to people who can enter the workforce to do what they can in the community? The fact is that this five-point plan is economic illiteracy. The government has no plan to address inflation over the medium term. It would be at least a decade before these initiatives could have any effect whatsoever. I have to say that I really dread the day when the Prime Minister realises that his first choice of Treasurer is not up to the job and he appoints the finance minister to take his place, because the venom and the viciousness with which the finance minister has attacked programs—in his first round of cuts—which are designed to support some of the most disadvantaged people in the community is particularly disappointing. In the short time that is left to me, I will refer to some of these specific cuts. It is interesting to note that the cuts will be made across quite a range of areas where the incoming government professes a particular interest. For instance, Labor says that it believes in reducing global warming, that it wants to do something about addressing greenhouse emissions, and yet these cuts take $15 million away from the FutureGen project. They take $16 million from the Asia Pacific Forestry Skills and Capacity Building Program and the energy technology network. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority is to lose $45 million from its critical work in trying to address the water issues in the Murray-Darling Basin. The Low Emissions Technology and Abatement program loses $2 million and, in another attack on people who live in country areas, the Renewable Remote Power Generation program is to have $42 million taken away. Does this government believe in renewable energy, or does it believe that is it just city people who should have renewable energy and people who live in remote areas should be denied that support? As I mentioned previously, $16 million is going from the ethanol support program. This government clearly does not believe in alternative fuels, because it is slashing the very program that would have been designed to achieve our objectives in relation to renewable energy. The government has slashed the Australia Connected BroadbandNow program, designed to give regional people access to broadband services. And then the Growing Regions program has gone. Labor says it is interested in dealing with infrastructure. This was a program to provide infrastructure for the most needy communities in Australia—the fast-growing areas, the tree-change, sea-change areas, where there is a desperate need to provide infrastructure to support those fast-growing populations. This program was axed altogether. A government that says it is into infrastructure cuts road funding, cuts rail funding and cuts the program that would have provided infrastructure support for the most needy communities in Australia. These cuts are ill-targeted. They will do little or nothing to reduce inflation. The government has no plan to deal effectively with inflation, and these cuts can therefore only be seen as a get-square by a government wanting to attack people who live outside the capital cities. (Time expired) 1006 11:02:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 1 0 Mr ADAMS —What a lot of codswallop that was from the Leader of the Nationals, the member for Wide Bay, basically trying to make an argument that the Rudd government is not facing up to inflation pressures which his government left to the incoming government. And then he decided to argue about expenditure cuts that the present government is trying to make to get control of inflation and to keep interest rates under control. That was a very poor effort from the Leader of the Nationals. I want to take this opportunity, in the second reading debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-2008, which will ask for money from the parliament for more expenditure on different needs of the country, to speak about health and the challenges facing the nation with regard to health. The new Rudd Labor government has inherited a health scheme that has suffered from 11 years of total neglect. We have had the blame game. It has been detrimental to health services and thus detrimental to the health of communities. It says something when, as a new government, we have had to commit to spending over $2.5 billion to improve hospital waiting lists, increase nurse training positions and develop new infrastructure through GP superclinics, and yet this will barely scratch some of the surfaces. We know that more will need to be done. This is just a start. We are playing catch-up because the previous government had no understanding of health. It had no vision for the future and no plan. We do have a plan—a plan to restore services such as dental health and a plan to build services such as GP superclinics. We have a plan and a vision for the future, to improve health outcomes for everyday Australians, particularly in primary health care and the prevention and management of chronic diseases. But we need to be careful how we spend the money, we need to make sure we get value for money and we need to bring the people of Australia with us on this journey. We know that it will be a rough journey at times. The previous government did not spend a lot on health in my electorate—and they did not spend much on roads either. So there will be a few rough roads that we have to ride on this journey of reform. Any reforms that we make, any changes that need to occur, must be made in consultation with communities and not forced upon them. Labor has some good policies on health, which like all our policies have been developed through extensive consultation with stakeholders. This needs to continue. Rural and regional communities feel vulnerable. They have limited services, limited health services and limited opportunities for training and employment. We need to look after regional communities. It is when there is change that regional communities feel most vulnerable. Some communities in my electorate have recently seen health services removed—hospital beds and aged care beds—and 24-hour emergency outpatient services have changed from face-to-face care to a phone call centre service. The state government was forced to make changes after years of neglect in funding by those in the previous federal government. Those opposite may disagree all they like with this assumption, but I remember the last healthcare agreements, when the states were bludgeoned into signing an all-or-nothing proposal. We all remember the previous health minister’s remarks when he was asked to commence the current round of negotiations. He was not concerned. He was only concerned about the election. He was much more concerned about the election than doing his job. That is the truth and I think everybody in Australia knows it. It has been upsetting to see how people have played politics with the communities of my electorate that have been affected by the changes. The state government announced the changes in May last year. In September, some three months later, the federal government announced up to $1 million each for the Ouse and Rosebery hospitals to restore services. Why then? Why wait three months? We got the answer on Monday night courtesy of Four Corners, didn’t we? There was a particularly bad poll—that is, bad for the government of the day—in early September, at the time of APEC. So the former health minister scrambled in desperation and threw $1 million to the local councils to use. They did not see the colour of the money. They only got weasel words that built up an expectation in a community desperate to keep services they had become familiar with. It was a hoax. No money came. It was never handed over. This was bad policy, bad politics and bad use of taxpayers’ money. There was no plan, no vision and no outcome because there was no follow-through. It was also thoughtless and thoroughly disturbing for communities who had had their hopes built up by a few feral politicians and then dashed because they were not told the truth. I am continuing to help people to develop a proposal for Rosebery, just as I have lobbied for and helped the people of Ouse, who have developed a proposal for an MPS. Both the state government and the new federal government have agreed to consider the feasibility of this. We are moving forward at Ouse, working with people to develop their ideas and then seeing if they can work. We will do the same for Rosebery. But there is not a quick fix for either community—certainly not the quick fix that the previous government tried to make out that there was. Care must be taken. We cannot afford to waste money but we cannot afford to neglect the health of rural and regional communities. One of the keys to good health is access to services—and quality services at that. A report on rural health by the Institute of Medicine in the United States acknowledges the obvious: it is harder to deliver quality services in rural and regional areas. Of course it is. It is also important that we provide those services, but it may mean bringing much more innovation to the service delivery. The government’s National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission will be asked to explicitly identify a long-term plan for improving rural health services. The government’s other commitments include funding for new clinics, services and health infrastructure in individual rural centres and a new program to improve the health of Indigenous children. Specific rural workforce commitments include $2.5 million to double the number of John Flynn scholarships available to undergraduate medical students to undertake placements in rural and remote medical practices, $6 million to support the Specialist Obstetrician Locum Scheme and expand it to provide support for GP proceduralists, $2.5 million to establish a rural and remote clinical placement scheme for allied health students and $9 million to support specialists delivering outreach services to rural and remote areas through additional funding of the Medical Specialist Outreach Assistance Program. So Labor has promised extra funding for rural placements for medical students, extra university training places for nurses, including some reserved for regional universities, and a $50 million commitment to my state to help repair the neglect. We must take care now in spending health funds, and regional communities must be the beneficiaries of this funding as well as those in the cities. The future health of communities in my electorate, in my state, in my country depends on responsible planning and administration and not on knee-jerk reactions to bad polls just before an election. It is going to take time, and we are only just beginning, but the plan is there and the will is there, and I think the understanding of the Australian people is there. There are many ways of developing our health care, and now is the time to start exploring those options. What our system tends to do is deal with sick people, and usually when somebody’s illness reaches a critical point we want to relieve symptoms. This is always the expensive end of things. What if health care was more involved with keeping people healthy or, when they have been sick, helping them to recover their health and keep healthy? Where do we go for advice? There is nothing under our current system that allows an individual to go to a one-stop shop to help them set up a health program to remain healthy or become healthy. It is time to deal with current lifestyles, to start looking at those at risk and to try and move the time when they seek help so that they have the opportunity to deal with a problem before it becomes a medical issue. For example, a lifestyle disease such as type 2 diabetes, seen as a major problem across Western nations, could be dealt with earlier. There are many other potential problems for which, with intervention at an earlier time, critical medical treatment could be circumvented. We have become so reliant on medical expertise and machinery that we seem to have lost the ability to take some responsibility ourselves. We need to be retaught and, in seeking that tuition, to take responsibility for our lives and our health. There needs to be some assistance. It should be part of the overall health care and, therefore, attract Medicare assistance. The National Health Act, which came into being just after the Second World War, has remained geared to deal with communicable diseases, or those that deal with bacteria and viruses, and environmentally based diseases stemming from war deprivation and primitive hygiene conditions. Today perhaps we should be looking at lifestyle diseases and all those troubles that we in our affluent society bring on ourselves: heart problems, diabetes, stroke, cancer from smoking, alcohol and drug related sicknesses, obesity et cetera. There will still be some traditional medical problems, but even some of those can be caught earlier and dealt with if people know where to go when they have some idea that something is wrong. Tasmanians have always been innovators. There are some interesting developments there in dealing with lifestyle health issues. I believe this will lead to major changes in the way we view health, and the community will want to learn how to prevent getting sick rather than having to go through treatment because of illness. Hopefully, this will lead to valuing our doctors more and allowing them to delegate some of their less medical activities to other professionals to let them get on with their own crucial task of helping those who are sick. Lifestyle health is linked to the ability to afford healthy foods and a reasonable roof over one’s head. As we all know, rents and grocery prices are rising and those on fixed incomes will suffer most. Labor has promised to try to help here and understands the link between good health and good fresh food and food preparation. The fast food syndrome has helped busy people both looking after families and in the workforce, but it has more undesirable side effects. We must act smarter and we must involve the community more in dealing with the problems that come from our current lifestyles. They are so different to those of 50 years ago, and we need new ideas to deal with them. I am really glad to be in a new, fresh government that is forward thinking and is considering the difficulties that all Australians face today. We can work smarter and we can have alternatives to the way things have traditionally been done, whether in health, housing, cost of living, education or any of the major expenses that we face in our lifestyles today. 1009 11:18:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement 1 0 Mr COMBET —I would like to address the appropriation bills in the context of some of the government’s programs for the country and also my own electorate of Charlton. One of the central challenges for any government is the management of the economy and utilisation of the country’s economic capacity for the social progress of its people. That is the Labor way. We are a forward-looking party that looks, in particular, to use economic progress to achieve social dividends. We are a party keen to make progress on both economic and social fronts to make a better and more just society. In contrast, since entering this place, I have been struck by the somewhat backward-looking nature of the opposition. They appear unwilling to turn their minds to the future economic and social challenges we will face, intent perhaps on defending a somewhat flawed record on economic management. I come to this place keen to be involved in facing this challenge for the future, which I see as essential not only for our present generation but for future generations. The bills I am addressing today outline part of the government’s plans for the key economic challenges facing the nation. The bills also address another area of my interest, given my role as the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement—namely, defence matters. I would also like to give an update today on progress that has been made on specific commitments relevant to my electorate of Charlton. Firstly, though, I turn to the economic challenges that the country currently faces. As I see it, I think there are two key challenges that the government is facing on the economic front. They are the war on inflation, which has resulted from a previous government’s neglect of inflationary pressures that have been building for some time, and the need for strong, sustainable and responsible economic growth in an uncertain international economic environment. These important goals are not always complementary in terms of the policy responses they may evoke. But what is required is a thoughtful and considered approach—and this is not what we received from the previous government. Instead, their negligent management of the economy has left us with a situation where we have had 11 successive interest rate rises and we are currently experiencing a 16-year high in the underlying inflation rate. Inflationary pressures are still high, as we know. The minutes of the Reserve Bank meeting in February, which were released yesterday, reveal just how much that is playing on the mind of the RBA board. It debated whether the change in the cash rate should be an increase of 25 or 50 basis points, given its concerns. The bank is also predicting that inflation will remain as high as 3½ per cent until around the middle of 2010. In recognition of the significant challenge that we now face, the new government has released a five-point plan to combat inflation, which also allows for investment in the future growth of the economy. It is a plan that encapsulates both macro- and micro-economic initiatives aimed at addressing demand and supply side inflationary pressures. Firstly, the government will exercise fiscal restraint, as we have heard, to take the pressure off demand. As outlined by the Treasurer and the finance minister, the government will run a strong budget surplus of at least 1.5 per cent of GDP. Secondly, in the period ahead, the government will be examining all options to provide real incentive to encourage private savings—and that is very important in reducing inflationary pressure. Thirdly, the government will be unfolding our plan for tackling chronic skill shortages in the country—and I will say a little more about that in a moment. Fourthly, the government will provide national leadership to tackle infrastructure bottlenecks. Fifthly, the government will provide practical ways of helping people to re-enter the workforce and to remove disincentives to working—in other words, to lift workforce participation. For the longer term, the government is determined to deal with the chronic investment deficits on the capacity side of the economy in skills and in infrastructure. As can be seen by the initiatives contained within the appropriation bills, this is more than just an abstract commitment; it is a concrete guide to the way the government will be addressing the challenges we face. But one of the first components and important elements of the bills addresses the need for fiscal responsibility and constraint. It includes the first stage of the government’s Expenditure Review Committee processes. The ERC is essentially fulfilling the government’s commitment to identify reductions, savings and offsets from the previous government’s spending program so that such reductions, savings and offsets may be redirected to better and more effective program priorities. Already the government has been able to identify over $642 million of taxpayers’ money that was being spent unnecessarily by the previous government, generally for its own political purposes. I want to talk just briefly about one of the types of savings we are talking about, which has been of some interest to me. Within the bills is contained a $30 million saving in 2007-08 due to administrative efficiencies arising from the transition from Australian workplace agreements to collective enterprise agreements and statutory individual contracts. This is just one of the direct costs of the former Howard government’s extreme industrial relations laws and it is evidence too that the system of AWAs was complex and placed excessive burdens and demands on employers and employees. In contrast, Labor’s approach to workplace relations will be far more flexible and, of course, far more fair for employees—and I will be speaking on the government’s transitional Workplace Relations Bill later today. The government’s ERC in a very short time has been able to explode the myth that the previous government was somehow fiscally prudent; of course it was not. There were multiple cases of profligate and pork-barrelling expenditures exacted by the former government that have caused harm to the economy. The fact is that, on economic management, the former government had some serious failures. It was irresponsible and it did contribute to rising inflationary pressures through spending but also because of its failure to address the capacity constraints that are confronting our economy. Notwithstanding a 50 per cent improvement in the terms of trade—a historical increase in the terms of trade for this country and a perhaps once in a generation opportunity to invest in the nation’s future and to address supply-side constraints—the former Howard government failed. One important area in which it did fail was in relation to skills. The appropriation bills will help to rectify that failure. To give just one example of the inflationary pressure generated by the skills shortages—and the previous government’s failure to address them—I will refer to the labour market in the defence industry, where anecdotal evidence is now demonstrating that wage pressures due to skills shortages are generating potential wage increases in the order of approximately eight to 12 per cent at the higher skill levels. These of course will add to costs in the defence acquisition and sustainment processes. So we have demand rising faster than supply. There are two ways to rectify this: firstly, we can increase inputs, capital and labour, to increase output to more approximate demand; and, secondly, we can become more efficient at using our inputs so that we produce more with the same inputs—in other words, increase productivity. Increasing skills formation achieves both of these goals. Regular surveys identified the availability of skilled employees as the No. 1 constraint on business investment. According to the previous government’s own estimates, Australia faces a shortage of more than 200,000 skilled workers over the next five years. By increasing skills formation, we will allow businesses to produce more, thereby relieving inflationary pressure. Secondly, by increasing the skills base of the country, we will increase Australia’s human capital, and this will encourage productivity growth—increasing our international competitiveness and allowing us to produce more with the same quantity of inputs, thereby placing downward pressure on the inflation rate. I am pleased to say that the appropriation bills that are before the House contain a number of measures to tackle Australia’s current skills deficit. Included in these is the establishment of the National Secondary School Computer Fund. The Australian government has committed $900 million for the National Secondary School Computer Fund, which will be delivered over the four years 2008-2011. The fund will allow all Australian secondary schools to apply for grants of up to $1 million, dependent on enrolment and the need to assist them to provide for new or upgraded information and communications technology for their students in years 9 to 12. All schools providing secondary education will benefit from the fund. Funding can be used to purchase computers, data projectors, interactive whiteboards and other information communications technology equipment and support. The first $100 million of the fund will be directed to schools with the greatest need from June 2008. These schools will be identified by a preliminary survey to identify the number of computers currently in secondary schools. The survey results will facilitate the commencement of the application process for these schools in early March 2008, with applications closing in April 2008. I am encouraging all of the local secondary schools in my electorate to apply, and I know the Deputy Prime Minister has also written to them. That is an extremely important program in the electorate of Charlton, as I am sure it is in many other electorates around the country. Many schools have few computers, poor access to the internet and little capacity for students to learn all that they possibly can from information and communications technology. Another program designed to address the skills deficit is the government’s Skilling Australia for the Future Program, which is to start in April 2008. This program will deliver 20,000 vocational education and training places aimed at people currently outside of the workforce, thus lifting our participation rate. As members of my electorate and the Australian public generally well know, the previous government failed completely when it came to vocational education. The funding of 20,000 vocational education and training places by the new government will begin to address this problem, but it is just the start. Our commitment will extend past these initial places to cover 450,000 over the next four years. This will significantly help to address one of the capacity constraints that we are currently facing and that the previous government failed to fix. Developing additional economic, social and innovation infrastructure is also essential if we are to improve the performance of the economy and our quality of life. It will relieve capacity constraints further, increase productivity and put downward pressure on inflation. We are seeing the impact of infrastructure bottlenecks—whether it is clogged ports preventing resource exports or congested roads preventing efficient transportation of goods and services. The arteries of the national economy are clogging up and the economy is feeling some of the strain. On the other hand, we have all witnessed the economic vitality engendered by well-planned infrastructure developments. The commitment of the Curtin and the Chifley governments to postwar reconstruction and infrastructure development was a significant factor in the postwar boom. Looking at overseas examples, in a more contemporary environment, massive infrastructure investment, most notably in knowledge infrastructure, helped the Republic of Ireland, for example, and Singapore to develop some of the most advanced economies now in the world. The historical and international examples demonstrate the economic benefits of coordinated infrastructure investment—something which the former Howard government did not believe in. The bills before us also provide funding for the establishment of Infrastructure Australia, in recognition that there is a great need in this country for a nationally coordinated approach to further infrastructure reform. I have been a long-time advocate for such an approach—and I believe it is critical if we are to enhance Australia’s economic performance and raise national productivity. Infrastructure Australia will help drive investment where it is needed most, ensuring that it fuels the nation’s productivity capacity and not inflation. It will also allow for infrastructure decisions to be made on the basis of need, not on the basis of pork-barrelling marginal seats. Infrastructure Australia will be charged with identifying and coordinating the provision of national infrastructure. It will also help develop a strategic approach to meet infrastructure demands, including a stocktake of the adequacy and capacity of infrastructure, effective management of the infrastructure and factors influencing user demand, a comprehensive planning framework which identifies further demands and challenges, a regulatory and pricing framework which encourages increasingly efficient use of infrastructure and timely investment in new and updated infrastructure where that is the best option. The members in my electorate clearly understand the need for a coordinated and sensible approach to infrastructure planning, and I am glad to be able to report to them that the government is working hard to implement such an approach. Another feature of the bills concerns the establishment of the Enterprise Connect program. I am very pleased about this commitment. This model, which draws on the best features of QMI Solutions and the manufacturing advisory service, will become an essential tool for innovative businesses. Businesses will be able to access Enterprise Connect centres to find and adapt the latest research and technology, get help in solving identified problems, work out how new processes can help their business and cut through red tape to identify sources of government support for their activity. Given my commitment to the manufacturing industry over a long period of time and the importance of that industry to the Hunter region, I am delighted that $100 million of the funding will be devoted to a manufacturing network. This will increase the productive performance of manufacturers, thereby increasing our global competitiveness. I am also very pleased about the $20 million commitment to the establishment of the Clean Energy Enterprise Connect Centre. The centre will help make Australia’s clean energy small- and medium-sized enterprises export ready, with benchmarking of services, practical assistance and access to prototyping and testing facilities. As most of the clean energy technologies will involve significant amounts for manufacturing—for example in photovoltaic cells, wind turbines et cetera—this is an extremely important initiative. While I might be a little biased, I can think of no better location for this centre than the Hunter Valley. It is an area that has led the country in understanding the challenges and has embraced clean energy technology. It is an area that is suffering from the downturn in traditional heavy industries. It is home to the CSIRO Energy Centre, which sets a new benchmark in ecologically sustainable design by showcasing energy generation initiatives. GP superclinics are also a feature of the appropriation bills, and I have already outlined a number of things about that elsewhere. This is an extremely important component of the appropriation bills from the standpoint of my electorate of Charlton. There is a real need in my electorate to improve the ratio of GPs to population, which currently runs at one to 2,000. It is extremely difficult for many people to get to see a doctor. Once completed, a GP superclinic in my region is expected to include an after-hours service, a chronic disease management service and a range of allied health services, including physiotherapy and podiatry. I am looking forward to working with other health agencies and representatives in the electorate to get the GP superclinic established in a location identified as soon as possible. I wish to turn to some of the defence measures contained within the appropriation bills. The bills provide for stage 2 of the Enhanced Land Force initiative. The ELF initiative will see the establishment of two additional infantry battle groups, each comprising an infantry battalion and supporting command and control, combat support and combat service support capabilities. The funding allocated in these bills is for phase 2 of the Enhanced Land Force initiative, which raises the second battalion. This second battalion will be raised by reraising 8/9RAR as the second motorised infantry battalion in south-east Queensland with operational capability by 2010. In my time as Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement, I have gained an appreciation of the increasing importance of our Army in the future strategic environment. So I am very pleased to support this aspect of the bill. We also, in these bills, provide for two measures that will help our troops currently serving overseas. For our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan the government is providing nearly $70 million to enhance the protective capability of the Bushmaster infantry mobility vehicles that are used to support our operations there. We are also providing $12.4 million to enhance the surveillance capability of the ADF in support of our operations in Iraq. I am very pleased that these are contained in the appropriation bills and to indicate my support for them. I conclude by saying I am very pleased to see the wide range of initiatives contained within these bills. I am also very pleased about the number of different programs that will benefit the people of my electorate of Charlton. I commend the bills to the House. 1014 11:37:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 1 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —I am pleased to speak on the appropriation bills, which cover a number of areas. I wish to address my remarks to one of those areas in particular, and that is the additional funding for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts of $50.8 million for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park structural adjustment package. This package relates to the major global initiative for coral reef conservation during the past two years, which was passed by the Parliament of Australia in early 2004 with the declaration of ‘highly protected’ status for 33 per cent of the whole province of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area, referred to as ‘no take zones’. This was an increase on the approximately five per cent of the Great Barrier Reef that had been protected since the Great Barrier Reef was first zoned for protection back in 1981. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority took the view that there was increasing scientific evidence that the existing multiple-use zoning was inadequate to conserve the full range of biodiversity for the entire Barrier Reef. For example, dugong populations had declined by 97 per cent since the 1960s, nesting loggerhead turtles had declined by 50 to 80 percent over four decades, commercial and recreational fishing had doubled since 1990 and populations of major target species of fish were reduced and were composed of small individual fish. Furthermore, the annual flow of sediment and nutrients into the Great Barrier Reef had increased fourfold and the reefs had suffered from severe coral bleaching, a series of cyclones and outbreaks of the crown of thorns starfish. I well remember the debate that occurred at that time. I was shadow minister for the environment at the time. I urged the government to act on the science and, to its credit, the government did act on the science. The action taken was that no-take protection was extended to a minimum of 20 per cent of each of the 70 bioregions of the Great Barrier Reef such that the marine park now includes protection for 33⅓ per cent in the world’s largest network of highly protected areas. The government is providing assistance, which may include licence buyouts for affected parties such as commercial fishers with reduced income earning potential as a result of the new zoning—and an increase in that assistance is, of course, the substance of this bill. The question that needs to be asked is: has the rezoning and the protection of one-third of the Great Barrier Reef from commercial and recreational fishing worked? This question has been examined by the School of Marine and Tropical Biology, by the Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University at Townsville and by researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science. The title of their paper is ‘Rapid response to world’s largest marine reserve network’. They seek to inform the intense scientific and sociopolitical debate about the efficacy of no-fishing areas as tools for biodiversity, conservation and fisheries management. They conclude that a rapid, positive biological response over an unprecedented spatial scale—over 1,000 kilometres—has occurred in response to the recent implementation of the world’s largest network of no-take marine reserves. The abstract of their paper says that no-take marine reserves offer a means to counter the loss of marine biodiversity, that the world’s largest network of such reserves protecting over 100,000 square kilometres of coral reef was established on the Great Barrier Reef in 2004 and that closing such a large area to all fishing was socially and politically controversial—and, indeed, it was. I well remember the former member for Dawson, the former member for Leichhardt and Queensland coalition senators attacking the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority over this issue. Given that controversy, it is imperative that the effectiveness of the new reserve network be assessed. The researchers have found that there were significant increases in density of the major target species of the reefline fisheries in marine reserves in just two years and that the increases were consistent over an unprecedented scale exceeding 1,000 kilometres. The team from James Cook University used underwater visual census to survey reef life on coral reefs on three inshore island groups, both before and after—1½ to two years after—the implementation of the no-take marine reserves. At the same time, sites on 28 pairs of no-take and open offshore reefs were surveyed by the Australian Institute of Marine Science. All the offshore survey reefs were initially open to fishing, but one reef per pair became no-take in 2004. The findings were that, after 1½ to two years of protection, the density of the primary target of reefline fisheries, coral trout, increased significantly in the no-take areas at Palm Island and the Whitsunday Islands, by over 60 per cent. There were small and insignificant changes where reefs remained open to fishing. That is good news too because it suggests that the reserve areas are capable of replenishing stocks and of acting as nurseries for the fished areas. Coral trout density in no-take areas increased relative to the open reefs in all three inshore regions, significantly so in the Whitsunday Islands. Over time, increased adult fish density in the no-take areas, they say, may enhance recruitment both inside and outside the no-take areas. The spatial scale of this positive response is unprecedented, occurring simultaneously over 1,000 kilometres offshore and 700 kilometres inshore. They say: Although preliminary, our results provide an encouraging message that bold political steps to protect biodiversity can produce rapid positive results for exploited species at ecosystem scales. This is excellent news indeed, and I want to congratulate the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority on their work in making this zoning system happen and function as well as it has. I also want to congratulate James Cook University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science for the work that they have done in examining these issues. We should be under no illusions about the threats facing both the Great Barrier Reef and coral reefs right around the world. I want to draw the attention of the House to the definitive work done by the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network back in 2004, the report of which is titled The status of the coral reefs of the world: 2004. It is quite encyclopedic and it is not possible to cover it all but I do want to use the example of the Caribbean to give the parliament something of the flavour of what is occurring in coral reefs around the world. This definitive work concludes that: Evidence is emerging of a definite, consistent and long-term decline in the status of coral reefs of the Caribbean. These are the conclusions of a group of researchers at the University of East Anglia, England, who analysed monitoring data from 263 sites from 65 separate studies spanning 3 decades ... The regional pattern of decline is alarming; with coral cover decreasing from more than 50% on average in 1977 to approximately 10% in 2001, i.e. a loss of 80% in 25 years. …            …            … Virtually all sites showed a decline in coral cover over the study period. …            …            … Most of the absolute loss in coral cover occurred in the 1980s, particularly in Jamaica and northern and southern Central America. These losses resulted from 3 major impacts. White-band disease swept through the region and caused massive destruction of ... corals; the mass mortality of the sea urchin ... resulted in sudden and massive overgrowth of algae, and the first major coral bleaching events also reduced coral cover. There was also the Reefs at Risk project in the Caribbean in 2004, which assessed coastal development, watershed based sediment and pollution, marine based pollution and damage, and overfishing threats throughout the wider Caribbean. Their findings were: That 64% of Caribbean coral reefs are threatened by high levels of human activities, especially the Eastern and Southern Caribbean ... Florida Keys, Yucatan ... Coastal development threatens 33% of the region’s reefs. The threat is greatest in the Lesser and Greater Antilles, Bay Islands of Honduras, Florida Keys, Yucatan and Southern Caribbean. Land-based sources of pollution and sediments threaten 35% of Caribbean coral reefs, most notably Jamaica, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico ... Pollution and damage from ships threatens 15% of coral reefs, especially around large ports and cruise tourism centres. Over-fishing threatens more than 60% of Caribbean coral reefs, particularly on narrow coastal shelves near human population centres. Diseases and rising sea surface temperatures threaten reefs across the Caribbean. The underlying theme of the 2004 report is that coral reefs are under threat around the world. There have been more recent estimates. According to a 2006 report, Coral reef conservation: ... approximately 20% of the world’s coral reefs have been destroyed and show no immediate prospect of recovery. Of those remaining, one-quarter are under imminent risk of collapse and another quarter face long-term threat of collapse. A survey of the Caribbean has established that, since 1977, live coral across this region has decreased by between 10 and 50 per cent, exceeding the rate of decline for tropical forests. Coral cover lost in the Indian Ocean as a result of the 1998 coral bleaching event has also shown little recovery in many of the sites affected. Researchers from the University of North Carolina, in a report released in August 2007, have found that coral coverage in the Indo-Pacific, an area stretching from Indonesia’s Sumatra island to French Polynesia, dropped 20 per cent in the past two decades. The Indo-Pacific contains 75 per cent of the world’s coral reefs and has played an important economic and cultural role in the region for hundreds of years. Their continued decline could mean the loss of millions of dollars in fisheries and tourism. The study showed that those reefs that were better managed to prevent overfishing were doing better in terms of fish population, but in terms of coral cover there was little difference between protected and unprotected reefs. The obvious conclusion from this is that warming seas as a result of climate change are likely to be driving the rapid decline in coral cover. The implications of this are that local measures aimed at conservation may mean little unless there is a global commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. In an article in the magazine Science in May last year, Terence Hughes, who is director of the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University in Townsville, indicated that if carbon dioxide emissions are not curtailed ‘we will eventually see reefs dominated by sea anemones and algae’—in other words, the coral will be gone. The biggest danger for reefs is bleaching and, despite the merits of various conservation initiatives, unless climate change is addressed these gains from local measures and local initiatives will be erased. It is clear that the key causes of coral reef degradation originate from human activities. They include overfishing, pollution and sedimentation due to coastal development, run-off from deforested lands and the impact of global warming. With projections of future rises in sea temperatures, a concerted global effort is required to tackle this problem. The 2004 coral reefs report to which I previously referred went to the issue of identifying threats and stresses to coral reefs in some detail. Clearly, in order to deal with the problems we need to understand what they are. The report identified: global change rates—coral bleaching, caused by elevated sea surface temperatures due to global climate change; rising levels of carbon dioxide—increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in seawater decreasing the calcification rates in coral reef organisms; and diseases, plagues and invasives—increases in diseases and plagues of coral predators that are increasingly linked to human disturbances in the environment. Then there are direct human pressures from overfishing—the harvesting of fishes and invertebrates beyond sustainable yields, including the use of damaging practices such as bomb and cyanide fishing; sediments from poor land use, deforestation and dredging; nutrients and chemical pollution; and both organic and inorganic chemicals carried with sediments in untreated sewage, waste from agriculture, animal husbandry and industry. Then there is the development of coastal areas—modification of coral reefs for urban, industrial, transport and tourism developments, including reclamation and the mining of coral reef rock and sand beyond sustainable limits. The report pointed to the human dimension issues of governance, awareness and political will. It noted rising poverty and increasing populations. It said that increasing populations put increasing pressures on coral reef resources beyond sustainable limits. It observed poor capacity for management and lack of resources. Most coral reef countries lack trained personnel for coral reef management, raising awareness, enforcement and monitoring. There is also a lack of adequate funding and logistic resources to implement effective conservation. Then there is the lack of political will and oceans governance. Most problems facing coral reefs can be solved if there is political will and effective and non-corrupt governance of resources. But interventions by, and inertia in, global and regional organisations can impede national action to conserve coral reefs. I think it is impossible to overemphasise the importance of the responsibility that we have, the duty that we have, to protect the Great Barrier Reef and to use our influence internationally to tackle the problems afflicting both the Great Barrier Reef and the other great reef marvels of the world. What is happening to the coral reefs around the world is nothing short of tragic. We simply cannot sit idly by and allow this to continue. I remember years ago being able to go snorkelling on a coral reef. I am not a great swimmer, but it was a fabulous experience. I thought to myself, ‘How long has this been going on for?’ They are wonderful places. The Great Barrier Reef is described as one of the natural wonders of the world, and with good reason. We have an obligation to protect the Great Barrier Reef. We have an obligation to do everything we can internationally to protect other reefs—the Caribbean and all the other great reefs of the world—which are suffering even greater declines than the Great Barrier Reef is, to do everything we can to tackle those problems and to ensure that we hand on to future generations the Great Barrier Reef and other coral reefs in the kind of condition that they were handed down to us. 1018 11:56:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —Madam Deputy Speaker Saffin, I would like to commence my contribution by congratulating you on your election as member for Page and for your elevation to the Speaker’s panel. I look forward to seeing you in that chair on a number of occasions, and I really look forward to working with you over the life of this parliament. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-2008 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2007-2008 are about delivering on the Rudd government’s election commitments. This legislation signals a very different approach to government. Gone is the mean-spirited, divisive, narrow approach of the Howard government—an approach that lacked any sort of vision, an approach that led from behind. We have moved to a new approach, an inclusive approach, a visionary approach—an approach that was signalled at the very start of this parliament with an apology to the Indigenous people of Australia. Whilst the Rudd government will be a reformist government and a government of great leadership, it will also be a very fiscally responsible government. That is why the Prime Minister has signalled our fiscal responsibility with his 10-point plan. The 10-point plan includes investing in an education revolution to lift the skills and know-how of the Australian workforce. The previous government ignored the skills crisis that existed in Australia. It chose to bury its head in the sand. It chose to let Australia enter the state that we are in at the moment, simply because it would not acknowledge the fact that we had a skills crisis. It was more about doing the workers over. It was more about giving it really hard to the hardworking men and women of Australia. The second part of the Prime Minister’s plan is to accelerate the digital transformation of the Australian economy through a high-speed national broadband network. Within the electorate I represent in this parliament, Shortland, which is a metropolitan electorate, there are many residents who in the time of the Howard government just could not access basic broadband. The Rudd Labor government is going to get around this and make sure that the people of Australia are delivered high-speed broadband. The third point of the Prime Minister’s plan is to reform regulatory arrangements to minimise the compliance burdens on individuals and businesses. Members on this side of the House have seen, on occasions, how businesses are absolutely stifled and strangled by the regulatory compliances that were put upon them by the Howard government. Similarly, individuals—constituents who I represent in this House—find that these restrictions, these requirements for them to jump through hoops just to get the most basic services, work against them. They work against them being able to develop the skills that they need to and work against them being able to access the knowledge that they need. These restrictions even work against their being able to access work. The fourth point of the Prime Minister’s plan is to take decisive action on the long-term challenges of climate change and the water shortages which threaten the viability of many Australian regions and industry sectors. The previous government ignored, for 11 long years, the fact that climate change even existed. It refused to sign Kyoto. I have never been more pleased with the action of any Australian government than I was with the action of the Rudd government in signing the Kyoto protocol, which it did right at the beginning of its term. The other point of this plan is to widen Australia’s economic engagement with key economies in the Asia-Pacific region. You can see by the actions of the Rudd government already that it has acted to see that this happens. The future of Australia is in our interaction with that region. The future of Australia is not the Howard way but rather the Rudd way. One of the issues that I would like to raise is the way that the Howard government chose to allocate funds. Those of us on this side of the parliament were constantly faced with the rorts of the Howard government, where funds were directed not based on merit but rather based on which National Party seat or marginal government seat that particular project happened to be in. The Regional Partnerships program was one of the vehicles for that. In my own area on the Central Coast we saw the Tumbi Creek fiasco. We on this side of the House will be adopting a very different approach to those projects in regional Australia and throughout the whole of Australia. We will have a very transparent approach, an approach that delivers to people in an open way, so that people can understand why that money has been allocated. The parliamentary secretary has undertaken an audit of all those projects that were previously promised money under the Regional Partnerships program. One of those projects was a project in my electorate, the Fernleigh Track, which was allocated $750,000 as part of a commitment made by the Rudd government in the lead-up to the last election. I would like to say today that that commitment will be delivered on. The parliamentary secretary has assured me that that will be the case. And I would like to assure the people of Shortland electorate that the money for the Fernleigh Track will be delivered. It is a wonderful initiative, and one that is of regional importance. It is not only of importance within Shortland electorate; it has the support of both Newcastle and Lake Macquarie councils. A working group has been working on it for many years. That $750,000 will be coming the way of the Fernleigh Track. But I have to express my extreme disappointment at the Lake Macquarie City Council. When they heard about the audit, Lake Macquarie City Council did not come and see me. Rather, they ran to the media, I understand. I was contacted by the media. I learnt about the media’s concerns in relation to the Fernleigh Track not through the media but through a third party. It is my understanding that their concerns were tabled at a council meeting on Monday last week. I was contacted by a journalist the next day, and then some time during the day there was a message for me that an employee of the council wished to talk to me. What causes me even more concern is that Councillor Coghlan of Lake Macquarie City Council, despite assurances and despite my communication with the council, has been running around part of the Shortland electorate saying that the funding for the track is in doubt. His actions stand condemned, and I am sure that the community will judge him on his actions at the next local government election. Another Rudd government commitment to the people of the Shortland electorate was the reopening of the Belmont Medicare office, an office that was closed by the Howard government in 1998, despite the fact that it was a high-volume office, despite the fact that it serviced a very elderly community and despite the fact that its need was well and truly established. I would like to put on the record here today my appreciation of the Minister for Health and Ageing for her commitment to open that Medicare office and I know that the people of Belmont, Swansea and surrounding areas will be extremely happy about its reopening. It will be reopened because it is needed. Health has been a very big issue within the Shortland electorate. There is a chronic doctor shortage. I have been speaking to the Minister for Health and Ageing. With our different approach to health, I am sure that we will be delivering to the people of the Shortland electorate on health. There is also a crisis in dental care, with pensioners waiting very long times to access dental treatment. Once again, the Rudd government will deliver on its commitment to the people of Shortland and Australia to make sure that they do not have to live in pain and agony and have their whole physical wellbeing undermined by poor dental health. The Rudd government’s approach to health is very different from that of the Howard government. Gone is the blame game and we now have a new era of cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states. Under the Rudd government, many of the recommendations of The blame game report, which was brought down in the last parliament, will be implemented in contrast to the approach that was adopted by the previous government. I notice that in the appropriation bills mention is made of immigration and citizenship. I hate to return to the theme of Lake Macquarie City Council, but on Australia Day the Mayor of Lake Macquarie refused to allow the representative of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Greg Combet, the honourable member for Charlton, to deliver his message at the citizenship ceremony. In the time that I have been attending citizenship ceremonies I have never seen that done by a mayor or a general manager. I understand the general manager was in agreement. I attend citizenship ceremonies in the Wyong Shire Council and Lake Macquarie City Council areas. I have written to the minister asking him to give me a ruling on the breach of the code of practice for citizenship ceremonies by the Mayor of the Lake Macquarie City Council—Councillor Greg Piper, who is an Independent—in his refusal to allow the honourable member for Charlton to deliver the minister’s address. One of the first instructions the Prime Minister gave to his members was to visit schools in their electorate. I have a very strong relationship with schools in my electorate. The schools in my electorate gave me a pretty strong message about the types of things that they need. For a very long period of time they felt marginalised by the previous government’s approach to education. Even the Investing in Our Schools Program chose to communicate with the P&Cs as opposed to the schools themselves. They raised with me issues such as teachers having access to computers, wireless networks and software licences—all things that need to be looked at; a revelation in learning management; a professional approach; school security; environmental concerns; and how within their schools they had to combat quite adverse conditions when creating an atmosphere for their students to learn. I give an undertaking to the schools in the Shortland electorate that, along with the government’s promise to deliver computers to students and to work with the schools, on a personal level I will work each and every day to ensure that their voices are heard down here and to ensure that the students in the Shortland electorate get a quality education—and that quality education means that they have access to the latest learning technologies. Given that I have been asked to finish a little earlier so that the minister can sum up the debate, I will finish my contribution here. I thank the minister for introducing this legislation and for the content of this legislation and I thank the Prime Minister for delivering on the commitments that he has made to the Australian people and to the people of the Shortland electorate. 1021 12:12:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —I am pleased to speak on some of the first appropriation bills of the new government: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-2008 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2007-2008. I look back to the night of the election when it was becoming clear that Labor would win the election and Kevin Rudd’s remark that we could all have an Iced Vo Vo and then go back to work. I thought at the time that he might be referring to the length of the break but I realise now, having watched the Prime Minister in government for a few months, that he was talking about the amount of sugar we would need to keep up the pace of legislation and action in rolling out the election commitments. In these bills today we have delivery of quite a few more election commitments: the beginning of the rebuilding of infrastructure and skills of the nation, reinstating fairness and restraining government spending—all themes through the long election campaign that are being delivered very early in the first term of this new government. In Australia I think we have gotten used to assuming that promises made by politicians, particularly during election campaigns, are not to be believed, are not promises at all. During the campaign and shortly after it a number of people did say to me, ‘But how much of this are you really going to deliver?’ I repeated to them the words that Kevin Rudd had said both publicly and behind closed doors several times, ‘Everything we promise we will deliver.’ I do not think there would have been many people who expected action to come so quickly. These bills are another illustration of promises made over the last year and promises being met. These bills will make a real difference to the lives of people around the country and in my electorate of Parramatta. They demonstrate the government’s approach to growing the economy while keeping a rein on inflation and to reinstating fairness—both themes that have been there through the last year and are demonstrated on a daily basis by this government through the policies that it implements and the bills it introduces into this parliament. There is a very real commitment in these bills to restrain government expenditure through delivery of some of the promised cuts made in the election campaign and some identified since. There is a real commitment in these bills to investing in the productive capacity of the nation—in skills, in infrastructure and in innovation. And there is a real commitment in these bills to reinstating fairness—one of the most important values that underpin this nation—through immediate assistance to some of the most disadvantaged in our communities, those people living good lives under difficult circumstances while they care for the wellbeing of others. The government is hitting the ground running. It is delivering on commitments every day and getting on with the business of government. We can do this because the policies that we announced well before the election were real policies, developed through listening to many, many people and underpinned by sound principles of economic management and fairness. Also underpinning the approach by this government is the fundamental fact that we do not stand here spending our own money. When a government has been in power for a long time, this is something that it risks forgetting. I hope that it is something that we do not ever forget. We do not spend our own money here. Not one dollar belongs to us. It is given to us by the taxpayers—individuals, families and businesses—and is spent on their behalf for their benefit. One of the ways that we show that respect today is by reining in government spending. With all the talk of boom times in recent years, it occurred to me late last year that one of the real beneficiaries of the boom was government itself, with more advertising, more staff, more legal advice and more consultancies—generally, more, more and more. It was a boom time for the re-election prospects of the government but not for the vulnerable or for those with the least bargaining power and certainly not for the many hardworking Australians. In the last 16 months of office, the previous government spent $470 million of taxpayers’ money on advertising alone, promoting policies such as the flawed Work Choices. In the last few days, we have seen in this parliament the amount of propaganda material, which was stored for many months, now finally being destroyed. We have also seen many grant programs that were more about photo opportunities than for the benefit of the local communities. One of the real illustrations of the boom in government has been the boom in staff. This bill begins to roll that back by bringing in a 30 per cent reduction in ministerial and opposition staff numbers. There are some, I would suspect, who would think it odd that one of the first things a government does in office is reduce its staff numbers. But staff numbers had grown well and truly out of control in the last years of the Howard government. The promise made by Labor in the election campaign is delivered in these bills. While there were already real indications that inflation was beginning to move beyond the recommended band of the Reserve Bank, spending under the previous government had grown out of control, with growth rates as high as 4.5 per cent in real terms in the later years. These bills also begin to roll back some of the extraordinary growth in costs from the flawed Work Choices legislation. Administrative efficiencies arising from the transition from Australian workplace agreements to collective enterprise agreements and statutory individual contracts will reduce the funding required by the Workplace Authority by $30 million in 2007-08 alone. We would all remember during the last years of the Howard government how the administration of Work Choices grew so dramatically, with hundreds of additional members of the Public Service employed to implement the so-called fairness test. This is a reduction of $30 million in 2007-08 alone. The bills also deliver on a number of other promises made during the campaign but they also seek appropriation from parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the consolidated revenue fund to meet the requirements of a number of initiatives, most of which were promised during the election campaign. These appropriation bills, in delivering on those promises, will make real differences and deliver real things for a diverse range of stakeholders. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) seeks a total appropriation of $2.4 billion, including a number of election commitments and changes in the estimates of existing program expenditure. It includes $242.1 million to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to tackle Australia’s skills deficit. We all know that the skills shortage in Australia is one of the issues which impact so seriously on inflation in this nation. The bill delivers $100 million to establish the National Secondary School Computer Fund. This is part of a much bigger project, but this initial $100 million moves very quickly to provide schools that have the capacity with computers and computer access for years 9 to 12. I visited several schools in my electorate at the end of last year and early this year and talked to them about this issue. It is, of course, a much bigger issue that involves not just the computers themselves but the infrastructure that supports the use of those computers—power supply, cabling and skills of teachers. Improving the capacity of our schools to deliver the kind of education our children will need over the next decade and beyond is a major undertaking for this government—one not undertaken by the previous government. We can safely say that the deficit of equipment, infrastructure and skills at our schools at the moment is a result of neglect over the last decade. This $100 million is a significant first step which will give results where results can be delivered most quickly. Long-term solutions will, of course, require more time and much more consultation with our state counterparts. These bills also deliver $33.3 million for the government’s Skilling Australia for the Future program, funding which in 2007-08 alone will deliver 20,000 vocational education and training places that are aimed at people currently outside the workforce. Again, that is a very speedy delivery of 20,000 vocational education and training places, in stark contrast to the previous government, which was denying that we even had a skills shortage right up until the election. This program will commence at the beginning of April 2008. That is next month. And this is just the start. During the election campaign, we announced that our Skilling Australia for the Future policy will deliver 450,000 training places over four years, including 65,000 apprenticeships, and will cost $1.3 billion. This first instalment of $33.3 million is a rapid delivery of the first 20,000 of those vocational education and training places. This demonstrates once again the government’s absolute commitment to reining in inflation through developing the productive capacity of the economy through delivery of skills and infrastructure. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will be provided with $2.5 million to establish Infrastructure Australia. When in opposition, we on this side of the House talked about the need for infrastructure development for several years, again against silence from the then government. Infrastructure Australia will allow us as a nation to independently determine the needs of the country—no more rorts; no pork-barrelling. It will consider long-term needs to fuel the productive capacity of the nation and not just the short-term political needs of local members in marginal seats. The building of a nation’s infrastructure is incredibly important. It is something that we used to do very well but failed to do over the last decade. It is incredibly important because only governments can do this. Only governments can drive the major infrastructure that links the nation, that strengthens our ports and that provides transport for people and goods. The $2.5 million to establish Infrastructure Australia begins the setting up of a system for the independent planning of that process. The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research will be provided with $15.2 million to introduce the Enterprise Connect program, replacing the previous government’s Australian industry productivity centres. Innovation is a key driver of productivity and growth, again an area neglected over the last 10 years. In fact, it is very sad that so much of the work done by the previous Hawke and Keating governments was left to degrade over the last decade. This government aims to foster a culture of innovation by strengthening investment in creativity and knowledge—something that this country has historically been very good at. As a nation, we punch well above our weight when it comes to new ideas. We are a nation which really only requires the incentive to do so and we go forth and create in the most profound way. The Enterprise Connect network will link businesses with new ideas and technology and provide incentives for business research and development to focus on lifting investment and competitiveness. There is also something for health—again, as promised during the election campaign. Additional funding is proposed for the Department of Health and Ageing, including $33.1 million to provide upfront capital grants and recurrent funding for the establishment of 31 GP superclinics around Australia and to provide incentive payments to GPs and allied health providers to relocate to these clinics. This was a policy announced during the election campaign which perhaps will not have an immediate impact in my electorate. We have a major hospital, Westmead Hospital, in the electorate and, perhaps because of that, there are extensive health services in the electorate and our bulk-billing rates are very high. But this is a policy which impacts generally on the capacity of our hospitals to serve communities, and that certainly does impact on my electorate in a real way. Over the past decade we have seen increasing blame-shifting between state and federal governments on health, with various aspects funded by the federal government and hospitals essentially funded by the state governments. It is certainly true that hospitals bear the brunt of any failure in the surrounding services. If we do not have enough aged-care beds, the hospitals bear the brunt. If we do not have enough community nurses, the hospitals bear the brunt. If we do not have enough GPs in the area, or enough GPs bulk-billing, then emergency departments bear the brunt. If we do not have 24-hour GP services, then emergency departments bear the brunt. And if we do not invest enough in keeping people healthy in the first place, in preventative health, then our hospitals bear the brunt. So any policy which begins to develop the services around hospitals that deal with the early stages of illness and provide real benefits to preventative health—anything that reduces the impact on our hospitals—must be applauded. For many communities around Australia, the introduction of these GP superclinics will provide real services in the local community and significantly lessen the demand in our emergency departments. We have also committed $31.6 billion for investing in hospitals and community health under the Better Outcomes for Hospitals and Community Health program. The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts will receive additional funding as well, with $50.8 million in additional funding for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park structural adjustment package and an additional $31.8 million to deliver on the election commitment to provide rebates to households for installing solar hot-water heaters to encourage improved energy efficiency in homes. The environment is also an area which was neglected over 10 years of the preceding government and an area, like so many others, in which the community was well ahead of the government in its thinking. I believe that even in 2004 the people in my electorate were already rating the environment as a major issue, but the level of debate on the environment in the government was so low at that point that they did not really have the language to express that view. But in the 2004 door-knocking experience of mine the issue of water in particular was raised perhaps more often than any other—even, at that stage, ahead of health and education. In the election of November last year, of course, it was a major issue, with the community expressing quite sophisticated views and in many ways pulling the government along—not fast enough, unfortunately. But we on this side of the House, we in government now, do recognise that the environment is one of the most significant economic and social issues facing this country and needs immediate action. In our second week of government, here is the beginning of the delivery of those election commitments. We have also committed an additional $50.8 million for the National Solar Schools program to encourage improved energy and water efficiency in schools. Government cannot expect private householders and businesses to lead the way. It really needs to lead the way itself. All levels need to do it. We as individuals need to do it. Our businesses need to do it. But also our governments need to ensure that our government assets—our schools, our hospitals, our community centres, our local council buildings and our state government offices—lead the way in improving energy and water efficiency, and this $50.8 million begins the process of ensuring that our schools, our state assets, are leaders in this area. We have also committed an additional $15.2 million to take early action on the National Plan for Water Security, which will accelerate investment in water savings infrastructure and the purchase of water allocations by bringing forward spending from 2011-12. That is three years away, of course, and the environment is an urgent issue. The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will be provided with $189.8 million to assist people with disabilities, their families and carers. This includes an annual tax-free payment of $1,000 for each child under the age of 16 with a disability for whom the carer is receiving carer allowance. It also includes $9 million to increase the support available to people in disability business services. This is something that I am particularly pleased about. I know there are many, many people in my electorate of Parramatta who are struggling on a daily basis to provide care for people in their families who suffer from a disability or illness. This $1,000 for each child under the age of 16 will provide very real and immediate assistance. Of course, that is not the end of the story. We have much more work to do to provide support for these people who fill one of the most important roles in our community—that of caring for people who are unable to care for themselves and providing lives with dignity for them in their own homes. (Time expired) 1025 12:32:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade 1 0 Mr MURPHY —May I start, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, by congratulating you on your elevation to Deputy Speaker. That is a great honour for you and your constituents, and I wish you well. I also take the opportunity to congratulate my colleague and friend the member for Herbert on his re-election in a very difficult election for those members on the other side in Queensland. I also congratulate him on his parliamentary secretary position and wish him well too. In debating Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-2008 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2007-2008, it is difficult to ignore the former government’s mixed economic performance and its fundamental failure to address many matters of substance, including climate change—which the member for Parramatta has just been speaking about—the skills crisis, innovation and Australia’s crumbling infrastructure. I think it is fair to say that it was true that the government had run out of ideas for the future by 24 November last year. There can be no doubt that the policy lethargy of the past did contribute to the overwhelming support for a change in government, a change in direction and a change in the heart of our country. That is why Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard have been elected with a mandate to implement this exciting agenda for change. The Rudd government has certainly hit the ground running. It has taken weeks, not years, for the Prime Minister to begin implementing good climate change policy. It has taken weeks, not years, for the Prime Minister to advance the cause of reconciliation. These are exciting reforms and do not begin and end with matters typically pigeonholed as relating to social justice—though ignoring these matters would ultimately come at a major cost to the economy. The Prime Minister, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, finance minister and minister for small business have all outlined practical reforms to strengthen Australia’s economy, particularly in relation to the war on inflation. With very few exceptions, it will become even more apparent that the former government’s legacy was one of reactive, not proactive, economic reform. The corollary of this is that, over the past 11 years, there has been a failure to anticipate and act on future challenges, a failure to act on rising levels of inflation, a failure to act on skilled labour and infrastructure shortages and a failure to act on the increasingly dysfunctional nature of federal-state relations—and I applaud the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, for making it quite clear in December 2006, when he was Leader of the Opposition, that he would promote cooperative federalism, which is what is happening now. These were the challenges that the former government would not touch and these were the challenges to which it had no answer. While these challenges would appear at first sight to be a minor irritant for the government of any given day, their impacts are more widely felt by families. The rising cost of living faced by many families in my electorate of Lowe is one challenge the former government refused to face. As we now know, the Howard government regularly informed Australian families that they had ‘never been better off’. However, my office was and still is receiving calls regularly from constituents that are battling to pay increasing grocery bills and petrol prices. It is not enough to spruik one’s economic management by indefatigably pointing to budget surpluses delivered through a once in a generation commodities boom. Surely economic management should also be measured by whether families are able to balance their own budget over the kitchen table. It is aimless to advertise every cent of government debt that is paid off, while ignoring family credit card debts that are spiralling out of control. Australia’s national economic performance has come on the back of spiralling household debt—and this does not look like abating in light of the increasing cost of living pressures. The Household Expenditure Survey from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that the cost of living outpaced inflation by eight per cent between 1999 and 2004. We have all seen the cost of petrol, bread, fruit and vegetables skyrocket in recent years. Plainly, a dollar does not have the purchasing strength today that it had years ago. That is why it is important to implement practical proposals that may relieve some of the pressure rather than arrogantly dismiss the problem by proclaiming that working families have ‘never been better off’. It is time for some focus to be placed on the economy at home, not just on the national economy. The Prime Minister has already shown a commitment to keeping prices and interest rates low by investing in education, skills and key economic infrastructure. Indeed, as I said earlier, it has taken weeks, not years, for the Rudd government to begin the process of auditing Australia’s infrastructure. Another way we can keep sustained downward pressure on prices is by resuscitating the Trade Practices Act, protecting small businesses and encouraging competition. There is no better friend for families doing their weekly round of grocery shopping than healthy competition between retailers. With that in mind, it is illuminating that a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers report suggests that Australia’s two biggest retailers, Coles and Woolworths, hold 79 per cent of the market despite mum and dad grocers making up 50 per cent of the sector’s workforce. While the ACCC has powers with respect to cartels, predatory pricing and misuse of market power, those powers could be strengthened for small business and for families saddled with increasing cost of living pressures. As the Assistant Treasurer has previously indicated, more can be done to protect small business and foster competition in Australian markets. More can be done to achieve the objectives of the Trade Practices Act to ‘enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition’. In a document published in 2004 titled ‘Committed to small business’, the former Prime Minister rightly extolled the virtues of small business and the important contribution small business makes to Australia’s economy. The former Prime Minister said: The Government’s commitment to small business is undiminished. That is why we remain attuned to their needs and why we continue to respond to their concerns with practical measures. Despite 11 years in power, those measures never really eventuated. There are many obvious failings with the Trade Practices Act for small businesses and consumers alike. However, the former Treasurer refused time and time again to tackle those challenges. Cost of living pressures and methods of keeping costs down just did not seem to raise a mention. With respect to competitive markets and consumer protection, the Howard government certainly promised plenty, delivered little and created a false impression that it was doing everything it could. But it was not. One area crying out for reform is the misuse of market power provisions within the Trade Practices Act. Since the High Court’s decision in Boral, big business will not have substantial market power unless they have the power to raise prices without losing any custom to their rivals. This notion of having absolute freedom of constraint to raise prices before one is considered to have a substantial degree of market power has rendered section 46 useless. I ask: how can section 46 purport to foster competition when one can only resort to the provision when the market is already a monopoly or close to it? The ACCC has found it close to impossible to launch a misuse of market power case since the Boral decision. Many examples of anticompetitive conduct have no doubt escaped scrutiny as a result, to the detriment of consumers. The paucity of section 46 cases is not necessarily a glowing endorsement of corporate conduct in Australia. As I have said previously, not having misuse of market power cases through the courts is analogous to having no penalties in a football match. While the teams may generally have been well behaved, surely the referee cannot be saying that both teams have been absolutely perfect for the duration of the match. Observations from the ACCC would suggest that the competition and consumer referee is saying anything but. This referee wants to act on behalf of consumers and small business but the rules will not allow it to. The Assistant Treasurer has rightly observed that there has already been enough debate about the ACCC’s desired changes to the misuse of market power protections. He has clearly stated his intention to put the teeth back into section 46—and I note that the Minister for Finance and Deregulation has just arrived in this place. I am sure he would support what I have been saying in relation to section 46. While the fruits of any misuse of market power may be attractive for consumers in the short term, the manipulation of the market in this manner will result in fewer competitors, fewer options and higher prices in the long term. Genuine competition is the best way of exerting downward pressure on prices for consumers burdened with cost of living pressures. It is true that the aim of competition is to beat competition. However, no business should be permitted to reduce their prices enough for a short period of time to drive competitors out, then charge whatever they wish for the same goods. Expecting vigorous competition is not inconsistent with the proposition that there must be firm laws against unfair, anticompetitive conduct. No government should hide behind the cloak of so-called healthy competition if conduct is in fact strategically engaged in to undermine the competitive process. Families in my electorate of Lowe, as well as the countless small business operators in my electorate, would be breathing a collective sigh of relief that there is now a government willing to confront the macroeconomic challenges ahead of it. Another such challenge is effectively outlawing serious cartel conduct in Australia. The former Treasurer would remember well that the Dawson review—which reported in 2003—into the Trade Practices Act recommended the imposition of prison terms for individuals found to have engaged in serious cartel behaviour. It has taken the Rudd government weeks to initiate an important reform that the Howard government did not achieve in four years. Wise heads, including the chairman of the ACCC and Professor Frank Zumbo, have on countless occasions identified the risk that mere financial penalties allow cartel operators to weigh up those penalties against the millions that can be earned from a cartel. Recent cases demonstrate that cartel operators are continuing to weigh up the small deterrent of financial penalties against the millions in ill-gotten gains from cartel behaviour. Again, it is consumers who suffer. The Rudd government is rightly making this cost-benefit analysis harder for cartel operators by introducing jail terms for serious cartel conduct. I applaud the government on this initiative. It is astonishing that Australia is one of the few countries in the OECD that does not have jail terms for serious cartel conduct. The Assistant Treasurer has released the exposure draft of the Trade Practices Amendment (Cartel Conduct and Other Measures) Bill 2008 for public comment. I encourage everyone to contribute to that. The exposure draft proposes five-year jail terms for those found guilty of serious cartel conduct. Again, I applaud this initiative. Finally, a very clear message is being sent to businesspeople that cartel behaviour is tantamount to stealing from consumers and will not be tolerated. There is no doubt that the threat of time behind bars will force dishonest businessmen and businesswomen to pause and take stock of the situation. Far from talking tough, looking tough and then running away from the real battles confronting Australian families, the Prime Minister is tackling these challenges head-on. The Prime Minister has already delivered on numerous commitments, including, most recently, the appointment of a petrol price commissioner to monitor and investigate price gouging by oil companies. We will be keeping a close eye on that in the Easter break. Rather than reacting to challenges when it is too late, the government is committed to proactive reform and to investment in the long-term drivers of growth, including infrastructure, education, skills, innovation and a high-speed broadband network. There can be no doubt that another of the Howard government’s legacies is its failure to consolidate Australia’s financial position during this once in a generation commodities boom. Despite the commodities boom delivering record prices, Australia outrageously had a balance of trade deficit of $12 billion in the 2006-07 financial year. I am certainly looking forward to the opportunity as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade to do whatever I can to address the trade deficit that we encounter every month in Australia. Clearly we have to turn that around, and it is not easy in an environment where our dollar is relatively high and a lot of the goods and services that we export are value added overseas where the cost of labour is so much lower than in Australia. That is a big challenge for the government, the minister and me personally, but I will be doing everything I can to bring revenue into this country rather than continuing the sucking in of imports that has happened over the past five or six years particularly. In the face of ideal conditions for export success, sadly Australia’s export volumes are down. Growth in service exports, goods exports and manufacturing exports have slumped. A strong export base is vital for Australia’s long-term prosperity, but little has been done in the past 11 years to redress the dreadful trade imbalance. Rather than ignoring the challenges and being content with five consecutive years of trade deficit, as was the norm with the previous government, the Minister for Trade is acting swiftly to initiate a comprehensive review of Australia’s trade policies and programs. Acting quickly rather than reacting late is a premise that the Rudd government subscribes to. Australia can no longer afford a government that recklessly wastes large sums of money on advertising to get themselves re-elected and programs that, in most cases, delivered very few long-term benefits to my constituents specifically and the nation broadly. Finally, that is why many constituents in my electorate of Lowe sought and have received a government with fresh ideas for Australia’s future, which offers much hope. 1029 12:48:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —in reply—I rise to bring the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2007-2008 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2007-2008 to a close. I thank those members who have made a contribution, particularly the member for Lowe. The additional estimates bills seek appropriation authority from parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in order to meet requirements that have arisen since the last budget. The total additional appropriation being sought through the additional estimates bills Nos 3 and 4 this year is nearly $3.3 billion. This proposed appropriation arises from changes in the estimates of program expenditure due to variations in the timing of payments, forecasted increases in program take-up, the reclassification of certain appropriations and policy decisions taken by the government since the last budget. The government has promised to apply sensible fiscal restraint to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates and to boost investment in the productive capacity of the Australian economy. The additional estimates appropriation bills deliver a modest first instalment on these objectives. The appropriations proposed in these bills include the effect of part-year savings in estimates resulting from the government’s election promise to identify savings in budget outlays. The savings reflected in these bills include requiring further efficiencies in public sector administration through the application of an additional two per cent efficiency dividend; the transition to collective enterprise agreements and statutory individual contracts, producing a saving of $30 million from simplified administration; abolishing the access card project to produce a saving this year of $250.6 million; not proceeding with measures announced by the previous government, such as contributing to the Rugby League Hall of Fame and the Australian rugby academy, producing a cash saving to the budget this year of $35 million; and a review of current programs, such as the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program, which has identified a saving this year of $33 million. These modest savings, which are a harbinger of more substantial savings to come, have served to contain the additional appropriation sought in these bills. I now take the opportunity to outline the more significant measures contained in the bills. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations will be provided with additional funding, including $100 million to establish the National Secondary Schools Computer Fund, which will provide grants of up to $1 million for schools to assist them to provide for new or upgraded information and communications technology for secondary school students in years 9 to 12, and $33.3 million for the government’s Skilling Australia for the Future program, which will provide a total of 450,000 additional training places over four years at a cost of $1.3 billion. Funding in 2007-08 will deliver 20,000 vocational education and training places that are aimed at people currently outside the workforce. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will be provided with $2.5 million to establish Infrastructure Australia to ensure genuine rigor and accountability in infrastructure spending. Additional funding is proposed for the Department of Health and Ageing for investing in hospitals and community health under the Better Outcomes for Hospitals and Community Health program. This includes funds for specific commitments announced during the election, such as $10 million for the Flinders Medical Centre clinical teaching facilities upgrade and $15 million for the Launceston integrated cancer care centre. The Department of Health and Ageing will also be provided with $33.1 million to provide upfront capital grants and recurrent funding for the establishment of 31 GP superclinics around Australia and to provide incentive payments to GPs and allied health providers to relocate to these clinics. The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will be provided with additional funds, including an amount of $189.8 million, from which will be provided annual tax-free payments of $1,000 for each child under the age of 16 with a disability for whom their carer is receiving childcare allowance and an increase of $30 million for the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement to allow grants to the states for people with disabilities and their carers. These bills are important pieces of legislation which underpin the government’s new direction in both spending priorities and fiscal restraint and deserve widespread support. I am not convinced, after listening to members of the opposition both in this place and in Senate estimates hearings yesterday, that they actually appreciate the importance of this new direction. Their questions both in the parliament and in estimates hearings suggest that opposition members not only have failed to grasp the seriousness of the inflation challenge—a headline inflation rate running at a level not seen in 16 years—but also are in denial about their own responsibility for delivering this risk to the Australia economy and the Australian people. This is after 10 interest rate increases and 20 warnings from the Reserve Bank about critical capacity constraints in our economy. In government, the coalition had little regard for the budget process and no regard for the ERC and was about as familiar with budget savings processes as it was with fair AWAs. It showed no fiscal restraint during its 11 years in government, and during election campaigns this record blew out even further. There is no clearer picture of the coalition’s fiscal record than the former Prime Minister spending a record $9 billion in the campaign launch, literally within weeks of the Reserve Bank raising rates during an election campaign for the first time. There is no clearer record of the coalition’s fiscal record than its legacy of big government, with the cost of running government almost doubling over the 10 years to 2007-08. The supposed party of small government was responsible for delivering the most regulated and expensive industrial relations system this country has ever known; the biggest spending on government advertising the country has ever seen by a long way; the biggest spending on consultants over that period, even though Public Service employment had grown much faster than overall employment in the economy since 2000; an increase in the number of senior public servants, or SES-level public servants, of 44 percent; and an increase in the number of ministerial staff over the time of the government’s period in office by 30 per cent. The government must now confront the serious task of refocusing government fiscal policy. We cannot rely on monetary policy alone to protect the Australian economy and its households from the inflation challenge. The government will confront the inflation legacy of the previous government by delivering a budget surplus of at least 1½ per cent of GDP. To meet this task, spending will need to be cut substantially, in addition to savings announced during the election campaign by the then opposition, now the government. Fiscal restraint and tough decisions on spending are required to ensure that the government does all it can to combat inflation. Choices have to be made to ensure that downward pressure is placed on inflation. This means that lower order priorities or priorities of the previous government that are not shared by the incoming government will be subject to very close scrutiny. This task has already commenced in these additional estimates bills. We stand by the difficult decisions we have had to make to start delivering on our promise to rein in inflation. We do not falter in the face of questions from opposition senators, particularly those who were on the staff of the former Treasurer or those who were former sports ministers and accustomed to taking the easy options and living a ‘the cheque is in the mail’ culture. I commend the additional estimates bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 1031 Bills R2923 1031 Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Mr Tanner: That this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. Sitting suspended from 12.58 pm to 4.02 pm 1032 Motions Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Mr Rudd: That— Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history. We reflect on their past mistreatment. We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations—this blemished chapter in our nation’s history. The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future. We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians. We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country. For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry. To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry. And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry. We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation. For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written. We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians. A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again. A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity. A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed. A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility. A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia. 1032 16:02:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —Madam Deputy Speaker Vale, I congratulate you on your elevation to the Speaker’s panel. I am sure you will do a very good job. In my nine years as a member of this parliament, this motion offering an apology to Australia’s Indigenous peoples is for me the most memorable and significant. In my first term as a member of this parliament, at the time of the National Sorry Day in October 2000 I addressed the issue of the stolen generations and the importance of an apology as an essential part of the reconciliation process. At the time I predicted, ‘Very shortly there will be a Prime Minister who can say sorry for the wrongs of past governments.’ That prediction proved a little too optimistic, but as we have seen we now have a Prime Minister who can say sorry for the wrongs of past governments. My comments in October 2000 were made after I met with a wonderful woman named Valerie Linow. Valerie lives in the Fowler electorate. Her story is one of the many thousands that can be told by members of the stolen generation. Those stories of grief and abuse did not occur in some far-off land; they happened here in our country, Australia. These gross abuses of human rights were not carried out under the orders of murderous dictators but under the orders of what our official history regards as democratic and humane governments. The view that these acts were carried out by people who had the best interests of the children at heart fails to explain one important thing—why they were directed against members of one race. In the motion we refer to these abuses in fairly bland terms as ‘mistreatment’. While the motion does say that we apologise for inflicting ‘profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians’, it is impossible for those of us who were not subject to these human rights abuses to fully appreciate that suffering, grief and loss and to understand how in so many cases that suffering affected the whole of the lives of those of the stolen generations. How can we understand the anguish and grief of a mother whose child is wrenched from her arms, never to be seen again? How can we understand the trauma of an infant torn from her mother and then at later stages of life separated again from brothers and sisters? It is only when we each consider such a nightmare that we can begin to understand the consequences of this monstrous crime against Aboriginal people in Australia—a crime committed by Labor governments as well as conservative governments, at both the federal and state levels. And those governments were aided and abetted in those crimes by the Christian churches in Australia. We in the Labor Party are justly proud of our history but we accept this black mark on our record and offer an unqualified apology. Those Christian churches have accepted responsibility for their role in this dark past and offered their apologies as well. But from the successors of conservative governments we only get belated, half-hearted and qualified apologies. I can only ask those who have distanced themselves from this apology to think about what they would feel like if it had happened to them. I would ask them to sit down with Valerie Linow, to trace her past and put themselves in her place. When I first spoke to Valerie she showed me her most treasured possessions—old black-and-white photos of her childhood. One of those photos touched me very deeply. Taken in the early 1940s it shows a neatly dressed young woman wearing a sun hat. Next to her is a young man dressed in the uniform of the 2nd AIF, his slouch hat worn so very proudly. In his arms he holds his baby daughter. If you grew up in the 1950s—I was a young lass still in nappies—you would have noticed similar photographs on mantelpieces in thousands of homes across Australia. That photograph is the only image that Valerie Linow has of her mother and father. The reason that Valerie did not enjoy the love and support of growing up in the family environment that we enjoyed was that she was black. At the age of two Valerie was removed from her home near Grafton in New South Wales and placed in the Bomaderry Children’s Home. She was later taken to the Cootamundra Girls Home, where her three elder sisters had been taken earlier. Her three brothers had been taken to the Kinchela Boys Home near Kempsey. Attempts from Valerie’s father to see her on two occasions led him to be taken away by police. Can any one of us imagine his heartbreak? His only crime was that he wanted to see his daughter—a daughter he wanted to hold, a daughter he wanted to kiss and a daughter to whom he wanted to say, ‘I love you,’ and, ‘This should never have happened.’ He was a man who served his country in a time of war only to see his children taken away from the family home, separated and subjected to years of abuse and torment in institutions; a man who only saw his daughter again as he lay on his death bed, 16 years after she had been taken away. Can any one of us imagine the grief of Valerie’s mother, having her children torn from their home while her husband was away at war? She had no-one to turn to; there was no appeal, no justice—that was the white man’s law. And who would defend those laws today? What laws can justify tearing a loving family apart? When I think about what effect the kind of separation that Valerie Linow suffered would have had on my life I can understand the bitterness and sadness that flows from the stolen generations. Valerie has beautifully expressed her understanding of her mother’s sorrow: No wind or dust could dry my mother’s tears as we were torn apart ... Yes, I know today if she was here she would say: ‘My daughter we made the rivers you see today Our tear drops are proof of the flowing waters No wind and dust can dry my tears. All my life I have treasured the close relationship that I have had with my parents, Alan and Lois Welsh, my sister Helen, my two beautiful children, Rebecca and Blake, and my adored grandchildren, Liam and James. Along with my husband, they are the most precious things in the whole world to me. I cannot begin to understand the trauma of having those bonds shattered. And yet that trauma has been faced by thousands of Indigenous Australians, Australians who have at the same time suffered great disadvantage. From Cootamundra Girls Home, Valerie was placed in domestic service, which was the most common prospect for young women. But working life was even harsher than the girls home. Valerie was abused, beaten and raped by her employer and was forced to flee. In the years since, Valerie has tried to reconcile her removal from her home, the tragic consequences for her brothers and sisters, three of whom died while in state care, and her at times brutal upbringing in the institutions responsible for her care. Today, Valerie works with the Origins organisation at Bonnyrigg in my electorate of Fowler. She works with families who have been separated by adoption. Valerie was in Canberra last Wednesday to realise her dream of seeing the Prime Minister of Australia making this historic apology. Her comments were: This apology means everything to me and my family. It is an acknowledgement of the past and it’s very emotional. She added: I do not blame the Australian people of today for what happened to me in the past; all I ask and pray is that history will never repeat itself. The surest way to ensure Valerie’s hope is realised is through the adoption of this motion of apology. Saying sorry is the very least that we as a nation can do to right the wrongs of the past. If each and every Australian truly seeks to understand the trauma and suffering of the stolen generations then we will never repeat this sad chapter in our history. It must be an individual, as well as a collective, act of apology. We are all individually responsible for the wellbeing of our fellow Australians. I thank and praise Valerie Linow for allowing me to stand up in this chamber today and tell her story. 1034 16:12:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —I rise today to give my absolute support to the motion offering an apology to Australia’s Indigenous people. I am of an age that, had I been born in a different place to different parents, I could have been one of the stolen generation. In fact, children were still being removed from their parents some 10 years after I was a toddler. I cannot really imagine what it would be like to have been removed from my parents. When I think of that possibility I imagine my mother, even though she is now 70 years old, still standing beside a road somewhere waiting for her four girls to come back. Sometimes I see her with my father as well, but generally, when I imagine this happening to our family, I see my mother alone, because I cannot even imagine my mother’s marriage surviving 50 years of such incredible grief. People say this happened in the past, but for people my age who experienced this and for people like my mother, still living, this is very much their present; this is the life they live. Between 1910 and 1970, around 50,000 children of Aboriginal background were taken from their parents, placed in institutions or missions or fostered and largely trained for domestic service. They are shocking figures, and the stories we hear are shocking also, briefly brought into the light in the Bringing them home report some 11 years ago and then buried and denied again for some 11 years. Finally, on Wednesday last week, we as a nation said sorry—sorry to the stolen generation ripped from their families, from their culture and from their lives and placed on a different path filled with grief, sadness and loss. Among those in my community that I have spoken to since, there is overwhelming support for the words spoken in parliament last week, but there are some who still have reservations. To them I would like to speak just briefly. There are some who say that it is in the past and we should not apologise for actions taken in the past. To them I say again: for those who were taken from their families, this is their lives. We apologise for their lives as they are now. For those who say, ‘I didn’t do it,’ I say that the apology last Wednesday was not from any of us individually, although many of us have said it individually; it was for the nation. We as a nation over 200 years have benefited from the choices we made earlier on when we decided that the welfare of one culture—of the first inhabitants of this country—could be put aside for the development of the nation as a whole. The nation actually made those decisions; governments made those decisions and the government apologised for them on Wednesday. I have also had some people who have also experienced pain in their lives say to me that, for example, their mother was taken from her mother when she was eight years old, that she was not an Indigenous person and therefore we should not be apologising to this group. With all respect to these people—and I understand their pain—this is not a competition for pain, this is not a race where only one group wins and where by recognising the pain of one person we somehow diminish the experiences of others. This is an act which acknowledges the experience of many Australians and recognises our responsibility in it. It does not in any way diminish actions we may have taken or the effect of our actions on other people—not at all. What happened last week was not a trivial event, although, again, there are a small number of people who think it was. This was not a trivial event. This was about the systematic removal of children from their families. It was a deliberate act taken by not just one government but many governments over 60 years that devastated the oldest continuous living culture in the world, left families ruined and left a generation living now who have not experienced family life and who are struggling to create solid families in their present as well. I cannot imagine what has been lost by the stolen generation. I cannot imagine what was lost, not just by them but by others of the Indigenous culture who were ripped from their land or whose ancestors were ripped from their land and their culture and who are just finding their way back. I do know that, when I meet a member of my local Indigenous community, I feel grief at what we as a nation have lost. When we decided as a nation to put the development of the nation ahead of this particular culture, we lost an extraordinary cultural history—an extraordinary body of wisdom dating back tens of thousands of years. I know that I can never meet my local Barramatugal clan of the Darug nation in its full strength. I can never do that now. Just 200 years from when they lived free and strong on the land on which I now live, I cannot do that. There are some elders and some families who remain but the language is largely lost; the history is largely lost from my local clan. It is an extraordinary loss for the nation and for the world and I grieve for that. In fact, my grief is still at a stage where I grieve for the loss and I am not yet ready to look at what we still have, to look at the future, because grief sometimes moves in those ways. You deal with what you lose first. I cannot imagine what they must feel; I cannot imagine. My loss is tangential; I have lost what might have been, I have lost people I might have met. The Barramatugal clan of the Darug nation have lost their own history and, while I feel grief when I look at them, many of them must feel grief when they look at themselves in the mirror and that is a much deeper grief than mine. Again, it is not something I can ever fully comprehend and I cannot fully comprehend the pain of the stolen generation but what we did on Wednesday was an act of trust. We looked at a people; we brought them into the light and we accepted and acknowledged their experience even if we could not fully understand the depth of it. I believe that what they needed was for us to say sorry, to bring them into the light, see them and validate experiences that are theirs and theirs alone which we really cannot ever comprehend without going through that ordeal ourselves. They needed to be seen, they needed to be acknowledged and they told us that. That act of trust on Wednesday, I believe, has moved this nation down the path of healing. I would hope that in the near future we all can look at each other, look each other in the eyes, and see the strength of what we can have in our Indigenous population and feel less real, immediate grief for what we have lost. I am sure as a nation we will always feel that, but I hope in the very near future we will see each other for what we can be and not for what we have been. 1036 16:20:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 0 Mr SYMON —In responding to this motion I would firstly like to acknowledge the traditional owners of this land, the Ngunawal people, and those of the land in my electorate of Deakin, the Wurundjeri. Many may think that Deakin is just an outer metropolitan seat with little Indigenous history to tell; however, they are mistaken. My electorate falls across the Mullum Mullum Valley, which is Wurundjeri for a place of big birds, a region with an ancient terrestrial link to the Wurundjeri people, and it is to this day a gathering place for Indigenous Australians. It is an honour and a privilege to take part in this debate today and to strongly support the Prime Minister’s motion for an apology, which has been offered in a real spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation. It was, in the words of former Prime Minister Paul Keating, a ‘day of open hearts’ for Australians—a day when our country aspired to find one of its golden threads in our national character. It most certainly did that day, and I am extremely proud to have played a part and given my support then as I do now. Through this apology we have demonstrated that as a country we have matured enough to understand that saying sorry is a critical form of respect for the traditional owners of the land. Apologising is important for healing and for taking reconciliation further. If that was ever in dispute, one simply had to hear the rapturous applause by all who were present here on that proud day. The Prime Minister’s apology last week was a defining moment, not just for a new government as its very first order of business but, without a shadow of a doubt, as a nation-defining moment that will be talked about, debated and reflected upon for generations to come. I am confident that those future generations will be able to look back with the knowledge that the Prime Minister’s apology last week was the first major step this nation took to turn a new page in our country’s history. I believe those future generations will want to know where and when exactly the healing began and who our leaders were that put us on the road to righting those past wrongs and taking care of the unfinished business. I am proud to say today that it was this government and this Prime Minister who brought our country together—Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, Labor and coalition like—in an expression of sorrow never before seen. I also commend the opposition for offering such immediate bipartisan support for this motion. I think it was so important for many people—people perhaps not previously engaged in the issue of reconciliation—to see that handshake over the dispatch box. And for those who perhaps still struggled with the notion of a formal apology, the Prime Minister made it simple: imagine if this had happened to you. In fact, one need not think much further than that simple thought. While as a parliament we expressed our sorrow on that day, it was not a sorrowful day as such—it was not a dark or mournful day—or one that was designed to make this generation of Australians feel guilty for the acts of previous ones; but it was a day to reflect on dark events in our history that must not and cannot ever be repeated. Might I say that the idea that saying sorry somehow ascribes guilt to this generation of Australians is completely misguided. However, it is something that we heard many times from the former Howard government. It is instead an extremely positive and healing process. I will never forget the emotion, the excitement and the anticipation that came with it, not only in the House but all around the building and out there in the nation. We can now build on the positive momentum created in this place last week and start building new partnerships with Indigenous Australians, based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility. I believe that education is one of the keys to that, not only for the current generation, who are still attending school, but more for people of my generation—people who did attend school and were taught history but were not taught that page of Australia’s history. Whilst we attended high schools, or technical schools, as they were called in my day, there was history but we were taught about English royalty or maybe even about Japanese hierarchy and royalty. We certainly were not taught about what had happened to Indigenous Australians in the near past of our own country’s history. I believe that the sooner a program like that is actually put across to people who may not understand the full implications of the stolen generations the sooner we will get an even greater understanding. When that happens I believe reconciliation will not be in the minds of many. As it should be, it will be in the minds of all. On this basis I strongly commend the motion to the House. 1037 16:25:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 0 Mr BRADBURY —It is with great pride that I rise to endorse this motion before the House. I do so with a sense of pride not only from being here as the new member for Lindsay, in my second week in the parliament, but also because I know that this is one of the most significant and momentous periods in the history of this House. What occurred last week—both on Tuesday, 12 February, and on Wednesday, 13 February—were, I think, some of the most significant events in this parliament’s history. I begin with the events of Tuesday, 12 February. That day will always be remembered by me as my first day sitting in this parliament. On that day I recall, and will continue to recall vividly, the welcome to country delivered by Matilda House-Williams. This was a significant act; it was significant for many reasons. For me one of the most significant aspects of this welcome to country was this: not only was this the first time that such a welcome to country had been delivered in this place but it had taken so long for this to occur. I am someone who has been an elected representative, as a councillor of Penrith City Council, for almost nine years. In that time I have been invited to many gatherings throughout my local community. As I have gone to those gatherings, increasingly over the years there has been a tendency to embrace the welcome to country as a means by which a gathering can be commenced. This is something that has been occurring gradually over that period, but I must say it has been commonplace throughout that eight to nine years that I have been in elected office. I think in years to come people will reflect upon what occurred on Tuesday, 12 February 2008, and they will wonder why it took so long for this great parliament of this nation, with our great democratic traditions, to embrace a welcome to country and to enmesh those democratic traditions with the heritage of our Indigenous people. I turn to the motion itself. I believe it is something for which our nation has been waiting for many years for the leadership of this country to do. We know that over the last 11 years there has been a reluctance on the part of the previous government, in particular on the part of the previous Prime Minister, to do what this House has now done with a real sense of bipartisanship. It is important that we note that bipartisanship because it goes to the significance of what has occurred here. The apology that was moved in the House last week, on Wednesday, 13 February 2008, was an apology from this parliament, from not just the government but the representatives of the people of this great country. As someone who brings a legal background to this place, I am all too aware of how the temptation for courts can sometimes be to intervene and to take this nation in a more progressive direction. In doing so, often they can lead out ahead of where the people are. They can lead out ahead of where community sentiment and community views have been able to reach. What I think is most significant about this apology is that it is not the courts that are leading from the front but the representative of the people—the parliament—that is. All of us who were present in the chamber and brought forward those many stories from our local communities helped to ensure that, as a nation, we were able to say sorry and to say sorry not just with a sense of reflecting upon what has occurred in our nation’s history but also with a real, deep and abiding commitment to what can be achieved in the future. I come here as the member for Lindsay, which is wholly situated within the boundaries of the Penrith City Council. Penrith City Council has the third highest proportion of Indigenous Australians of all councils in New South Wales—third only to Blacktown, which is first, and Lake Macquarie, which is second. Having such a significant proportion of Indigenous people living within my community is something that I relish. I relish the opportunity to continue to engage with them on a whole range of issues that impact upon their lives and the broader life of our local community. And I take this opportunity today to acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the traditional owners and custodians of the lands and waters of this country. On Wednesday, 13 February 2008, there were many people inside the House who were able to witness the apology. But there were also many people right throughout this country who were deeply moved by what occurred and who were actively engaged in the process of the making of that apology. I know in my local community there were many local gatherings. But one in particular that I wish to reflect upon was the gathering at the Penrith City Council, where there were over 200 people gathered for this significant event. One person who ordinarily would have been at the Penrith City Council but who was not there is a person I take great inspiration from—a person by the name of Maureen Silleri. Maureen is someone personally known to me and someone who was down here in Canberra on that day. She works for the Penrith City Council and is involved with specialist child care. She helps local Indigenous families access childcare services so that they may overcome some of the barriers that prevent them from entering the workforce. Maureen has put pen to paper and has given me the benefit of some of her reflections on some of the issues pertaining to the impact of the stolen generations. I wish to read into the record that short note from Maureen: My Story—Maureen Silleri— Maureen’s family name was Clayton— At the time my brothers and sisters [were] taken I was only two years old. We were a family of 9 children and they (the Welfare Board) came and removed 6 children. There were 4 sisters and 2 brothers. They (The Welfare Board) had said to my mum that she could not look after all these children; the Board never came near us for months. We had our extended family members to support my mum. Dad was a drover and away a lot and we did not go with out anything. The welfare believed that they were doing the right thing—however both my parents worked and as the children were getting ready for school they (the Board) came and just took the children, my two brothers and I were not taken as we were being minded by Nan and Pop because our parents were at work. I believe that my parents never recovered from our family being torn apart, people are under the assumption that only one child in one family were taken but I can tell you that we were a family of 9 children and the board took 6 children. I was in about sixth class ... and I came home from school and there was a young girl sitting on a chair and all I could remember thinking was how much she looked like my mum. Mum said to me to say Hi to your sister. So I was thinking that I had to get to know them all over again. All 6 of my brothers and sisters started to return home to us at different times, and in the end we all were reunited. Last week I was fortunate enough to be in Canberra at Parliament House and hear the apology from the PM—it was a monumental event which one of my sisters (that was taken) was in the House of Rep ... but it was more significant when my family all came together on the grass area to celebrate the day when an apology was made to my Aboriginal people—a day we thought would never happen. Maybe now those that were taken can now be at peace with this acknowledgment of the treatment of stolen generation, hopefully this can encourage them to move forward. Upon reading this statement, I could not help but reflect upon some of my own personal family experiences. I am one of five children, my father was one of five children, my mother was one of 10 children and her mother was one of 11 children. I know that it can be a handful for parents to look after families of this size. But I also know that many families have been able to do it—and to do it well. I also know that, in the case of Maureen Silleri, there was no suggestion that her parents were unable to do that job as well as my grandmother, my mother and my great-grandmother were able to do it. The sad reality of the stolen generations is that many people were taken away from their families for no other reason than that they were Aborigines. This is the harsh and uncomfortable reality that we need to confront and that we are confronting as part of this motion of apology that the parliament has moved for the nation. I should say that, whilst words are important—and I think it was significant that the Prime Minister referred to the unfinished business of reconciliation as being a ‘stain on the soul of the nation’; I think it is significant that we try to wash away that stain—I think it is also significant to note that, with all of the words in the world and all of the tears shed, irrespective of how significant those outpourings of emotion may be, all those things on their own will not be sufficient for us to achieve what I think we all have reached consensus on: closing the gap between the lack of opportunities that Indigenous Australians face and the opportunities that non-Indigenous Australians currently enjoy. The most often cited expression of that gap is the 17-year gap between life expectancy of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Seventy-five per cent of males and 65 per cent of female Indigenous Australians die before the age of 65 compared to 26 and 16 per cent respectively in the non-Indigenous population. Ultimately, the success of each and every one of us as legislators and parliamentarians will be measured not merely in the small but significant step that we have taken in moving this motion of apology; the real judgement will be passed on whether we collectively can achieve inroads in these very important measures. That will be the real test for us all. But I say that while also understanding and knowing how significant the giving of an apology was. In giving an apology, we as a parliament, on behalf of this nation, have moved away one of the important stumbling blocks towards reconciliation. In doing so, we show the respect that Indigenous Australians deserve and that the past mistreatment they have been subjected to demands. When I saw all of the people throughout this building, throughout Canberra and throughout Australia shedding tears last week on Wednesday, 13 February, it struck me that, regardless of how significant any debate over the subtleties of language could possibly be, deep down beneath the semantics of saying sorry or just simply being regretful there was much suffering and much hurt that had extended to many people. It impacted on many families and Maureen Silleri’s family was but one affected by this great stain on our nation’s soul. It is not only significant; I think moving this motion of apology is going to prove to be one of the most significant things that this parliament has done. It is a great source of personal pride to me that I have been able to participate in this debate and to add my voice to the chorus of voices in this place that have said that it is time for us to move on. But, before doing so, we need to confront the realities of what has occurred. We need to say sorry and we need to move on with mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility. 1040 16:40:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —It was of real interest to me to have the opportunity to speak on this motion on the apology to Australia’s Indigenous peoples. I was fairly happy that most of the members were going to talk about the apology and the historic occasion which occurred last week, but I have picked up on a number of media reports and the various reactions and the understandings of the apology from the other side of the House. I know speakers from both sides have many perspectives on it. However, the seat of Forde is a Gold Coast hinterland seat and to the south and to the east are the conservative seats of Fadden, McPherson and Moncrieff. Those seats, like part of the seat of Forde, have media coverage by the Gold Coast Bulletin, a major publication. In fact, its Saturday paper has a circulation of about 76,000 copies. I was very concerned last Saturday about an article written by a young journalist called Robyn Wuth. I am sure that Robyn wrote the piece with good intentions, to raise the level of debate and to cover the reaction from all sides of politics and from the community about the apology. I hope that it was a piece designed to raise a contention and maybe produce more understanding of the debate or at least to articulate what I know a lot of people in the community were saying about the apology. Many members would have received many emails about the issue, but a chain email that has been circulated is becoming most concerning to me. The email, which I believe derived from an email that was circulated in Canada when they were looking at the indigenous issues of the Canadian Indians some years ago, carries a range of fleeting statements. People can have their say—Australia is a democracy—and this is certainly an opportunity to have a debate, but I was rather concerned when this journalist wrote a feature article in the Gold Coast Bulletin. I seek leave to present the article. Leave granted. HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —I ask that all members have a look at this article. It was in a major publication. This is something that you would expect, dare I say, from some of the more conservative areas of western Queensland—and that is not to cast any aspersions on western Queensland, but they certainly do have a different view, for a range of reasons, to those of us in metropolitan seats. I will read a number of paragraphs from the article, and you will see where this is going. I am sure, as I said, that the young journalist was trying to raise the level of debate. It questions the level of freedom of the press in this country. I am quite happy that a story like this has been written. I ask that members on the other side of the House consider their responses, certainly those members from the Gold Coast seats that are covered by this publication. The journalist is asking what this is all about. The headline is ‘What a sorry lot of rot’, which in itself is a bit concerning. She says: As P.G. Woodhouse said: ‘It is a good rule in this life never to aplologise. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them.’ To be honest, I’m sick of all this namby-pamby boo-hoo-ing about bloody saying sorry. How much of this is hype and how much of it actually happened? That is concerning. There is plenty of evidence that a condition or situation occurred. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr Ripoll —Holocaust deniers. HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —Yes, it is almost holocaust denial, a bit like many other historians who have tried to deny other issues in history. I will not say that our Indigenous issues in this country are anywhere near as extreme as the holocaust but, in terms of people’s understanding and views, carrying this on into perpetuity is concerning. The fact is it was a young journalist writing about this particular stuff. She goes on to say: I’m much more of your ‘what’s in it for me’ kind of girl—and there’s nothing for me in saying sorry except a giant payout my taxes will fund. It also says: But I have to say sorry. Sorry for giving you free medical care, for giving you money, for building you homes which you vandalised and destroyed and treated with contempt and we paid to fix. Sorry for developing large farms and properties, which today feed your people. Sorry for providing you with warm clothing made of fabric to replace the animal skins you used before. It goes on to talk more about the particular things that so-called white society has given. Further, she says: … let’s take it international. …     …         … Check under every rock, there’s something to apologise for everywhere you look. The tribal war in Rwanda, the atrocities in Cambodia, the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan. The Middle East. Uh-oh. For all we know, Mohammed and Jesus played together as kids. But Jesus would have been the cool kid. Well, it’s true. This journo may not be aware of what occurred to Salman Rushdie some years ago and the extremes of views which we do not have in this country. I am concerned that this sort of journalism could bring this notion to a point. As I said, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to this journalist. In fact, any politician knows it is dangerous to bang the media, but in this case I would be interested to know whether this is the feeling of the general community, certainly in the region I represent. And I would like to know the views of other members. Look at what happened in Queensland particularly. Only last night in my first speech I mentioned the era of the Bjelke-Petersen government. I was only seven years old when Indigenous people were finally recognised through the referendum in 1967. It was a time that all Australians celebrated through the ballot box and the referendum. There was overwhelming agreement that Indigenous people should be considered part of Australian society and have all the rights we have. Far more justified, people could stand here and talk about what that 1967 referendum meant for everybody. Certainly, it gave the country an understanding. It was probably the first point of reconciliation, and on the Labor side of politics we talk about the processes of reconciliation. Last night I said that the sorry in this case, the historic apology last week, were really carrying on from the last Labor government in terms of proceeding with the apology. Getting back to the years of the Bjelke-Petersen government: as I said in my first speech, what galvanised me politically in terms of conservatism was the many strange laws made during that Bjelke-Petersen period. We had no upper house in Queensland, so the rule of the day was made in that one chamber. Of course, it was considered a police state. My own personal experiences suggest it may have been, but again people would have different views on that. The outcome was that there were a number of state ministers who ended up in jail—about seven of them—through a range of bad dealings and convictions for fraud. I remember early in the 1970s a particular Indigenous affairs minister in Queensland talking about the need to work with and support Indigenous communities. His particular idea or initiative was that we should sterilise all 13-year-old Indigenous, or Aboriginal, girls because of unwanted pregnancies. My understanding, from my involvement with the Indigenous community, is that they do not have such things as unwanted pregnancies. That is very much a Western view. That example shows, I guess, the strange and extreme views of the government at that stage, but I thought certainly by the 1980s and 1990s, even under the previous Howard government, there were sensitivities towards Indigenous people. But something went wrong. After the 1997 report and the notion of saying sorry, we somehow went off the track. Getting caught up in the dialogue, the taxonomy of the word, what ‘sorry’ meant, has stalled the process until now. The other side of politics probably consider that they should have dealt with this much sooner—but they did not. We did it because it was something that had to be done, so we can certainly get on with it. Getting back to the Gold Coast Bulletin and Robin Wuth’s story: I am hoping that her intention was to raise this sort of debate so that people could get this stuff out in the open. A lot of these degrading comments were made by chain emails. People were talking about it and I have had people show me messages they received on their phones. My intention today, of course, is to bring it into the open to get some debate about it. There have been a number of publications and letters from different groups. Reconciliation Australia wrote to all members of parliament. I have listened to a number of the discussions and arguments in the House and outside the House about what the apology was all about. I wonder why people keep going over the same old ground, saying that it is conditional and it should be somewhat reconsidered. It is very clear if you have any understanding of Indigenous communities—while I have had some involvement, I am certainly no expert—they are very, very productive, they get on with life and business and they have a very strong and growing community. They talk about sorry business and, interestingly enough, I was aware of sorry business many, many years ago. In our Western culture, if there is a bereavement, if someone dies, then we automatically say sorry. It is about empathy. This was always about empathy. It was not a strange issue or the taxonomy of words; it was about feeling empathy for another group. I refer to a particular publication that I read many, many years ago. I do not want to submit it, but I can hold it up. It is a book called Liberal Thinking. Many people in the Liberal Party would have read this. It is in fact their bible. Chris Puplick and Robert Southey, I think it was, wrote this particular publication and it is a philosophical journal if nothing else. This is why I cannot understand the arguments on the other side of the House about simply saying sorry. This book talks about liberalism and it says: Thus, while we discuss the centrality of the concept of freedom in liberalism, we must begin by establishing the ethical basis of freedom. Further, along with the question of how people should act, there is the question of how they should be treated; or, as it is commonly framed, ‘What rights do people have?’ Our starting point for examining these is the concept of human dignity. This is what I am here today to say. Irrespective of newspaper articles, irrespective of the arguments that are put up in terms of reconsideration, at the end of the day, this is about human dignity. I can give my own experiences in life. I said, again in my first speech last night, that I was an adoptee and there are a whole range of other issues there and a lot of pain involved in that. But, interestingly enough, while adoptions were a legal arrangement that governments well managed, there were still a lot of people hurt and there are still a lot of people hurt today from probably bad decisions that were made from the 1930s right through to the 1990s. It is interesting that, in Queensland particularly, prior to those laws being changed there was an outpouring of grief and certainly then sorry business occurred within Western society in Queensland. Everyone had a view that this was a bad thing and everyone apologised to each other. Changes to the laws and legal requirements were made. That is what I cannot understand. Our Indigenous community have clearly had a number of things done to them under inappropriate laws, as we consider them to be now. This is simply and essentially recognising that the laws were inappropriate. It is a government saying sorry, that governments got it wrong—as has every other state when it came to the adoption legislation in their state. This was about saying: ‘The laws were wrong. We needed to change them. We’re sorry. Let’s get on with it.’ In my closing remarks I would like to consider that, if we look at the publication of that which the other side used as their philosophical tome, really we all should understand that it is about human dignity. I thank you for your indulgence. 1044 16:55:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —Firstly, I would like to congratulate every member of this House who in some way, large or small, has played some part in this apology to the Indigenous people of Australia. I want to also thank the member for Forde, a new member who has just made his contribution, for his thoughts and for his part in that apology. I want to thank every member of this House for their part because it is important that we do it on behalf of the Australian people and on behalf of the Australian parliament. This is not something that we do individually or personally—although that is important as well. It is very important that the Indigenous people of Australia understand that this is a bipartisan, parliamentary and government apology for things that have happened in the past. I also want to make a note that, without any doubt in my mind, this is one of the most significant events to have happened in this place for a very long time. I do not know that we truly understand today just how significant that is. Perhaps in 10, 20, 50 or more years time people will reflect and members of parliament will reflect on the words and speeches and on the apology itself and look back at what we did at that historic moment, that time when the Australian parliament officially made an apology to the Indigenous people of Australia. It is very significant and probably one of the most significant things that we will have done in this place. It seems on the surface so simple, so normal, so natural for it to happen. It certainly was an emotional time for not only members of parliament but the community at large, certainly for Indigenous people, people that were there on the day in the gallery, people that were watching from outside, people that were listening on radio, and people that rang my office, emailed, wrote, texted and in whatever form they could lent their support to what was taking place. It was an outpouring of a national sense of pride in what was happening. I would like to, for the record, read the words of the apology so they can be associated more directly with my speech. With the indulgence of the Main Committee: … today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history. We reflect on their past mistreatment. We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations—this blemished chapter in our nation’s history. The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future. We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians. We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country. For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry. To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry. And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry. We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation. For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written. We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians. A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again. A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity. A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed. A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility. A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia. I wanted to read that into the record because I actually believe in the words. I think they are most profound and most significant and will make a huge difference to this nation. For many people, arising out of the apology was the question: why apologise? There have been many explanations given as to why we should apologise and I will not give any of them, because I feel that, if you get to the point in a conversation or a debate where you need to explain to anybody why something needs to happen, you have already lost your argument. This needs no further explanation. The words contained in the apology in themselves are sufficient explanation, sufficient reason for this apology to have taken place. I also want to refer, on the record, to the very significant moment at the opening of the 42nd Parliament in 2008 where we did a welcome to country. Many Australians listening to my words or reading them later would understand that a welcome to country is quite a normal, well-accepted and well-used way of bringing people together at a particular event. I can think of no more natural, normal and significant way for the Australian parliament to begin its proceedings and open a new parliament than to have a welcome to country. The beauty about it was that, as I sat in the Great Hall, not too sure just how the welcome to country would take place, I felt a welling of emotion, a sense of pride. I just felt this was so much part of what an Australian parliament should be. We are an Australian parliament and this was just a very natural thing to have taken place. By the time the hour had elapsed and we had done the welcome to country, I realised just how that welcome to country from Indigenous folk is meant to be. It really is about opening your arms up wide. It really is about saying, ‘The doors are open to all Australians.’ It really is about saying, ‘You’re all welcome.’ We heard many, many stories on that day—and not only from the Prime Minister but also in the speeches that followed—but one in particular that sticks in my mind is of an elderly Aboriginal gentleman in Canberra who came to the opening of parliament in the early seventies and was told to move on. He was basically told that he was not welcome. Reflecting on that, you would think that today that would be impossible—today, how dare we or anyone else take that attitude? We would all rally up with cries of shame. How could we possibly accept that today, in 2008, we would allow an Aboriginal person, an Indigenous person—or any other person, for that matter—who just wanted to witness proceedings and be a part of the opening of an Australian parliament to be turned away because of who they are? But that did happen and it happened not so long ago. It happened 30 years ago, which seems not long ago at all. The significance of this event—the welcome to country and the apology to Indigenous Australians—I think is the turning of a page, the writing of a new page in history. It is so many significant things. It is a commitment that has been made by this parliament and by this generation of Australians, on behalf of all of us, to Indigenous people. I said at the start and I will say it again: this is not a political matter. This is not an issue of partisan politics because, in the end, it is bigger than each of us individually and, I would say, bigger than all of us collectively. This is a significant event for all Australians, whoever we are and wherever we are from. Interestingly, from some polls taken since the apology, it seems that about 70 per cent of Australians are in support of the apology. There will always be some who do not support something, but they are very much a small voice. I think with the passage of time they will come to understand and to realise that this was a really good thing to do—just a really good and decent thing to do. Seventy per cent is a good figure, in fact, and I am quite proud that so many Australians are fully supportive of what took place. I also want to say that there is a great sense of pride in my local community—in Ipswich, in Inala and right throughout the western corridor. I know how much this means to a lot of people who are not asking for anything out of this. I think, deep down, they just wanted to have this sense of ‘we’re Australian as well’ and ‘we belong’. It is very, very important. While I have the opportunity, I also want to make mention of Ipswich City Council, who have spent the past two years working on an agreement with local Indigenous people on land use. It is significant because it is the first of its kind in Australia. It is significant because it demonstrated leadership; it showed the way forward. This document, which the Ipswich City Council spent two years negotiating in partnership with local Indigenous groups, will be used as a template for all other councils around Australia. I would recommend any council to look at it and see what took place. It was the first time that a local government authority sat down genuinely, in equal partnership, with its local Indigenous people and said: ‘We want to have a land use agreement with you. We want to do that because we respect your views and your appreciation of the land and we want to work with you.’ I think that is really important, so I mention on the record the leadership that was shown by Ipswich City Council and its mayor. I mention the leadership of Mayor Paul Pisasale on this and the hard work of Deputy Mayor Victor Atwood to make it happen. It certainly was not easy, but it was worth doing—that was one of the key messages I got out of it. What is really important, what is maybe more important than a lot of the things that have been said about the apology, is that this really is an opportunity and a point in time where a lot of people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, can move on, where the debate can move on and where there is some sort of finality to one chapter so we can write a new one. I think that is very, very important. Now it is about dealing with those other issues. Now it is about dealing with bridging the gap on life expectancy; we have heard details of just how atrocious that is. It is now about trying to deal with the real issue of health care and the gap in terms of healthcare provision for Indigenous Australians and other Australians. It is now about bridging the gap in educational standards, in opportunity, in careers, in quality of life, in all the other things that we just take for granted and in that sense of belonging and feeling that you are at home. I am sure that migrants to this country would understand exactly what I mean when I say ‘feeling you are at home’, because feeling at home is not so much a case of where you were born. It is like the old saying: home is where you hang your hat. For a lot of Australians—in fact, all Australians that are not originally Australian—the sense of feeling at home is about knowing that you belong; it is about where you hang your hat; it is about having pride in your country; it is about feeling that you are part of your country. To me, the sense of belonging, of empowering people, of giving them the opportunities to move beyond a certain point, is exceptionally significant. The act of apology that this parliament took is not the first—so we should not kid ourselves that somehow we were the very first—but I would say it is the most significant. While we follow in the footsteps of state governments that have already apologised, there was never going to be a true apology, I felt, until it came from the Commonwealth, from the national parliament, from us, so I am very proud that took place. I have got to congratulate the Prime Minister, because what he did was a courageous thing. It showed real leadership; it was about nation building and it was about decency. They are the key elements, to me, of what this was about. It was simple enough, yet it took so long to happen. What is truly amazing is that it has taken more than 100 years for us to finally decide to make the hardest decision of all, the decision that just seemed to be impossible. For many years we heard every possible excuse, but that is all they were: excuses from people that were too weak and lacked the courage to make what seemed like such a hard decision. In the end, if we reflect back now, it just seems so easy, so natural, such a part of something that we should all have done a long, long time ago. I would just like to finish with a couple of thoughts. One is that it took us more than a hundred years to get to this point of making an apology. Let it not take us another 100 years before we bridge the gap on health, education and opportunity. Let us do something significant about those issues as well. What this apology clearly does—and this is why I support it so strongly—is to right the wrongs of the past and to set a path to the future for true reconciliation, for the building of goodwill and for a new beginning for both Indigenous people and all other Australians. Today I want to record my great pleasure in supporting the apology. As I said before, sometimes what seem to be the hardest things in the world to do turn out to be the easiest. (Time expired) 1048 17:10:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 1 0 Ms BURKE —Firstly, I would like to pay my respects to the Wurundjeri, the traditional owners of the land in my electorate of Chisholm, and their elders past and present. Last Wednesday was a profoundly significant day in the life of this parliament and of this nation, a day on which the parliament finally apologised to the stolen generations. I wish to add to the many expressions of sorrow from both sides of the chamber my own apology. As an Australian and as a member of parliament—the very institution that passed laws and policies that caused the removal of Aboriginal children from their parents and families—I am sorry. I am sorry for the unspeakable pain and the enormous grief, suffering and loss that these actions inflicted upon the many thousands of members of the stolen generations who continue to live with the impact of these unjust policies every day. The grief and injustice is ongoing and resonates today. I cannot begin to imagine the torment experienced by those who were wrenched from their parents and, in turn, those who had their children torn away from them—terrible acts that were the result of policies generated by the Australian parliament and based on nothing more than race. It is my fervent wish, and the wish of Australians, that the apology delivered by the parliament will, in the words of the Prime Minister, ‘remove a great stain from the nation’s soul’ and truly allow the nation, united in the spirit of reconciliation, to build a new future together. Many here in the House have mentioned the overwhelming reactions of those present here in the chamber and across the nation to the Prime Minister’s speech. I was deeply moved to be in the presence of those from the stolen generations who made their way here to hear an apology that many had thought would never take place—certainly not in their lifetime. The sense of joy and relief, felt by Indigenous and non-Indigenous people alike, that finally—finally—the parliament, and hence the nation, had recognised and acknowledged the truth of the suffering of the stolen generation was palpable. It was truly a momentous and moving day, a historic day, and I am proud to be a member of the government that initiated the motion and of a parliament that provided bipartisan support. This mood in the nation for reconciliation was reflected in my electorate of Chisholm. I was inundated with hundreds of impassioned letters and emails from constituents expressing their wholehearted support for an apology. Many schools throughout my electorate thoughtfully commemorated the morning’s events with their students. Here are just a few I would like to mention: classes at Roberts McCubbin Primary School in Box Hill South and Kerrimuir Primary School in Box Hill North held related activities after watching the broadcast. Mount Scopus Memorial College in Burwood, a very large Jewish school, set up a booth with posters, information and a TV and a DVD replaying the morning’s broadcast. Avila College in Mount Waverley, which has a long relationship with the Indigenous community through Alice Springs, published information in their daily bulletin in the two weeks leading up to the day of the apology. On the day, they began with prayers and watched the broadcast in class, and erected a stand on which they, too, said they were sorry. Last year I actually conducted a reconciliation forum for school captains through to year 12 at Avila, and it was a truly moving occasion to hear our youth also expressing their sorriness. As the House is aware, the nation was confronted with those shocking practices through the Bringing them home report, which outlined the devastating stories of thousands of Indigenous families being torn apart by forced removal up until as recently as 1970. Let no-one forget that these practices occurred not in the distant past but as recently as 1970; there are many Indigenous people, now in their late 20s and early 30s, who were removed from their families under these policies. In enacting these policies, different states had separate laws which governed their implementation. Children could be put into an institution or mission dormitory. Some were fostered or adopted, often after spending time in a children’s home. Many spent time in more than one institution or foster family. Many were sent out to work. Others were moved from institutions or foster families to detention centres or psychiatric hospitals. Today I want to tell the story of Kutcha Edwards, a member of the stolen generation who grew up in children’s homes in my electorate of Chisholm and who is a member of the Whitehorse Friends for Reconciliation group. Kutcha is an acclaimed singer-songwriter, and I have Kutcha’s permission to tell his story. I am also happy to say that Kutcha was here at Parliament House to watch the apology last Wednesday, along with seven of his siblings. It was a very important day for Kutcha and his family. Kutcha was 18 months old when he was taken from his parents in Balranald, in south-west New South Wales, along with five of his brothers and sisters. Kutcha and his siblings were eventually reunited at the Orana Children’s Home, in Burwood in my electorate, where they remained for years. Kutcha also spent part of his early childhood at the Allambie children’s home in Elgar Road. We can only try to imagine the grief, pain and suffering Kutcha and his siblings went through growing up without their family in institutions—taken from their parents because of unjust government policies. I knew many children who lived in Allambie, Orana, the Burwood Boys Home and the Burwood children’s home as my family was involved in church camps where we took children from these institutions for outings. These were predominantly foster children from white Australian families. I did not meet any Indigenous children, but I knew of their suffering from having been separated from their families and living in these homes. These homes have now been shut down, which in one way is a very good thing. But I knew of the pain and suffering of the children I met. They had been removed from their families and placed within fairly similar cultures—I cannot begin to imagine how hard it would have been for Kutcha and his siblings to undergo this transition. Although he met his mother at the age of seven, Kutcha was not reunited with her until he was 14. Because of their separation, he says he found it hard to recognise a bond with his mother when they were together again. Kutcha says he was at parliament last Wednesday as part of a family collective to accept the apology on behalf of his mother and father, who he says tragically ‘went to their grave’ wondering what they had done wrong to have their children taken from them. Kutcha is passionate about his music because he sees it as a way of letting people know that the stolen generation was not a myth—‘it did really happen to real people’. Kutcha has also used his experiences to help others. For the last 19 years, he has worked in the community at various organisations in Melbourne such as the Aboriginal Community Elders Services, the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service, the Fitzroy Stars Youth Club Gymnasium and the Koorie Open Door Education school at Glenroy. He is particularly interested in working with Koori youth to empower them with a strong sense of self-worth, self-expression, self-belief and self-determination. Kutcha’s trip to Canberra was supported by the Whitehorse Friends for Reconciliation. I want to make mention of the great work that the Whitehorse group does in my electorate to further the progress of reconciliation, and to thank them for supporting Kutcha to make it to that very special day. I also want to pay tribute to the tireless work that the Wurundjeri elder Professor Joy Murphy does for her people in the name of reconciliation. Joy is a tremendous advocate for her people but more importantly for the broader community in bringing these two cultures together. I had the honour and pleasure of Joy conducting a welcome to country ceremony in my electorate office not long after I was elected in 1998. It was truly one of the most moving experiences I have had. A group of Aboriginal elders squashed into my tiny office in Box Hill. We decided that a smoking ceremony probably could not be conducted there; we would probably get in trouble. But passing the gum leaf around was a magnificent occasion and I would encourage others to enjoy that wonderful experience we all had the other day when parliament was opened. In his speech the Prime Minister left no doubt that it was the laws enacted by parliament that brought about the stolen generation, and that it was the deliberate policies of the state in the years 1910 to 1970 that led to between one in 10 and one in three young Aboriginal children being removed from their families. The Prime Minister provided the example—one of many on the historical record—of the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, whose words make clear that the practice of Indigenous child removal in this country was predicated solely on the basis of race. The shameful goal was that children of ‘mixed descent’, particularly those with fairer skin, would be absorbed into the wider community so that their unique cultural values and identities would disappear. The goal of assimilation was vigorously pursued. Children and their families were discouraged or prevented from keeping in contact; lies were told that parents did not want to speak to their children or were dead; children’s names were changed or children were raised to hate their Aboriginality and to not speak the language; mission schools that were misleadingly put forth as providing a sound education provided nothing more than preparation for a life of menial labour; sexual abuse in foster homes and institutions was prevalent. There is no question that against the odds some did find happiness in their new homes and were cared for by loving foster families or, less frequently, a conscientiously run institution. That is not in doubt, but this outcome is not the intention of the policy. As the Prime Minister and former Prime Minister Keating asked: imagine if this had happened to you. The effect upon Indigenous children and parents has proved devastating. As the Bringing them home report points out, every Indigenous family has been impacted by the forced removal of children. By saying sorry, we acknowledge the pain of the stolen generation and the truth of what has occurred—that it did take place—and we wish to make amends for the harm caused. It is by our facing up to the past that true reconciliation can take effect and the nation can, united, address the injustices that face Indigenous Australia today. As Sir William Deane, the former Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, stated: It should, I think be apparent to all well-meaning people that true reconciliation between the Australian nation and its indigenous people is not achievable in the absence of acknowledgement by the nation of the wrongfulness of the past dispossession, oppression and degradation of the Aboriginal peoples. However, this necessary apology is only a start. As we commit in this apology to never again allow injustice to be inflicted upon Australia’s Indigenous people, we must do all we can to tackle the overwhelming disadvantage they face. The statistics are stark and shocking. Whether it is in educational achievement, employment or life expectancy, Indigenous people lag far behind the rest of the population. We must use the goodwill generated by the apology as a springboard to close the gap. The resolve is there. The Prime Minister has put up real targets that the government can be judged on and measured by. And it is in the spirit of a new beginning that the Leader of the Opposition has also grasped this challenge by agreeing to head, with the Prime Minister, a joint policy commission to develop and implement an effective housing strategy for remote communities over the next five years. With the goodwill generated by the apology, the nation can, in the spirit of reconciliation, put behind itself the failings of past parliaments and move forward together, making real inroads in fighting these inadequacies. It is now my wish, the wish of the parliament and the wish of this country that, through acknowledging these past injustices and asking forgiveness, and through the generosity of Indigenous Australia accepting that apology, a spirit of healing can take place in which we can confront present-day Indigenous disadvantage. I wholeheartedly support the motion put forward by the Prime Minister. I commend the motion to the House. 1051 17:22:00 Shorten, Bill, MP 00ATG Maribyrnong ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services 1 0 Mr SHORTEN —I would like to acknowledge the Kulin Nation, the traditional owners of the land in the area which I represent, and pay my respects to the elders. According to David Horton’s encyclopedia, it was these people I have just referred to with whom John Batman dealt in 1835, when he believed that he had bought the site of Melbourne. Last week, in fact, we saw a momentous and long overdue event take place in the House when the Prime Minister apologised to the stolen generations. As the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, said: We acknowledged the past and laid claim to a new future of shared opportunity for all Australians. We did it to go some way towards righting past wrongs, to complete ... unfinished business. We did it to build a new relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians based on respect, cooperation and mutual responsibility. I add my wholehearted support to that apology. It was long overdue and a credit to our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, that he made it a priority on the first sitting of the 42nd Parliament. In fact, it is just over 40 years since the referendum of 1967 that asked for a repeal of section 127 of the Constitution, which stated that Australian natives shall not be counted in the reckoning of the numbers of the Commonwealth. Before this there was a 10-year campaign by the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. Then the referendum was held in Australia. That referendum was overwhelmingly endorsed, by 90.8 per cent of the voting public. The 1967 referendum deleted section 127 of the Constitution. But, 41 years later, Indigenous people die 17 years earlier than other Australians. Forty-one years from our acknowledgement that no longer were Indigenous Australians to be numbered amongst the fauna, they are still disadvantaged. Could there be a starker reminder of inequality in Australia than the massive gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians? They suffer more diabetes, heart disease, the ravages of Third World diseases like rheumatic fever and trachoma, more infantile deaths and hospitalisation, more violence, more accidents, more mental health problems, more substance abuse, more unsanitary living conditions and more years in jail. The Productivity Commission report Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage showed that there is still an overwhelming and unacceptable gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in health, education and employment and income. Nearly 20 years after the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommended prison as a last resort, between 2000 and 2006 there was a 32 per cent jump in the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders locked up. Indigenous students are only half as likely as other Australians to complete year 12 in education. The unemployment rate for Indigenous Australians is still three times higher than for other Australians, and the yawning income gap between us is a disgrace. I think it is a disgrace that we spent so much of the last 10 years clarifying policies to an electorate that does not understand some topics, yet we found it so hard to utter those two syllables: ‘sorry’. I believe that the issue of the apology has enlarged the hearts, the hopes and the pride of Aboriginal people beyond any measure that I as a non-Aboriginal Australian could have imagined. I believe we were all surprised at the outpouring of interest and the almost sense of relief that the deed had finally been conducted. I do not believe that saying sorry is window dressing; I believe it is a circuit-breaker. By acknowledging wrongs and assessing honestly and rigorously what needs to be done, we move forward. I believe it is the first mile post of a spiritual highway, the way back home for thousands of broken egos and brutalised childhoods, of people so long accustomed to being treated as second class. I believe that saying sorry begins the reconciliation, the building of trust, the mutual respect and the acceptance that can address the underlying discrimination which is a key impediment to the employment opportunities of Indigenous people. Until recently I was a union leader, so employment and workplaces were my business. At the end of last year I looked at what was happening work wise to Indigenous people 40 years on from the referendum. I know that people were happy to boast about Australia’s record low unemployment, but it is not low for everyone. Indigenous people are three times more likely to be unemployed than other Australians and their participation rate only ranks at three-quarters of the average. Of those in work, they are most likely to be employed in low-paid public sector jobs or in low-skilled jobs in the private sector, with Work for the Dole schemes accounting for an ever-increasing share of Indigenous employment. But, surely, if this is a lucky country Indigenous people would be earning the same as the rest of us. The answer should be yes, but in the year 2004-05 Indigenous people on average earned $278 a week less than the rest of us. I believe that the employment policies of the last 11 years have failed Indigenous Australians, especially if we judge them on what is a pretty fundamental indicator: how much you earn and how that flows on correspondingly to a reduction in poverty. When over half of the pay packets of Indigenous Australians in fact comes from government pensions and allowances we have a problem. The Productivity Commission revealed that in the 10 years to 2004 Indigenous workers had no measurable real increase in income. If you are an adult in Australia aged 45 to 54 and you are not Indigenous, you are likely to earn nearly 2½ times what your Indigenous counterpart of the same age earns. How could this be happening in the golden years of prosperity? It defies belief. I believe we need to inquire into the pay inequities and the factors at work here. Surely this will be a role for the new government. Labor knows that a mark of a fair and just society is how it treats its most disadvantaged citizens. Kevin Rudd and Jenny Macklin have committed Labor to closing the 17-year life expectancy gap, starting with Indigenous children being born today. The Labor government’s initiatives are about making sure that every Indigenous mother and her child have access to comprehensive child and maternal health, home visits, early childhood development, universal preschool for four-year-olds, intensive literacy and numeracy intervention, health care, parenting support and education initiatives in cooperation with state governments and local communities. It is all vital but, to me, education is the key. It is certainly key to creating projects and employment opportunities and to laying the groundwork for a brighter future based on equality and partnership. There are many mistakes to rectify, but I believe that the apology was an enormous step. I believe the healing has already begun. I would like to mention a good friend of mine, Colleen Marion, who once said: Having been brought up in a large family in remote Queensland, living in a tin hut, I loved the fact that our family spoke our language, hunted our own food and lived traditionally. All aboriginal kids should experience that lifestyle. Colleen, who lives in my electorate, now runs a wonderful place called the Gathering Place in the suburb of Maribyrnong, just outside my electorate in my colleague the Hon. Nicola Roxon’s electorate of Gellibrand. Official estimates are that the Indigenous population in the western suburbs of Melbourne number around 3,000, although the Gathering Place thinks it is closer to 4,000. The Gathering Place provides a very good model of intervention which actively assists in practical ways the lives of Indigenous Australians. This place provides accessible services, including a family support unit; a GP clinic, home and community care programs; playgroups; justice and youth workers; and many more. The service has been growing rapidly. For instance, in the last 12 months there has been a 50 per cent increase in the number of clients accessing the Gathering Place services. A year ago, 70 to 80 clients were attending the clinic every month and now it is 140 to 150. Many of them have complex chronic diseases and social circumstances which require referral to services and also support to attend these services. An intake worker assesses every new client to ensure the issues are identified so that appropriate services can be offered. The demand has grown so much that they are expanding from their current premises and have set up a satellite service in Werribee in the Hon. Julia Gillard’s electorate. I was honoured to invite and host Colleen Marion here in Canberra for Sorry Day. She is a magnificent and caring woman who opens her heart for all. The joy and solemnity of Sorry Day touched us all and I think the repercussions are beginning to ripple across the waters of our community immediately. According to Colleen’s Gathering Place: Since the Australian Government’s apology to the stolen generations the gathering place has had an increased number of people from stolen generations approaching the service for support. The apology has been an important step for these people in acknowledging their history to improve their well being. I heartily support the motion of the Prime Minister in making an apology to the stolen generations. I commit myself wholeheartedly to this new and more hopeful chapter in Australia in celebrating our ongoing story of reconciliation with Indigenous Australia. 1000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. PN Slipper)—As he is a new member, I did not interrupt him, but the member should refer to ministers either simply by their electorates or by their ministerial responsibilities and not by name. 1054 17:33:00 Vale, Danna, MP VK6 Hughes LP 0 0 Mrs VALE —I welcome and strongly support this motion of an apology to our Indigenous Australians, especially those who were forcibly removed from their mothers, their families, their communities and their land. Firstly, I offer my respects to the traditional owners of this land in Canberra, the Ngunawal people, and also the traditional owners of the land in my electorate of Hughes, the Dharawal of the coastal regions of Sutherland Shire and the Cabrogal people of the Liverpool area, who archaeologists suggest inhabited the land for over 40,000 years. I know there are many of my constituents who will heartily approve of my support for this motion but, as is to be expected in the healthy, robust democracy that is Australia today, there will be those who will not understand and so I seek to explain to them my reasons. To those who say that this generation, our current generation of Australians, have no share in the responsibility of the actions of generations past, I point out that the policy of removal was a government policy and it was carried out under the orders of Commonwealth and state parliaments over several decades. Parliaments, unlike human beings, command an inherent timeless sovereignty. For example, authorised agreements or contracts, treaties or memorandums of understanding of a parliament, as well as legislation, continue from one government to another and are honoured as existing formal instruments of the parliament. Indeed, parliaments could not be effective as the ultimate authority of our nation if it were otherwise. Therefore, it is right and fitting for this parliament, as the appropriate legal entity, to publicly and humbly express sorrow and contrition for this shameful blot on our national escutcheon. I am grateful that I am actually here as one of the federal members of this parliament to add my name to the names of those who support this motion. I agree with the comments of the member for Oxley, who said that he felt that this was perhaps one of the most significant events in this parliament. Whether the children were stolen or rescued, whether the cause was either fear of or actual abuse, neglect or outright danger of harm, the permanent separation of children from their mothers and communities is not the way to correct any perceived social concern. Whatever the good intentions our forefathers may have had to save these children—and we all know that the road to hell is indeed paved by good intentions—the forced removal of children on a permanent basis from their mothers is a gross act of inhumanity and emotional cruelty. The well-documented stories of the subsequent periods of many of the lives of these children reveal too many who were neglected, abused and violated by the separation. While, no doubt, there were many who were educated and who lived in caring environments, we now also know that far too many experienced a living hell on earth. There are many who have lived in constant fear of physical danger. However, because of their forced separation from their mothers and families, we now know that they all, even those who were properly cared for, suffered severe emotional and psychological scarring that continued for the rest of their lives and, for many, continues to this day. What of the mothers? How did they live any kind of life after their children were taken? How could they have found any kind of peace or respite from their distress and their anguish? I would have gone mad if any of my children were taken from me. The good intentions of the parliament, the government of the day and the welfare officers or other officials would have been utterly and totally irrelevant to a grieving and distraught mother. All she would know is that inexplicably and without just cause her babies were taken by strangers and she may never see them again. The very least this parliament can do is say a very public and humble sorry to these children, to these mothers and indeed to all of our nation’s first people. I am grateful to have been in this parliament when this was done. Hopefully, there will now be many Indigenous Australians who will know in their hearts that we here in this place have listened to their voices and have come to understand the terrible sufferings many have endured, although through seriously misguided intentions of good. Hopefully, with this powerful, symbolic expression of sorrow, expressed in the national parliament by the national parliament, the healing can now really begin. There are those who have said that this is simply a grand, symbolic gesture. But symbols have a real role to play in human relationships. They can represent a great promise of a new dawn in such relationships and this one carries with it great portents for our future together. This is a new beginning and this new dawn demands that we do not allow this sorry motion to be just all there is. We as a parliament must ensure that it is a symbol that carries with it great substance in delivering equality and equity for all Australians, and that means addressing the disadvantage we know is grossly suffered by many of our Indigenous Australians today. The Prime Minister is quite right when he says: It is not a sentiment that makes history; but it is our actions that make history. Now is the time to change the history of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. I welcome the announcement from the Prime Minister that he will establish a joint policy commission to be led by him and the Leader of the Opposition to develop and implement, to begin with, an effective housing strategy for remote communities over the next five years. This is an excellent next step because, while housing is vital for the proper care of families, individual homeownership is a greater leverage for true equality and equity for Indigenous Australians. The community title system of landownership in remote communities where all land is actually owned by the community itself or by a land council is nothing other than a communist collective. Indeed, I am concerned about an article in today’s Australian by Patricia Karvelas which talks about the 99-year lease system instigated by the previous Prime Minister and the then Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough. In the article Karvelas says: The 99-year lease system was designed to give Aborigines the opportunity to buy and look after their own homes rather than return to the communal title—the system under which all land is jointly owned by the local community. This indeed is a communist style collective and it is something that we do not impose on other Australians. We should not bear inequality and inequity and impose it on our Indigenous Australians. There is something dignified about being able to own one’s home, and our Indigenous Australians have that right alongside non-Indigenous Australians. I strongly supported the measures by the previous Prime Minister in this regard and I commend the value of individual homeownership to the current Prime Minister. The conditions and living standards of Australians in remote communities have challenged governments now for some decades. In more recent times we have heard the stories of horror and violence against women and children in many of those remote communities—stories that make us realise that many of them are at the point where they live their lives in constant fear and hunger. Back in 1998 I actually spoke on a report by Professor Boni Robertson from Griffith University in Queensland where she and a panel of Indigenous women elders went and investigated the violence in remote Indigenous communities in North Queensland. I was concerned that for about two years after that report was handed down it was met with silence. Nothing, however, is quite as powerful as an idea whose time has come and it is now clear that the concept that we have to address the violence and neglect in remote Indigenous communities is right before us. Many of the children and women who have been subjected to violence in these remote communities have experienced neglect induced by the unlimited alcohol, and have been debased by the pornographic material, available in those communities. In a way, this was a result of further misguided good intentions of the government of the day, but also the debilitating corrosive impact of welfare. I note many of the comments that have been articulated by leaders of Indigenous communities today regarding how welfare kills softly. I commend again the previous minister for Indigenous affairs, the Hon. Mal Brough, for his work in addressing this serious issue in many of our remote communities of Australia. But again I agree with the current Prime Minister when he said: The old approaches are not working. We need a new beginning ... a new beginning that draws intelligently on the experiences of new policy settings across the nation. I would like to make a contribution to this new beginning and it is appropriate that we make a start with housing and with the education of children, as he has indeed suggested; but this must be done in a culturally sensitive manner. At this point I make the observation that abused and neglected children are found not just in remote Indigenous communities but also in non-Indigenous Australia. Indeed, it is a regular and genuine cause for wondering whether or not we actually like children in our country anymore when we see the constant news reports of abuse and violence against Australian children. Last year most Australians were shocked and horrified to hear of a little girl who was starved to death, and only yesterday I was disturbed to hear news of two young children who died in mysterious circumstances in their home in a suburb close to Liverpool in my electorate. It is clear that the agencies that various Australian governments have put in place for the protection of Australian children are not working. It is impossible for a DoCS officer to live permanently in the homes of troubled families. If ever there was an urgent call for a new beginning it is certainly here in the protection of young Australians, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. Imagine if we could provide safe accommodation for these children that included a structured learning environment where meals and supervised play were provided with care and a genuine commitment to their progress. Imagine if these centres had world-class facilities, state-of-the-art classrooms and swimming pools, tennis courts, playing fields, fully equipped gyms, craft and music rooms. Why not? Why could the centres not boast the very best teachers and special educators that money could buy? Not only can I imagine such a place but I know of such a place. It is Boys Town in my electorate at Engadine. Boys Town provides such a structured learning environment for boys who come from troubled families. The boys generally arrive on Sunday evenings and return to their homes on Friday evenings for the weekend. Such learning facilities as Boys Town could easily be provided across the nation by the federal government. We are wealthy enough to provide for our children. Teachers could ideally be on rotation from the mainstream educational system of each state, with specialist teachers and educators appointed as required. Such centres could offer first-class facilities and maintain the highest educational standards. They would provide a real circuit-breaker for a child existing in neglected or traumatic circumstances who is identified as needing interim protection from a troubled family or community. However, the children would not be permanently separated from their parents or families or those communities because they would be able to return home on weekends or on a basis that is practical and suitable to each individual child. The children would be able to maintain—indeed, would be encouraged to maintain—those vital links with culture, family and community. The provision of appropriate housing and education for children are only two areas of concern that require our immediate attention and action if we are to implement important actual indicators of our genuine expression of reconciliation. It will, indeed, be a new page in our shared history that will allow us to write a vision for a bright future together as fellow Australians, as one people. I wholeheartedly welcome and support this motion to say sorry and I commend the motion to the House. 1057 17:47:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —Last week this parliament said what was true and did what was just. When we seek to reconcile ourselves with those to whom great wrongs have been done, we must first tell the truth. We must first acknowledge what was done, because if we fail to recognise the truth there can be no reconciliation. The parliament last week collectively did just that. We recognised that great wrongs had been done, wrong policies of past parliaments and past governments, some of which intended and all of which assumed the gradual disappearance of the Aboriginal people of Australia. They were said to be a dying race. It was said that the kindest thing, the only thing, that could be done was to smooth the pillow of their passing. The stories told in the Bringing them home report are horrible to recall, horrible to relate and have traumatised many people when they have read them. I first heard about the stolen generation long before that, some years before when I was working closely with Lowitja O’Donoghue. She told me her own story, which was new to me. I had never imagined that policies in the 20th century had been as racially based or that programs of removal of children for reasons that were racially based had been so widespread over such a long period of time. When we recognise the error of those ways, we should not be mealy-mouthed about stating them to be wrong. We did that. Wednesday last week was a very proud day to be a member of the Australian parliament. So much of what we say here is lost in the fury of partisan debate and political points scored, but last week this parliament spoke from the heart. I believe we spoke for the vast majority of Australians. We were right to say sorry and I was very proud to stand together with members of the House of Representatives from both sides in saying sorry on behalf of the parliament and on behalf of the people we represent. Some Australians have been concerned about taking on guilt. ‘Intergenerational guilt’ is the phrase that has been used. We cannot take on the guilt of wrongs that were done by other people. Nobody can take on the guilt of a wrong done by another person. If guilt is to be imputed to the actions of others, then that guilt stands with them. What we can do is open our hearts and recognise those wrongs and recognise the errors that were made and express our empathy and compassion from the bottom of our heart. When we do that we are engaged in what Pope John Paul II once described as the purification of memory. Memory has to be respected. It has to be true. We have to recognise what was done, then we have to recognise the facts and then we have to recognise the character of what was done and provide our own moral response to it. In doing that and in saying sorry, making that apology for wrongs that were done in previous times, we build a bridge towards true reconciliation. It enables us to move on. Just as the apology, the statement of ‘sorry’, was so meaningful, symbolic, so generous and so much from the heart, so too was the way in which it was accepted. I was as moved by the Aboriginal people in the parliament with the T-shirts carrying the word ‘Thanks’ as I was by any of the oratory from the members of parliament who spoke so eloquently on the day. That acceptance of the apology was an act of grace, and it provided the completion of that purification of memory of which the Pope spoke. When I left the chamber and walked out into the Great Hall and the surrounds I saw so many people, but I was looking for one. I was looking for Lowitja O’Donoghue. And there she was, the woman who had told me first about the stolen generation, told me her own personal story, told me about the hurt and the sense of betrayal and the yearning for reconciliation. And there she was, at the moment when ‘sorry’ was said, when the apology was given. I will never forget that moment. I do not think any of us who were here last week will ever forget it. In this parliament of course we represent all Australia. We represent our own constituents, but we represent all Australia. When we rise together we represent the nation that elected us. But we also come here as representatives of our own community, and I just want to record the commitment of so many people in my electorate of Wentworth, Indigenous Australians and many non-Indigenous Australians, who wrote to me and called me and urged me to support the motion. Of course, most of them knew that I did support the motion—I have been on the record about this for some time. They lent their support to the apology and told me that I had their support in saying sorry. I feel that day brought Australians together. I do not believe it carried guilt from one generation to another. I do not think that is possible. What I think it did do was carry an act of grace from our generation to the generations that were so cruelly wronged. 1058 17:55:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 1 0 Ms LIVERMORE —I begin my contribution on the motion of apology to Australia’s Indigenous peoples by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which this parliament meets. I want to thank Matilda House and the Ngunawal elders for their welcome to country which was performed at the opening of parliament last Tuesday. I would also like to pay my respects to the Darumbal people, who are the traditional owners of Rockhampton and much of the land which is included within my electorate of Capricornia. For me the act of apologising to the members of the stolen generations and their families who have followed them, and who today carry the hurt that was done to their mums and dads and aunties and uncles, is easy. I have always believed that to follow our very fundamental human instincts when faced with the suffering and pain of another human being and to say sorry—to say sorry when we feel sorry—is the right thing to do. Last week’s apology by the parliament to the stolen generation of Indigenous children, to their descendants and to the families they left behind felt right. It felt right for me standing in the chamber and it felt right for the countless Australians who stopped to watch and listen to the apology and who cried, cheered and embraced at the sound of that word ‘sorry’. It felt right because it was the right thing to do, and it should have been done many years ago. There has been a gap, a chasm, between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia for too long over this failure to be very honest with each other and to feel empathy for what has happened in the past. A lot of speakers—and the preceding speaker, the member for Wentworth, raised it in his comments—have talked about the notion of apologising for something that we individually did not do, that we do not have individual responsibility for and that has not been done by this parliament or by any of us within the parliament. I have had to give an explanation for that to my son. I have a son who is almost five and he put that very basic question to me in the week leading up to the apology in parliament, saying, ‘But why would you say sorry for something that you didn’t do?’ Children often put those things in pretty blunt terms. I explained to him that when you come across someone who is hurting, feels bad and needs comfort surely it is a natural reaction to say, ‘I’m sorry—not sorry that I did something to you, not sorry because it’s my fault that you feel that way, but sorry that you are feeling that way. I am sorry for the hurt that has been done to you and I am sorry for how it has left you feeling.’ My son had no difficulty understanding that when I explained to him how I felt about it—and that is certainly how I do feel about it. These people are hurting, and I am sorry for their hurt. So there is no question for me about the act of saying sorry and all that it symbolises. I guess what I have struggled with are the words to use. What do I say to those Indigenous people in Central Queensland who have been carrying the pain of separation from their mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, the injustice of discrimination and the indignity of their treatment, carried out in the name of past governments? What do I say to them? I have grappled with that task ever since it was announced that, living up to the commitment that we gave to all Australians at the election, there would be an apology given by the parliament to the members of the stolen generation as the first act of a Rudd Labor government in the new parliament. But, after being part of the apology in the parliament last Wednesday and seeing the reaction across the country, I am reassured that when it comes to starting the healing process for the stolen generation and our Indigenous peoples—and, indeed, for our nation as a whole—that one word is strong enough to carry the weight of our expectations, our expectations that that word can right past wrongs and our expectations that it can lead to a better future. So I say ‘Sorry’. In the words of the motion moved in the parliament last week, I am sorry for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on my fellow Australians. I am sorry especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country. I am sorry for the pain, suffering and hurt of those stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind. I say sorry to the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities. And I say sorry for the indignity and degradation that was thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture. I think all of us would hope that last week’s apology represents the turning of a new page in Australia’s history and all of us welcome that opportunity. It has been too long coming and we are pleased that it is now here. In turning that page, however, we should not forget the actions of the past that have done so much damage and that have caused Indigenous people so much pain. We must pay our Indigenous peoples the respect of honouring their history, even those parts that may be uncomfortable for non-Indigenous Australians to face. Turning the page on this chapter should not be read as sweeping this part of our history under the rug. Indigenous people and especially those members of the stolen generations and their families have had to live with the reality of the past for decades—the reality of the past and the legacy of the past that carries on through subsequent generations of those families and communities that were affected by these policies. The Bringing them home report of 1997 brought that history to life and meant that none of us could continue to shelter behind the excuse that we did not know what had happened. Page after page of that report tells us that it happened. It tells us in absolutely heart-rending detail that it happened. Page after page of that report tells us that children were taken away, that abuse happened, that mothers and fathers were left heartbroken and, indeed, many lives were completely broken. Many families, not surprisingly, never, ever recovered from what happened to them. Communities were destroyed and we see the results of these policies in Indigenous communities today. In that report so many brave people told their stories of loss, grief and pain. We owe it to them to face up to what happened, accept that its legacy lives on in present-day disadvantage and take the steps, both practical and symbolic, to make amends. Having said sorry—having said that powerful word ‘sorry’—I feel that I have said enough for now. Now it is time to listen to the Indigenous people in Central Queensland to learn how we can best work together to achieve our shared goal of reducing Indigenous disadvantage in all its forms. When it comes to listening I was given the chance to reflect on what that means in a poem that one of our local Indigenous leaders Margaret Holdagorn sent to me last week after hearing the apology. It is a piece written by a woman called Miriam Rose Ungunmerr. It is called Dadirri: listening to one another. I will be reflecting on this as I go back to my electorate with the aim of working closely with the Indigenous people of Central Queensland and listening to them. The piece says: Dadirri. A special quality, a unique gift of the Aboriginal people, is inner deep listening and quiet still awareness … It is something like what you call contemplation. Miriam Ungunmerr goes on to say: Our people are used to the struggle and the long waiting. We still wait for the white people to understand us better. We ourselves have spent many years learning about the white man’s ways; we have learnt to speak the white man’s language; we have listened to what he had to say. This learning and listening should go both ways. We would like people in Australia to take time and listen to us. We are hoping people will come closer. We keep on longing for the things that we have always hoped for, respect and understanding. We know that our white brothers and sisters carry their own particular burdens. We believe that if they let us come to them, if they open up their minds and hearts to us, we may lighten their burdens. There is a struggle for us, but we have not lost our spirit of Dadirri. I want to thank Margaret Hornagold for sending that to me, because it has given me a lot to think about as I go about working with her and other Indigenous people in my electorate on the very big task we have ahead of us in bridging the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. As Miriam Rose Ungunmerr says in this piece, it has taken a long time, and I hope we are now at that point. I hope we have moved on as a country to a place where we can put aside the unfinished business that has stood between us, that we can now listen to each other in an honest way, where we can truly work together to make this country as good for Indigenous people as it has been for the non-Indigenous people, and that we will have a truly shared future together. 1061 18:06:00 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Calare NATS 0 0 Mr JOHN COBB —As the member for a large electorate, the largest electorate in New South Wales, which also has a very large Aboriginal population, I am obviously aware of the issues surrounding the apology last week and also very aware of the issues surrounding my electorate of Calare and the issues surrounding the Aboriginal people who live in it. Let me tell you that they are a very, very welcome and very, very wanted part of that part of Australia. They play a very important role, as do all people in the electorate of Calare and in fact in western New South Wales. Nobody wants to help Aboriginal Australians move forward—or, more correctly, help them move themselves forward—more than I do, but an apology that does not have the resolve to act, to let the past go, means nothing at all. That really means that everybody on both sides, if there are sides in this debate, has to be able to move forward from the past, from the blame game—as is a popular thing to say these days—and get on with life. There are two sides to every equation or two sides to the game, and both sides have to be able to let go and move forward. I think almost all people in the past—I say ‘almost all’; not everyone, obviously—be they government or whoever, have acted or have thought they acted with the right intentions. But unfortunately there were some who acted under racist misconceptions. We are talking about children who were removed from their families. Obviously, the child’s welfare is much more important than the feelings of the parents involved. It does not matter what the background of the parents is—if a child is in danger then it has to be removed, whether it is 100 years ago or today. But where a child has been removed because of the culture of the parents then obviously there is no question that it was wrong and should not have happened, and let us hope it never happens again. The one thing that I am very disappointed about in the current debate and the talk that has certainly—and I am very pleased that it has—come to the surface since the events of last week is in the events surrounding what has been happening in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia. People are forgetting—I am not, and western New South Wales and New South Wales as a whole are not—that the issues that exist there also exist in New South Wales. In my electorate and in western New South Wales, these issues are also there. I very much urge the new government to work with the New South Wales government to get it to look at its own report, which I will mention in a moment. I take this opportunity to stray away from the straight issue of the apology to look at the issues which are so current around Australia, be they in the Northern Territory, be they in western New South Wales or wherever they might be. I think that in what the Prime Minister calls the new spirit of cooperation or getting rid of the blame game it is incumbent upon the current government to deal with New South Wales and to take action, or to get the New South Wales government, because we are not talking about the Northern Territory here, to take action to make life better for my constituents, particularly my Aboriginal constituents, in the electorate of Calare and western New South Wales—and what affects one really affects the lot, so we are talking about the whole population. I have been very vocal about Indigenous issues in western New South Wales. What really pains me is that the New South Wales government has all but ignored a report first commissioned by the current federal Minister for Home Affairs when he was a minister in the New South Wales government. The report, which is called Breaking the silence: creating the future, addressed child sexual assault in Aboriginal communities in New South Wales, painting a horrific picture of abuse within Indigenous communities in our state, yet it has basically been ignored. In fact, take the report which provided the basis on which the previous government moved to intervene in the Northern Territory, Little children are sacred. Well, the New South Wales report Breaking the silence, which was commissioned a long time before that federal one, having been handed down almost two years before Little children are sacred was, pretty much says exactly what the report on Northern Territory matters, Little children are sacred, said—yet it is being ignored. For those of us who live in New South Wales that is a terrible thing. That is an indictment of the New South Wales government. Most importantly, that is a terrible thing for those little Aboriginal children in New South Wales who are still suffering what is addressed in that report. As a minister, I was very fortunate to have on my staff Peter ‘Chika’ Gibbs. Many of those from the last parliament who are still here, being those on both sides of the chamber who are members of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship Group, will remember Peter’s very powerful speeches, in the committee room and in the Great Hall last year, which left quite a few of you in tears. Peter is a product of the back country of New South Wales. He grew up Weilmoringle, a very small village which is actually in my electorate of Calare. It is north of Brewarrina. He is very proud to be an Aboriginal and of his Indigenous heritage, and it is fair to say that his life has not always been an easy one. He had a simple mantra that he wanted people, particularly Aboriginal people or those of that descent, to know: ‘No matter how difficult one’s life, there is only one person responsible for your own actions, and that is you. Without making changes in your own life then nothing will get better.’ I read with interest an article in the Australian newspaper by its editor-at-large, Paul Kelly, earlier in the week. I believe that it is worth quoting in this forum as it speaks eloquently of the dilemma facing all of us in this place. It does not matter what our political persuasion is as it faces all of us. As the member for Wentworth said earlier, we all represent all Australians. This is what Kelly says: The apology is demanded by our humanity and respect for fellow human beings in a shared community. But Rudd rejects the 1997 demand for compensation, rejects the report’s accusation of genocide and repudiates the false trail of intergenerational guilt. He then goes on to say: This amounts to a devastating critique of the current and past generation of Liberal and Labor governments. At this point Rudd confronts a new denialism. Just as John Howard was wrong to deny the confessional value of the apology, many Laborites are wrong to deny the abject failures of past generation policies. When it comes to Indigenous affairs, many Australians have firm, entrenched views on the subject. The verbal apology which was expressed in parliament last week and was endorsed by all parties is going to please many Aboriginals and many non-Aboriginals. While this might be a symbolic but sincere gesture, I hope it is not used by some people to fuel ongoing divisiveness. It is now incumbent upon all of us to move forward with programs of support and inclusion for our Indigenous communities and to not allow the clock to wind back and raise further resentment and conflict. I think the whole point is that this is a wasted exercise if people cannot move forward from it. Actions always speak louder than words. It is imperative that the actions of this government support an ongoing collaboration between federal government and the Aboriginal communities and people of Australia and that the government shows no fear in taking action where action must be taken—as we did in the Northern Territory last year, backed up at that time by the current Territory government. I am not a Territorian but I have been up there a bit and I know a lot of people, such as Nigel Scullion, with vast experience up there. I think it will be a great pity if the current government brings back the permit system. We really must look upon this as helping the Northern Territory, because the one thing I do know is that, when Aboriginal women of the Northern Territory feel safe to talk about these things, they are themselves very supportive of the actions taken by the Commonwealth government up there last year. I strongly believe that action needs to be taken in western New South Wales too. I think that, while our issues are not as widespread, people in western New South Wales are probably more exposed to the general media. Already people in the Calare electorate are talking about a ‘lost generation’. We cannot move forward from this without leadership from the Aboriginal community. It is important that it continues to grow, as it has with people such as Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine—he comes from Dubbo and is someone I know quite well. And there is the person I mentioned a while ago, Peter Gibbs. They are all demanding reform by Aboriginal groups themselves. They are demanding reforms not just by us, the parliament and the people of Australia, but by the Aboriginal community itself. They know that their attitudes have to change to help themselves; we cannot do it if they are not part of it, quite obviously. While no-one can be proud of some aspects of our history, it is very telling that most of the events of the last 100 years were done in good faith; although not all, obviously. I am well aware that many in our community will not agree with the apology. However, given our understanding that this is not and cannot be about recompense, financial or otherwise, we all have to move on from here. Let us take this opportunity to do that. The acceptance of the Australian community that it is time to actively move forward and support all sectors of the community will go a long way to assisting our reconciliation process. All of us need to be a part of assisting the Aboriginal community to help themselves, just as with any other disadvantaged section of our community. 1063 18:20:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —I start by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land we are gathered on and thanking them for their continuing stewardship. I am pleased to speak in support of the motion of apology to Australia’s Indigenous people. The then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, made the following comment in his famous Redfern speech on 10 December 1992—on the eve of the International Year of the World’s Indigenous People. Think of that—it was 10 December 1992 and the Prime Minister had only recently taken office. It was not long after the Mabo decision of that year. He said: It will be a year of great significance for Australia. It comes at a time when we have committed ourselves to succeeding in the test which so far we have always failed. Because, in truth, we cannot confidently say that we have succeeded as we would like to have succeeded if we have not managed to extend opportunity and care, dignity and hope to the indigenous people of Australia—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people. Paul Keating made that famous speech at Redfern on 10 December 1992 only six months after Chief Justice Brennan of the High Court had handed down the Mabo decision. Cast your mind back to the atmosphere of that time, of 1992 after the Mabo decision. There were headlines saying that our backyards were going to be taken by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The farmers were up in arms saying that all their land was going to be taken. There was fear being cultivated by a lot of people out in the community about how Australia was going to change. Yet, six short months later, Paul Keating, the newly appointed Prime Minister, stood up and made that Redfern speech. He was a new Prime Minister and that is what he said. He wanted to move the Australian people to a greater understanding. How adventurous and brave was the Prime Minister to make that speech? What sort of vision was that for a new Prime Minister in the light of the atmosphere of fear and misunderstanding in the community? In that demonstration of true leadership Prime Minister Keating then commissioned the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. This inquiry handed down the Bringing them home report to the Howard government in April 1997. Think of that flow of events and the significant players in those events—Paul Keating and then the new Prime Minister, John Howard. In 10 years of having that report, the coalition government did nothing. If you think back to the coalition governments before then, Malcolm Fraser brought in the Racial Discrimination Act. He was a great man of vision in reaching out to the Aboriginal people. Obviously, Malcolm Fraser’s experience in dealing with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people was quite different. Maybe it was because Malcolm Fraser had a different attitude. My understanding is that he had an Aboriginal nanny who helped raise and educate him about the significant beliefs of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Flick back from Malcolm Fraser, that Liberal Prime Minister, to the next Liberal Prime Minister, his former Treasurer, and look at how he responded to the Bringing them home report handed to him in April 1997. Prime Minister Howard had all those years—10 years—to do something to respond to that report, to make a gesture, to make even a symbolic gesture, but he stands condemned as someone who did nothing. Last Wednesday, my first Wednesday in this House, there was quite a lot of emotion in the House. On the floor, I saw tears in the eyes of many people. Indigenous elders from the stolen generation were here; there were tears from Anglo-Saxons; there were tears from everyone in terms of the emotion that was in that House as the nation gathered to hear that historic apology. Not that we saw it in the chamber, obviously, but apparently some people turned their backs on the Leader of the Opposition. I can understand that kind of emotion because the coalition government had turned their backs on the stolen generations for more than 10 years. So I can understand that people might act in a way that I would consider to be poor manners. The feelings that people had ran high and had festered for 10 years—festered for the 70 years, some might say, from when these policies were first carried out. Feelings festered to the extent that people felt compelled to turn their backs. As I said, my good manners would prevent me from so doing, but I can understand how people might feel compelled to do something. In my dealings as a union organiser, I organised in independent schools. People might think that independent schools are only grammar schools and the like, but a lot of Aboriginal schools are independent. I had the pleasure of being a union organiser out at Wadja Wadja High School, west of Rockhampton. I was also fortunate enough to have a school with a high Aboriginal population in the middle of Moreton, at Sunnybank, and right on the border in Oxley I had the Murri School, an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander school. I think there is even an Aboriginal kindergarten in the Prime Minister’s electorate, just a couple of blocks down from my electorate. In my visits to those schools as a union organiser and in meetings in the lead-up to the elections over the last couple of years, so many times Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have said: ‘How come we can’t even get a sorry—one word? How come we can’t get a sorry out of the coalition government? How come Prime Minister Howard uses his weasel words to avoid saying a simple word like sorry? Shameful, shameful, shameful.’ I would like to return once more to Prime Minister Keating’s Redfern speech. It is significant that he chose Redfern to make one of his most significant speeches—a fine piece of oratory, a fine piece of poetry treasured by many people throughout Australia. He chose Redfern rather than an Aboriginal settlement in the Northern Territory or North Queensland, I guess, because it is symbolic of the urban reality for so many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and because of the socioeconomic challenges that are often exhibited in this community. He also chose Redfern because it was a speech about hope. I will return to his speech and quote further. He said, and remember that this is on 10 December 1992: There is one thing today we cannot imagine. We cannot imagine that the descendants of people whose genius and resilience maintained a culture here through 50 000 years or more, through cataclysmic changes to the climate and environment, and who then survived two centuries of dispossession and abuse, will be denied their place in the modern Australian nation. We cannot imagine that. We cannot imagine that we will fail. And with the spirit that is here today I am confident that we won’t. I am confident that we will succeed in this decade. Then, on 2 March 1996, that advancement towards reconciliation and a greater hope for Australia came to a screaming halt, when John Howard and the Howard government ensured that nothing else happened. We did not go forward as a nation in the late nineties. Instead, things stopped. I certainly commend all the representatives in the House of Representatives last Wednesday who took part in that apology and were heartfelt in their apology. But, unfortunately, obviously not everyone from the other side of the chamber was prepared to participate in that apology. From my recollection, there were at least seven or eight people who either walked out or were missing and were not prepared to stay committed to what I assume was a collective coalition decision to participate in the apology. Maybe people were absent for other reasons. Maybe they had meetings planned—I am not sure. But I think it is shameful that people did not stay united and speak from the chamber as one in saying sorry to the stolen generations and to the representatives who were there in the chamber. It is interesting. There was the sorry last Wednesday, a great day in this nation’s history, and then we move forward to Four Corners on Monday night, where the new coalition members were trying to rewrite history. Apparently it was John Howard who called the shots on everything. No-one was able to speak up with such a voice to actually move him in any way. Any bad decision that was made was all John Howard’s. No voice at that cabinet table was able to pass comment on Work Choices and obviously no voice at that table was able to speak on behalf of the stolen generations or the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people generally. It is almost as though the current opposition are trying to rewrite history. It is not really a ‘black armband’ view of history, which was John Howard’s favourite phrase for condemning the Labor Party for trying to present the facts; I guess you could call it a ‘slack armband’ version of history: ‘It wasn’t me—no, it was all John Howard. John Howard did everything bad.’ I was fortunate enough to grow up in a country town where about one-quarter of the population, or a bit more than that probably, were Murris, were Aborigines. I do not go out to St George all that often—I am going out at Easter for a school reunion—but it is amazing the number of Murri friends who have phoned me up to comment on the apology and what it meant to them. These are not children of the stolen generation at all; these are people who did not have that experience. But it is amazing the number of them who have phoned up to say how great that was, how much it meant to them. It has really changed their view of government and what it can do. By refusing to say sorry, by refusing to take the Bringing them home report recommendations and do something with them, the Howard government betrayed the real roots of Australia. It was almost like it was trying to erase the Mabo decision and say: ‘No, no—terra nullius really did exist. There were no people here before Captain Cook and the First Fleet came to Australia.’ That is what the Howard government was saying. So many of my friends in St George and other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have made comment about how wonderful that gesture was from the Prime Minister and Jenny Macklin. That is why I am very proud, after my first speech, to be affirming the apology. 1066 18:33:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 1 0 Ms BIRD —Can I say, with the indulgence of the chamber, that I have very little voice left, but I am quite determined to use what I have left to put on the record of this place my support for the extension of the apology to the stolen generation that occurred last Wednesday on behalf of the parliament. I cannot help but feel that last Wednesday was a moment in my parliamentary career that will never be surpassed. It was certainly a wonderful feeling to win government and to be able to implement the programs that I know so many of my colleagues and the general public had been hoping would become the story of this nation. But, despite the level of pleasure I felt in that, it still did not come close to the feeling that was in the chamber on Wednesday when finally, more than 10 years after the tabling of the Bringing them home report, the parliament of this nation extended an apology to the stolen generation. I think what was so profound about it was the fact that there are very few things more powerful in life than to say sorry. Sometimes we do it glibly and sometimes we devalue the word ‘sorry’, but saying sorry is one of the most powerful things we can do as one individual to another or as a government to a people. By saying sorry, you do not ask yourself the question: how does this affect me? You ask yourself the question: how does doing this affect you? By saying sorry, you do not ask yourself: what does this cost me? You ask yourself: what will not doing this cost you? I think the story of our Indigenous people has made it very, very clear to us that the power of extending that sorry to them cost us very little and meant a terribly great deal to them. The faces in the chamber and those that we saw on the evening news in tears or with smiles of joy demonstrated visibly how powerfully important the extension of that apology was. I speak mainly as a mother in this chamber. As the member for Cunningham, I am going to use my time to put forward the words of my own constituents on the extension of the apology. But I would just like to briefly talk about my feelings as a mother. I do this because I cannot understand people who extend a justification for the removal of Aboriginal children with an argument that says: but look what they achieved in their life, look at the improvements they made, look at the education or training they got. There is no doubt that many Aboriginal people who were removed from their families and placed into other forms of care may indeed have experienced an education or an opportunity that gave them new avenues in their life. But to say that the price of losing your family is worth that, I find incomprehensible—absolutely incomprehensible. I have a 23-year-old son who is in London and I am missing him terribly and I had the great privilege of 22 years of his life, having him there every day. I cannot begin to imagine how I would have felt if a truck had rolled into my town when he was four, five, six or seven to take him away and I was never to see him again. I cannot imagine the incomprehensible damage that would have done to my life and the grief and suffering that would have been inflicted on our family—and yet this is what happened to 10 to 30 per cent of Aboriginal young people and children, up to 50,000 of them. It is wrong to say that that was purely an intervention to provide protection. There is no way that number of children needed to be removed purely on those grounds. These were hard times; some of it was during the Depression. There were many working families who were out of work, who were having trouble maintaining their families and providing for their children. Indeed, in some cases they did have their children removed. But let us be clear: there was nowhere near the extent of removals that occurred in Aboriginal communities and there was no attempt to put the blame purely on their race. Clearly, these policies were about extinguishing the Aboriginal people. Because they were targeted at mixed blood children, that made the policies’ intentions very clear. My former husband discovered that he was a direct descendant of Bill Ferguson, one of the original Aboriginal activists in New South Wales. I did not know that until he was in his thirties. The other thing that was stolen from generations of people by these policies was their heritage, because what they did was force many people of mixed race, of both Aboriginal and white heritage, to hide their Aboriginal heritage, to deny it for generations for fear that because of that simple mixed blood they would lose their children. So there is so much that was stolen because of these policies and it is so important we reach out. We do it through the apology and we do it through an ongoing commitment to make sure that Aboriginal people’s opportunities in our country are improved. As I said, in the run-up to the extension of the apology in the parliament in the week since, I had at last count 122 emails from local constituents, one of which opposed the extension of the apology. The other 121 supported it. As their representative in this House, I want to place on the record some of the comments that I received from my local constituents. This is from James at North Wollongong: Hi. I’m a Cunningham constituent and I’m writing to congratulate you on your re-election and to discuss the apology to the Stolen Generations that is in the news right now. I’m glad to see the new Rudd government getting to work so quickly, particularly on this divisive issue that has been festering for so long. However, I’m concerned that this apology will be purely symbolic. I agree that it is important to take the symbolic action of apologising to the Stolen Generations and reestablishing respectful relations. But I believe an authentic apology must be accompanied by good faith efforts at reparations. In short Ms Bird, I’m asking you to push your party to adopt all of the recommendations of the Bringing Them Home report, not just the symbolic ones. Thanks for your time. Carolyn at Figtree wrote: Just like to say thanks for yours and the Labor party’s support of the apology to the Stolen Generation of Indigenous Australians but as you are aware this is only the first step and we want full implementation of the Bringing Them Home Report. Chris at Thirroul wrote: I am just writing you a short note to express my support for the apology to the stolen generation and the indigenous people of Australia that the government is proposing to make. Indeed, I think, speaking as someone who migrated from England 10 years ago (and is now an Australian citizen) that we should apologise for the wider devastation caused to indigenous peoples for the whole colonial adventure. Certainly I hope that the apology represents the start of a more sustained attempt by the government to address the inequalities and suffering experienced by indigenous peoples expressed for example in the report ‘Bringing Them Home’. Joy from Corrimal wrote: I’m sure you support this bill as well as I do. I just believe you need to know how many of us are behind you. As an adopted non-aboriginal child I know the emotional issues of what it is like to grow up with more questions than answers. To have been removed forcibly and put into a different ethnic family, no matter how well-meaning an advantage, would not compensate for the wrench from one’s own roots. I urge you to urge other MPs to support this ground breaking apology. I also wonder if we are pressuring Britain to apologise for having treated Australian settlement and indigenous relations so differently from their treaties with the First Nation’s aboriginal people of Canada. Colin at Figtree wrote: I applaud the government’s decision to proceed with reconciliation with aboriginal people by agreeing to say ‘sorry’ for past atrocities and neglect. I look forward to seeing this process move on from ‘sorry’ and will be interested in your input and leadership at this time. Justin at Austinmer wrote: I heartily congratulate your party and leader for taking this important first step. I truly hope it’s the beginning of some momentous leadership on this cause and that you’ll be part of this. As we’ve all seen too recently, governments set the tone for leadership. Kevin Rudd is making a great start & I hope he rewards the faith shown in Labor’s fresh approach to government so well reflected at the last election. Lucas from North Wollongong wrote: I would just like to send a quick congratulations to your Government for ticking off my boxes so early in your term of Government. One of the biggest wishes I had for this country is for its people to recognise the position successive generations have put Indigenous Australians into so they can start to understand their plight. Sorry is a big catalyst for this. I am proud that this Government has been strong enough to start the healing process. Well done. This is from Robert of Woonona: Well done for finally having the guts, and decency, to say sorry. As Elton John once sang, ‘Sorry seems to be the hardest word’! Catherine at Mangerton wrote: Congratulations on being in government. I wanted to express my respect and thanks for the apology that the Labor government has made on behalf of the people of Australia for the treatment of Aboriginal people documented in the ‘Bringing them Home’ Report. However, this is only the first step. To show sincerity, that your government is one of substance, not just rhetoric, you must have full implementation of the recommendations outlined in the ‘Bringing them Home’ Report. Andrew at Otford wrote: I strongly support the recommendations of the Bringing Them Home Report, as well as the Deaths in Custody reports ... I supported Labour knowing that you have a more progressive and sympathetic policy to Aboriginal Australians and I am greatly encouraged by your enthusiasm for an apology. Amanda of Figtree wrote: I am so thrilled that the stolen generation of Aboriginal people are finally going to have a formal apology from our federal government. Well done! I hope and pray this is only the beginning of doing all that is possible to compensate these people and deal with the issues of health and justice and reconciliation for all Australian Aboriginal people. Thanks again. Greer from Figtree wrote: It is with great relief that I realize that our government is taking the first steps to acknowledge the injustices done to Aboriginal people in the past. The action of saying sorry is a wonderful and powerful first step. I urge you to ensure that it is just the first of many steps of a powerful and healing journey for all Australians! We will be a greater place for making this journey. Sarah of Austinmer wrote: It’s really great the new government has finally taken on board the fundamental importance of an apology to members of the Stolen Generation. I really want to congratulate you and your government for taking this important first step. I would hope, however, that this is just the beginning and that the government will seriously and comprehensively address the recommendations from the Bringing Them Home Report. …            …            … Very best wishes for the year of the rat. Let’s make it a truly great one! Rosemary of Wollongong wrote: Thank you that the Labor Party through Kevin Rudd’s leadership has decided to formally apologise to the Stolen Generation. This is an important first step in the official reconciliation process. With full implementation of the ‘Bringing Them Home’ Report, the future of Indigenous Australians will be much brighter. There are so many inequities to be addressed between white and Indigenous Australians—health, education, mortality, etc. Let it be borne out in our history that the Labor Party was the government who turned things around for the better! Regina of Thirroul wrote: Thank you for representing myself and my family when you apologise to the Aboriginal people of Australia. Peter of Wollongong wrote: I believe you are a person of principle. Think how history will judge us in 100 years time, when all the current preoccupation about neo-conservative economics is just a peculiar footnote in a textbook. Think about how our simple acknowledgement of a simple moral tenet, to say we are sorry for the sins of an earlier generation, no matter how well intentioned that may have been, and that we acknowledge they were wrong. We will just be telling the truth, our nation’s leaders were wrong, and we are big enough and honest enough to say so. Please thank Mr Rudd for actually being a leader, and not just being a poll driven pollie. This really makes me proud, especially after the last 11 years. That is only a small sample of the 121 emails. I apologise to the rest of my constituents, who I was not able to put on the record, but I assure you the expressions were reflected in that sample. They all make the point, and I think it is profoundly important, that this is a bridge to a longer term commitment to closing the gap between Indigenous Australians and white Australians. There is no doubt that each of us in this place will be particularly keenly endorsing and supporting the current government’s commitments to closing that gap so that the apology issued last Wednesday will actually be the beginning of a whole new period for Indigenous Australians and an opportunity for them to take some of the many privileges that are their rights as citizens of this nation. 1070 18:48:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 1 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson, congratulations on your appointment to this important position. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly on the apology that was executed in the chamber last week. I have always been in awe of the fact that I have even had a parliamentary career, and I am very fortunate to have been for the past four terms in this parliament. But I have to say that in all of those years I never quite imagined that an occasion within the parliament—and we have been through a few—would bring quite the level of emotion to everybody involved that last week’s apology did. I have to be honest and say that I, along with lot of my colleagues—on both sides of the House, to be fair—found it a bit overwhelming. I do not think any of us quite imagined the extent this groundswell of reaction within the community would reach. I am very fortunate, as the member for Canberra, to have had a very local connection in many different respects to the proceedings of last week. I want to first of all thank the community of Canberra at large for their obvious support of the occurrences of last week. That support came from not just getting in touch with offices like mine and thoroughly encouraging us to be part of this apology—and I have to say I did not need encouragement to do that, but I welcomed people’s input—but also the turnout of members of the local community who came out to be in or around this building. It was also reflected in those who in their workplaces—and some I know had the encouragement of their employers; even the ACT government allowed their employees to do this—watched the proceedings on television as a community at work and participated in that way. Many Canberrans opened their homes. There was a very widespread email connection and other connections made through this community to say people are coming from everywhere and some of them are going to need some accommodation. Many Canberrans opened their homes and billeted people from all sorts of places. Those stories of those experiences are now just beginning to emerge. Some of them are wonderful in terms of the relationships that were formed and the friendships that I believe will, as a result, exist for a long time. The other connection of course is that this has all happened on the Ngunawal land, which is the land upon which we stand here today, which is my local community as well. I put on the record my absolute admiration for Matilda House and her family and the role that they took, particularly in the welcome to country on the Tuesday morning, which I thought was on par with the occurrence of the next day and its impact and emotional connection. Matilda, in fact, is a very dear friend of mine and I was so pleased to see her, her son Paul and the little ones from their family take part in that very moving service that was done in the Members Hall on the Tuesday morning. I am very proud to see that particular role from our local community. In saying that, I must congratulate and thank those participants, dancers and performers who came, I understand, from other parts of the country to be part of that ceremony as well. I am sure that all members of the House who were present would say that it was a pretty impressive event. The call went out to say that this should now be a part of the beginning of every new parliament—I have no doubt that is in fact what will happen in one form or another. I really want to endorse that and I look forward to seeing it in the future. The other comment that I would like to make is to pay my respects in this delivery today to a couple of very prominent Indigenous community services within my electorate who have carried out wonderful work over the years and continue to do so in a fairly nationally leading way. Down here at Narrabundah we have the Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health Service. That is a service that used to exist in Ainslie which has moved to larger premises in Narrabundah in more recent years. When I was involved in the Health is life report, which was tabled in May 2000—to which I will refer in a moment—it was a pleasure for me to introduce members of the committee at the time to the work that was being undertaken by Winnunga, their connection to their community and the breadth of services that they offer. It is a health service, but they actually offer an enormously broad selection of services to their community. I want to pay respect to Julie Tongs, the director down there, and all of the people involved in the work that they have done and continue to do. I also want to make very brief mention, if I can, of Gugan Gulwan, which is a youth Aboriginal corporation down in the southern end of this town. It is a youth service specifically providing culturally appropriate services for young Indigenous people in my electorate, and the services include a drop-in centre, family support and support services for young Aboriginal people. Importantly, they also offer outreach services for young Indigenous people affected by drugs and alcohol. They take a very positive role in the way that they reflect their culture, promote their culture and the retention of it and run a service or a variety of services that help to ensure a future for their young people. To those in the parliament particularly—and to a lesser but equally important degree to those out in the community—who for some reason, private to them, do not quite understand or accept the significance, the relevance and the importance of this apology, I need to say that I respect their view. I disagree with it, but I respect the fact that they can hold that view. I noticed—and this is not a critical comment; it is an observation—that there were a small number of members who made a point of not being in the chamber on the Wednesday and I am sorry that that happened. While I respect their views, I am really hopeful that, through the future months and years, they will begin to see and understand the ramifications of the apology and come along with us on this journey that I believe we are now all taking. In particular, I want to speak today about the Bringing them home report and about the report Health is life: report on the inquiry into Indigenous health. Both of these reports provided me as a member of this parliament with an opportunity that I really needed to grow and learn about the experiences of Indigenous Australians. As a member of the Australian Labor Party—you do not have to be to have this view—I always thought I understood a lot about Indigenous issues in this country. If anybody had said to me, ‘Do you know much about this?’ I would say, ‘Yes, I’m pretty much on top of it,’ but going through both of those experiences really helped me to understand the depth of the issues, the extent to which we need to look at these issues more seriously and the absolute requirement that we work hand in hand with Indigenous communities to attend to the issues of relevance to them. The Bringing them home report, which came out of the national inquiry into the stolen generation conducted by HREOC, was tabled in parliament in May 1997. What followed the tabling of the report was an extraordinary period of time when Labor members of parliament—and I was one of them—took the opportunity to read parts of the report into the Hansard during our daily adjournment debates. We did that because it was very important for us to have a debate of some kind in the parliament. My recollection is that the debate was not facilitated by the government at the time. So this was our way of putting on the record the importance we saw of the Bringing them home report. As I said, in May 2000 I was part of the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, which completed and tabled the report Health is life after an inquiry requested by the Minister for Health and Aged Care at the time to look into the status of Indigenous health in our country. That report and the work involved in it took almost two years. It began in one parliament, the committee produced an interim discussion paper and then, after the election and the committee being reconstituted, we successfully sought a re-reference to continue the work. So there was almost two years of a lot of hard slog and hard work to complete the report. During that inquiry, I was privileged enough to visit an enormous number of places and communities around this country, some of them the most remote places you could ever wish to go. We went to Mutitjulu, Broome, Kimberley, Tennant Creek, Badu Island, the Torres Strait, Docker River, the Maralinga homelands—to all sorts of places—and all sorts of amazing experiences were gained by the committee. This was all happening about 10 years ago. The people we met were very gentle and very welcoming. They took the opportunity to say, ‘You know, we really have been inquired into quite a lot.’ There are libraries in this country stocked full of reports of one sort or another on the status of Indigenous people. It should be said that this particular inquiry was, I think, the first of its kind in about 20 years to be done by the federal parliament. As members of the committee, we felt we needed to explain ourselves when we entered Indigenous country, when they took us in and sat down and had frank discussions with us about their lot. The point was made, ‘How many times do we have to have this experience for people to understand where we are, who we are, what we are and what is required?’ One gentleman who was more or less seconded to our committee for most of that time was a person called Puggy Hunter. I do not know whether Mr Ruddock, who is at the table, knew Puggy through his work. He was an Indigenous gentleman from Broome who accompanied us to an enormous number of those outback, middle-of-nowhere places. He was a conduit for us in approaching Indigenous communities. He passed away a few short years ago, much to our great sadness. He taught us a great deal about understanding health issues, about understanding diversity within Indigenous communities in Australia, and about how we needed to talk with those people to clearly understand the difference they experienced among their own community before we tried to write some prescriptions for them. I use that term very carefully because sadly, up until now, that has been the approach of many of us in trying to deal with some of these issues. At the end of the day, I really think that the best words that I could possibly use would be the words of Pat Dodson, who in a National Press Club address only last week encouraged us to use this apology as an opportunity to move forward and to work together in true partnership with one another. He said the following: I agree with the Prime Minister that we have turned a page on the book of our national journey. We have on the table before us a clean page on which great things may be written. I do not think there would be, in all honesty—and this includes even those who absented themselves from the House last week—a member who could not endorse that comment to some point. We really do now have an opportunity, given the leadership that Prime Minister Rudd has shown and the determination that we have had as a party to fulfil a very longstanding commitment of policy that we have held very dear, to draw a line. We did see and we do see the relevance and the importance of that apology. It really gives not just this parliament but the whole country an opportunity to draw the line, as Pat Dodson has indicated, to start with that clean sheet, to put all of that other baggage and business behind us and to collectively work towards a far better future for the people of our Indigenous communities in Australia. When we started the Health is life report in 1997 or 1998—roughly, from memory—we had all of these horrendous statistics about infant mortality, about the age difference in death rates, about the terrible state of health. I think it is fair for me to say that the most distressing thing for me in the 10 years from the beginning of that inquiry until now has been the repeating of those statistics. Front-page stories in the newspapers and speeches in this House have continually given the same statistics. It is about time to now dream of and work towards seeing those statistics change. We can no longer have them repeated; we must see them change. We must have a short-, a medium- and a long-term view on this and realistically work with our Indigenous communities to see the difference that they deserve more than anyone. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—The question is that the motion be agreed to. To signify their support, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the Committee. 1073 19:03:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. 1074 Condolences 1074 Debate resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Rudd: That the House records its deep regret at the death on 12 October 2007 of the Honourable Kim Edward Beazley (Snr) AO, a former Federal Minister and Member for Fremantle, and places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. 1074 19:03:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP 0 0 Mr RUDDOCK —I want to be associated with this condolence motion because I am probably the only member of the House of Representatives who served with Kim Beazley Sr. It was a great privilege to do so and I intend to outline something of the circumstances of that service. I might say, before the member for Canberra departs, that I am sure Kim Beazley Sr would have supported a welcome to country, and her request that that have an ongoing place in our new parliaments I am sure would have met with his approval. Firstly, I extend my condolences to his wife, Betty, his son, Kim Jr, his daughter, Marilyn, and each of their children. It is not generally known that I was in fact born in Canberra. I claim to have a museum site as a birthplace. My father was here in Canberra and knew Kim Beazley Sr. I noted, in reading his first speech, that it was a speech about postwar reconstruction. My late father was firstly a chief investigations officer in prices and then a deputy commissioner in prices and was very much involved in the administration of the policies that I noted Kim Beazley Sr adverted to in his maiden speech. It was a speech about the importance of economics. It was a speech about the postwar reconstruction period. I noted that he commended the budget for a number of reasons. In the first place, it recognised a number of fundamental problems in the immediate postwar period, namely that there was an excess of purchasing power and capacity to invest. My father later became a Liberal member of parliament in New South Wales and a minister but, notwithstanding the fact that he administered price control, he was very much against those sorts of intrusions of the state. But, in the context of what he was doing at that time, he had a clear role that brought him in touch with many, and one of those was Kim Beazley Sr. In my own period in the parliament, he was father of the House. I now have that honour. His service was for 32 years, from 1945 until 1977. Being elected in 1973, I saw him as a fine Minister for Education. I did not always agree with all of the policies he implemented, but he was someone who people recognised was a ‘conviction politician’. Of course, he was in opposition in 1975. By that time I had become, as the member for Canberra noted, actively involved in Indigenous affairs and I was chairing the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Our first brief was to examine the alcohol problems that Aboriginal people were experiencing and it brought me into conflict with Kim—and, I might say, with Ralph Hunt, who was the Minister for Health at the time. They conspired, I think, to broaden the terms of reference of the House of Representatives committee to look at health generally rather than just at what they saw as being a limited problem. He was a person who was fundamentally interested in the plight of our Indigenous people. He was, I think, very close to the late Professor Fred Hollows, who talked to him about these health issues, and, as befits somebody who was senior in service in the parliament, he continued to play a constructive role. I noted when I was reading the material prepared helpfully by our Parliamentary Library—they always prepare helpful material—that it noted his very fine education. He was born in 1917. He succeeded John Curtin as the Labor member for Fremantle. He was the youngest member of the House of Representatives when he was elected, he was known as ‘the student prince’ and he held the seat until he retired. But what follows is something that is far more interesting. He was, it says ‘a committed Christian and member of Moral Rearmament’, and it was in that context that I have a great deal of personal admiration for what he was able to do and achieve. He was not the only member of this parliament engaged with Moral Rearmament. Members perhaps do not know that Moral Rearmament has had a change of name, but they are still active in the environs of this parliament. If you ever have the opportunity to go to Caux in Switzerland and participate in one of their forums, it is a great and unique experience—even better than Hayman Island. The fact is that Kim Beazley and the late Dr Malcolm Mackay, a Liberal member of parliament, played a significant role and engaged me very much in Moral Rearmament. But, reading the material, it is far more interesting than that, because he came with conviction. It says: ... Beazley was prominent on the right-wing of the Labor Party during the ideological battles of the 1950s and 1960s. During the leadership of Arthur Calwell (from 1960 to 1967) he was considered a possible future leader of the party, but his right-wing views, particularly his support for the U.S. Alliance, cost him support ... And Whitlam emerged as leader. Kim Beazley Sr was a person who had the courage of his views and conviction—even more so after the defeat of the Whitlam government, when he was elected to the Labor frontbench but resigned when it was revealed that the then ALP National Secretary David Combe had been seeking money from Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Baath Party to pay off what were then party debts. As one who has, on a matter of principle, set myself aside from my colleagues, I have to say that it is not easy to do. In Kim Beazley Sr we saw a man who was not prepared to serve on the Labor frontbench because of the strong principles that he held. He was quirkish, he was adversarial, but he was a person I greatly admired. He had an impact on me in the parliament and I very much wanted to be associated with this condolence motion. 1075 19:11:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the condolence motion for Kim Edward Beazley AO. As the new member for Fremantle I have noted more than once that I follow in the footsteps of Labor giants—and in the history of this place there have been few men or women of greater stature than Kim Edward Beazley. I find it heartening to reflect that Kim Beazley entered parliament in the shadow of greatness when in 1945 he followed Australia’s great nation-building and wartime Prime Minister, John Curtin, to become the Labor member for Fremantle. I do not know whether he felt the burden of his predecessor’s reputation, but it certainly did not show. From his earliest appearances in Hansard, Kim Beazley made his arguments with a steady and stylish forcefulness. It is no surprise that he ultimately came to be regarded as one of the best parliamentary performers of his era. To give an example, I will quote from an article that appeared in the Australian newspaper in May 1967. It states: ‘He is undoubtedly Labor’s—and probably parliament’s—best orator. He has always had intellectual force and clarity and has harnessed both to a deeply personal style. Members on both sides listen carefully when he speaks on any subject—on New Guinea, for example, on which he speaks rather less than he might, or on Aboriginals, about whom he speaks more frequently and for whom he fervently prays for a “Yes” vote in the coming referendum.’ The contribution Kim Beazley made to Australian life and politics cannot be measured in numbers, but the numbers are nonetheless indicative of the range and quality of his political career, which spanned generations. He entered parliament in 1945 as the youngest member of the House of Representatives, at 27 years of age. He contested and won 14 elections for the seat of Fremantle. When he retired, undefeated, prior to the 1977 election, he did so as the longest-serving member of the 30th Parliament. Kim Beazley represented the people of Fremantle for 32 years—an incredible stint—and I am advised that, of the 1,059 men and women who have represented federal electorates in this place, only 17 have served longer. Kim Beazley’s longevity as the member for Fremantle may have had something to do with his creative approach to campaigning. My father’s cousin, who grew up in Bicton, in the electorate of Fremantle, in the 1950s, told me of how kids in those days were always playing on the road—whether it was riding their bikes or playing marbles or hopscotch. At election time my father’s cousin, who was then around nine years old, noticed that, on Harris Road near the Bicton Primary School and on Preston Point Road on the bus route, there would be election slogans from Kim Beazley in large, neat block letters at least two metres long and two metres wide, printed on the road in chalk. My father’s cousin said he never forgot those beautifully done drawings on the road, which would mysteriously appear and remain for many weeks while the election campaign was ongoing. The slogans were all signed neatly in chalk with the words: ‘Vote Labor. Kim Beazley.’ Kim Beazley honed his skills with chalk well before entering politics. He worked as a schoolteacher and a university tutor, and he was Vice President of the Teachers Union. It is fitting that he carried the experience and insights he gained in those roles through to the policy work he ultimately undertook in the Commonwealth parliament. In his first speech in this place, Kim Beazley heralded the Commonwealth’s commitment, in 1945, of £5 million to support the states in the provision of education services. As a testament to his political stamina and commitment, he waited 27 years—having entered parliament at the age of 27—for the opportunity to make his most profound policy contribution, as the Minister for Education in the Whitlam government. In that role, from 19 December 1972 until that infamous day of 11 November 1975, he was responsible for implementing the first, and still the most important, education revolution of the modern era. The Schools Commission legislation that he introduced had the effect of chiselling into stone the practice of distributing Commonwealth funding to schools, public or private, on the basis of need. And, of course, he threw open the doors of Australian universities to thousands and thousands of people—including many current parliamentarians—who otherwise might not have had that opportunity. In 1983 he came out of retirement to head an inquiry into the Western Australian state education system. His work and leadership during the course of the year-long review were central to the success of the measures that followed from it, and in Western Australia it is only fitting that the student with the best results in the tertiary entrance examinations each year is awarded the Beazley Medal. Within the Australian Labor Party, Kim Beazley served on both state and federal executives, and he was the Senior Vice-President of the ALP from 1969-71. At the ALP conference in 1951, he wrote the preamble to the party’s platform and constitution. During his career, as many other speakers have noted, Kim Beazley also promoted the cause of justice for Indigenous Australians. He was a parliamentary representative on the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies from 1964 to 1972. He was a member of the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Voting Rights of Aborigines in 1961. He served on the Grievances of Yirrkala Aborigines and Arnhem Land Reserve committee in 1963. He was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Rights in the Northern Territory in 1977. On taking office as Minister for Education, one of his first initiatives was to arrange for Aboriginal children to be taught in schools in their own language, with English as a second language. I am sure that he would have been very proud that a Labor government instituted the first welcome to country ever performed at the opening of the Commonwealth parliament last Tuesday and of the apology last Wednesday. I am also sure he would have supported the inclusion within the new national curriculum of the stories of the stolen generations, and Indigenous dispossession more broadly, as well as information highlighting the cultural diversity and richness of Australia’s Indigenous heritage. It is only right to mention here another of the most significant contributions by Kim Beazley to the Australian Labor Party and the Australian people—the gift of his son, Kim Christian Beazley, who has carried his name, his reputation and his legacy forward with the same intellectual force and clarity, depth of policy contribution, skilful oration and personal dignity. Kim Christian Beazley, who retired at the last election, helped to lay the foundation of this new Labor government. On two occasions he led Labor through difficult circumstances, and history will record that he won the popular vote in 1998, after only one term of the Howard government. He launched my election campaign in Fremantle last October, and we remembered his father that day. Together, Kim Beazley Sr and Kim Beazley Jr gave more than half a century of service to representative politics in Australia. A very heartfelt expression of gratitude must go to the Beazley family, especially Betty and Marilyn, for the significant sacrifice that must inevitably have accompanied their love and support of these two great men during their long and meritorious careers. As someone who did not know Kim Beazley Sr personally, I would like to record the views of those who did and of those who engaged with him as a colleague and a comrade. The former Premier of Western Australia Geoff Gallop remembered Kim Beazley for his advocacy on behalf of Indigenous Australians. He said: The focus tended to be on his contribution to education, but I think in many ways he was the Labor politician from WA who put Aboriginal rights on the agenda. Former Western Australian state Labor education minister Bob Pearce wrote: Beazley was always on the side of the less fortunate and the underprivileged. He believed in public service, and the need for national leaders to act in a moral way. The influence of his brief three years in office lasts today in our schools and in tertiary institutions, but most of all in the acceptance by the community of his belief that inequality in education, as in all things, is not to be tolerated. Current WA Labor Premier, Alan Carpenter, said that Kim Beazley Sr ‘was for many years the only bright light from WA in the federal arena’. Federal Labor MP Bob McMullan said: The lesson we took from him was that you could have a long career in politics and still maintain your respect and achieve outcomes. Former Prime Minister John Howard said of Kim Beazley Sr: … he was a man of very high principle who gave a lifetime of service to his country, the parliamentary system and the Australian Labor Party. His demeanour and behaviour both in the Parliament and in the general discharge of his responsibilities as a minister set a very high standard. Such a tribute from the other side of politics is a testament to the principled approach by Kim Beazley to political life. In his valedictory speech he said the following: Bernard Shaw once said that an election was a moral horror like a war, only without the bloodshed. I do not think it is necessary for an election to be fought that way. I think that we sometimes become quite childish in this parliament and think that everything marvellous originated on our side and everything disastrous originated on the other side. I do not think that is true. He reflected on all the parliamentarians that he had known in his 32 years, and he concluded: I think that the Australian community has got a very high quality of representation. If it has, of course, that is what it deserves. I think it can be said without qualification that the people of Fremantle and, indeed, Western Australia must have been doing something right to deserve a man like Kim Beazley. He was always a man of principle, and the bedrock of his values was his Christian faith. He was not prepared to bend his principles for the sake of political game-playing. Some have observed that this may have been to his personal loss, but I think it was to his eternal credit. He said it best himself when he observed: If you do not accept the importance of conscience, you accept only the importance of power. Kim Beazley served the people of Fremantle and the people of Australia with distinction. He was the embodiment and beacon of political conscience throughout his parliamentary career, his high standards of personal and professional conduct underlying a strong belief that the integrity of government is fundamental to democracy. Reading back over the articles and obituaries from October last year, I think some commentators were too quick to put Kim Beazley in that well-worn category of ‘the man who could have been king’. It is true that he could have led the Australian Labor Party, but it is not true that his political life was in any way unfulfilled. There are kings and then there are kings. Royalty is not a concept that we in the Australian Labor Party are necessarily all that fond of. But, as a way of acknowledging a person’s stature, I think I might be forgiven for repeating the fact that when Kim Beazley entered parliament he was known as the ‘student prince’—and when he left it, and when he left us, he was a king. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the Committee. Mr RAGUSE (Forde) 19:24:00 —I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. 1079 Debate resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Rudd: That the House record its deep regret at the death on 3 November 2007, of Peter James Andren, former Independent Member for Calare, and place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. 1079 19:24:00 Georgiou, Petro, MP HM5 Kooyong LP 0 0 Mr GEORGIOU —I rise tonight to pay tribute to the life and the parliamentary career of Peter Andren and in so doing support the motion of condolence moved by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. Peter Andren was a paradigm of an Independent member of parliament. He was the member for Calare from 1996 to 2007. In the 11 years we shared together in the parliament I had many opportunities to admire his independence of thought, his decisiveness and action. He had a strength of conviction that his parliamentary colleagues sometimes disputed, but ultimately they could not but admire who he was and the fact he was willing to stand up for what he felt was right. He opted to take the more difficult role of leading his constituency forward rather than just following behind. He displayed his courage on numerous occasions throughout his parliamentary career, perhaps no more notably than in the context of what happened in the parliament last week. He supported and advocated a formal parliamentary apology to Indigenous Australians. Back in 1999 when Peter first voiced his opinion on the apology, his position would not have had the majority support in his electorate of Calare. In 2000 Peter again acted bravely and introduced a private member’s bill to override the Northern Territory’s system of mandatory sentencing. The consequences of this, which were so positive for the Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory, are recounted in his autobiography. Throughout his time in parliament Peter’s commitment to Indigenous rights was unwavering. He would no doubt have been extremely proud of what happened in the parliament last week. It is sad that he was not there himself to witness the occasion and to lend some of his own words to the discussion. I admired Peter greatly for the stance he took on issues such as Indigenous rights, gun laws, the environment and refugees. On many of these issues history will show that he was a man ahead of his time. Indeed, history has already shown that. Peter also gave a passionate voice to the issues of importance to the residents of Calare. He championed local industry, campaigned for better transport, banking and telecommunications services. He argued for greater government assistance for farming families. Peter Andren’s ability to truly represent his constituents was nowhere more fully demonstrated than in the polls—something that some of us on the other side of the House may have found a bit disconcerting at times. Since it was first proclaimed in 1906, the New South Wales Central Tablelands seat of Calare had swung from being held by Labor, to the Nationals, to the Liberal Party and back to the Labor Party. When Peter won the seat in 1996, following the retirement of the sitting Labor member, he did so with only 29 per cent of the primary vote. We can all sit here and admire. But during his time in office Peter turned Calare into one of the safest seats in Australia. In the 2004 election, Peter won his seat with over 50 per cent of the primary vote and over 70 per cent of the two-candidate preferred vote. You cannot tell it was once a National Party seat. In no small way, this was a reflection on Peter himself and on his ability to connect with the people of Calare through his enthusiasm, his hard work and his love for the country and the people. In March 2007, Peter Andren announced that he would resign his position in the House of Representatives at the next election and, instead, run for a seat in the Senate. He would no doubt have made an outstanding contribution to the Senate, just as he did in this chamber. I extend my condolences to Peter’s family, especially his partner, Valerie, and his sons, Greg and Josh. His passing is a great loss to this parliament. Debate (on motion by Mr Raguse) adjourned. 1080 19:29:00 Main Committee adjourned at 7.30 pm