2008-06-17
42
1
2
REPS
0
0
2008-06-17
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 pm and read prayers.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
5033
14:01:00
Questions Without Notice
Fuel Prices
5033
14:01:00
5033
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 his comment on The 7.30 Report last night:
… I know full well that motorists are suffering a lot of pain at present.
If the Prime Minister knows that motorists are suffering a lot of pain, why won’t he cut the petrol excise?
5033
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—The government, through the budget, has introduced a package of $55 billion in support of families under financial pressure. The government, through the budget, has introduced extra measures to support the financial wellbeing of pensioners and carers. The key question here is: what do you do to practically assist the bottom line for family budgets dealing with the rising cost of petrol, rising interest rates, increases in rents and the rising cost of food? Those opposite managed to deliver us 10 consecutive interest rate rises during the period in which they occupied the treasury bench. The package that we have offered in relation to a typical young family will deliver, through the budget, some $52.50 extra a week. That proposed by those opposite provides $2.50 extra per week. The maths speaks for itself.
Budget
5033
5033
14:02:00
Trevor, Chris, MP
HVU
Flynn
ALP
1
Mr TREVOR
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline the need for the government to keep maximum downward pressure on inflation and explain any moves that will make the job more difficult?
5033
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—The government was elected on a platform of responsible economic management. The government was elected on a platform of delivering assistance to working Australians under financial pressure. The government was elected on a platform of investing in this country’s long-term future. It is on those platforms that the government intends to govern.
When it comes to responsible economic management, a core discipline for any government around the world is how to conduct effectively the fight against inflation. Following recent comments by the G8, the IMF, the OECD and the Reserve Bank, and data released by the ABS, all members of this place should be able to reliably conclude that inflation is not a charade and not a fairytale; it is a real economic problem across the global economy, including here in Australia.
In fact, when this government was elected we were bequeathed by those departing the treasury bench an inflation rate which stood at a 16-year high. We know the consequences which flow from not acting on inflation. If you have upward pressure on inflation it produces upward pressure on interest rates, which in turn affects all working Australians and businesses, which in time has an effect on the real level of economic activity and a real impact, therefore, on employment. That is the overall consequence of having sat idly by for 12 long years in office while these inflationary pressures built bit by bit by bit. Despite successive warnings by the Reserve Bank of Australia about infrastructure constraints, bottlenecks, the skills shortage and the rest, those opposite failed to act and, as a consequence, the inflation rate was running at record highs when this government assumed office.
In addition to that, it is important to reflect on what the G8 finance ministers had to say on 14 June about the serious nature of the inflation threat facing the world. I quote them in their concluding statement:
Elevated commodity prices, especially of oil and food, pose a serious challenge to stable growth worldwide, have serious implications for the most vulnerable and may increase global inflationary pressure.
That was at the most recent G8 finance ministers meeting, in Osaka. Here at home, Australia is facing its own inflationary challenge, as noted by the Governor of the Reserve Bank last week:
… Australia’s inflation rate has risen more than most of those in our usual peer group when measured on a comparable basis.
… … …
… the prospect of inflation has presented a larger and more immediate danger to us than it has, thus far, to the US.
So said the RBA governor on 13 June.
The evidence in relation to the inflation challenge is overwhelming. There is one party in politics which actually appreciates the gravity of the challenge, and it currently sits on the government benches. Then there are those opposite, who regard it as either a charade or a fairytale. The key question is: what we do about it? The government, earlier this year, indicated what its plan of attack was on inflation. A core element of that plan of attack on inflation goes to responsible economic management by delivering a substantial government surplus through the budget. What this government has done—and it is proud of this—is to deliver a $22 billion surplus through the budget. As a consequence of that, we may well ask what the alternative approach is. It is to conduct a $22 billion raid on the surplus, which is the cumulative impact of the measures which those opposite currently stand opposed to.
But it is not just about the aggregate dimensions of that problem over the spread of the forward estimates; it is a here-and-now problem as well. If you go to the precise impact of the delaying tactics which the opposition are embarked upon in the Senate—and we are now at D-day when it comes to the Senate—and if you put together these measures which are being blocked by those in the Senate and calculate, as Treasury has done, the cost of this delay out to September, which is the first deliberative occasion on which the Senate can then re-examine these measures, you will see that the government stands to have a further $300 million raid conducted on the surplus. The precise figure calculated by the Treasury is $284 million. What happens is that that $284 million will come straight off the surplus because those opposite cannot make up their mind whether they are prepared to allow the government to embark upon a responsible course of action and deliver the substantial surplus which we judge to be necessary in the overall fight against inflation.
So the Liberal Party stands opposed to these measures in the Senate. It is not just blocking or conducting a $22 billion raid on the surplus; in addition to that, the immediate consequence of it so doing is $300 million which will be lost to the surplus, directly off the top, by September. I would appeal to those opposite to come to their senses on this question, because this is a serious business—how you fight the fight against inflation. If you fail to fight the fight against inflation by engineering an appropriate budget surplus through the government sector, you are dealing with potentially huge upward pressure on overall inflation and, as a consequence, upward pressure on interest rates—and we know where that logic goes.
This government, elected on a platform of responsible economic management, has done the only responsible thing given the global and national economic circumstances that we assumed, having taken office—that is, to deliver a sizeable surplus. Those opposite have embarked upon an irresponsible course of action: a $22 billion raid on the surplus and $300 million on the trot, on the way through, until September. Those opposite, the Liberal Party, need to understand this: when you are dealing with responsible economic management it is not simply a game of party politics being played; there are real consequences for working Australians. If irresponsible measures continue to be adopted by those opposite, the consequences for inflation, the consequences for interest rates, the consequences for growth and the consequences for jobs are serious indeed.
I would appeal to those opposite, on this D-day in the Senate, to come to their senses and for once adopt a responsible course of action when it comes to preserving this nation’s long-term economic interests and those of working families.
Revenue
5035
5035
14:09:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to chapter 5, page 10, of Budget Paper No. 1, which lists $19.7 billion worth of new revenue measures including tax decisions which will increase the price of premixed spirits, increase the price of cars, increase the cost of travel and increase the cost of private health insurance. How does putting up so many prices by increasing taxes help to reduce inflation?
5035
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for his question, because the truth is that in this budget we cut taxes as a share of the economy. We cut taxes and we reined in the reckless spending of those opposite. It was their reckless spending that put upward pressure on inflation and that produced eight interest rate rises in the last three years. And now they want to do it again. They want to raid the surplus. This afternoon in the Senate they are going to start that process of raiding the surplus. They are going to move against our initiatives that are so important to build a strong surplus, to combat inflation and to put downward pressure on interest rates.
I think it is pretty clear, going by the remarks of the member for Wentworth, that he must be the author of this strategy. He is the author of the strategy for the $284 million raid on the surplus that will take place if they delay all of these measures in the Senate at four o’clock this afternoon. We have had some advice on where the member for Wentworth is getting his advice.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Wentworth asked a very specific question, and I might add that, if the Treasurer does not know how to answer it, then we can ask—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for North Sydney cannot spoil his points of order by going into debate. If his point of order is relevance, I indicate to the member for North Sydney that I will be listening very carefully to the rest of the Treasurer’s response. The Treasurer.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—We have built a strong surplus in this budget. The Rudd government has built a $22 billion surplus to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. This opposition irresponsibly and recklessly wants to raid that surplus in the Senate this afternoon at 4 pm. Of course, the member for Wentworth is the author of the strategy.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. I have indicated that I will listen carefully to the Treasurer’s response, and I am listening carefully to the Treasurer’s response.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—We do have some advice as to where the member for Wentworth gets his positions from, and I think those opposite will be very interested. Last Wednesday, 11 July, at 140 Coppins Street, Richmond, there was a focus group.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr Nelson
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order in relation to relevance. The question is about a $20 billion tax increase and its impact on inflation.
Government members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! When those on my right come to order I will have to ask the Leader of the Opposition to state his point of order again.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr Nelson
—Mr Speaker, on relevance, the question is about the impact of the government’s $20 billion tax increase on inflation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The honourable member will resume his seat. The Treasurer will respond to the question and the Treasurer has the call.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—I am explaining where the member for Wentworth gets his advice to raid the surplus in the Senate at 4 pm this afternoon.
E3L
Morrison, Scott, MP
Mr Morrison
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The Treasurer was not asked about—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Cook will resume his seat. We have had the point of order on relevance. I am listening carefully to the Treasurer’s response. If he were not being interrupted, I would hope that he would get to the end of the response quicker. The Treasurer has the call.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—This focus group was conducted by Millward Brown, who work with Crosby Textor. Either he is paying for research on himself or the Liberal Party is doing it, but either way the Leader of the Opposition does not know about it. These were the questions that were asked of the focus group.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for North Sydney is not assisting. I see that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is rising on a point of order. If it is on relevance, I have ruled and I am listening to the Treasurer. The Treasurer will bring his response to a conclusion.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—Mr Speaker—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—If the point of order is on relevance—
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—I have not answered that yet, Mr Speaker.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is it a different point of order?
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—It is further to the point of order on relevance.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have ruled on the point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. There have been successive points of order on relevance. I am listening to the Treasurer and I hope that he is now bringing his response to a conclusion.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—I am referring to the member for Wentworth’s budget-in-reply speech that he gave in this House. He managed to get a focus group organised to ask them what they thought of it. Do you know what the next question was? It was: what did they think of his website? The next question was: what did they think of his resume?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Treasurer will bring his answer to a close. The member for North Sydney, who is rising, will resume his seat. The Treasurer will bring his response to a close.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—This is not a question; it is a point of order on relevance.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. Has the Treasurer completed? If not, he will bring his response to a close.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Certainly. My point is this: the member for Wentworth thinks his resume and his website are more important than the fight against inflation
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Wentworth will resume his seat.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—Mr Speaker, it’s on relevance.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The response has concluded.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
5037
Distinguished Visitors
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
— We have in the gallery today the former Speaker Stephen Martin. He is the former member for Macarthur and former member for Cunningham. At this point in time if we could swap positions I would be happy. We warmly welcome him to the House today.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
5037
Questions Without Notice
Budget
5037
5037
14:17:00
Campbell, Jodie, MP
HWC
Bass
ALP
1
Ms CAMPBELL
—My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the reason why it is important that the government’s inflation-fighting surplus is left intact?
5037
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the honourable member for her question, because the government is building a strong surplus of $22 billion to fight inflation and to put downward pressure on interest rates. We had the Reserve Bank minutes released earlier today and they put the position that the fight against inflation remains a very key challenge for this nation—a very important challenge. I will just quote the minutes. They said:
... over the past year, inflation had picked up to an uncomfortably high rate, against a background of limited spare capacity and earlier strong growth in demand.
As we know, there have been 20 Reserve Bank warnings over a long period of time about bottlenecks in the economy—about capacity constraints—which were ignored by those opposite. That put upward pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates. Of course, it fell to us from day one to take up this fight against inflation—an inflation legacy left to us by those opposite, who sat around the cabinet table and spent like drunken sailors. It has taken us to rein in that reckless spending and to do something about putting some capacity into the economy, which is why their actions in the Senate are so absolutely reckless—because in this country we do need to tackle inflation to put downward pressure on interest rates, because it is inflation that eats away at the living standards of families and strangles growth. They are completely irresponsible.
Grocery Prices
5037
5037
14:19:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his recent newsletter, in which he advises people on how to reduce grocery prices. Amongst the Treasurer’s top 10 tips are: shop for specials—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. Those on my right and some on my left are not assisting.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—I go to the Treasurer’s tips for reducing grocery prices: shop for specials, compare prices, shop during quiet periods, challenge the store manager—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. When the House comes to order we will continue.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—The fifth tip is:
Ask for products not on the shelf.
Can the Treasurer advise whether his 10 top tips for reducing grocery prices will form the basis of the government’s ‘grocery watch’ stunt?
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Whilst the last part of the question brought in too much argument, the Treasurer will respond to the question.
5038
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition just demonstrated how terminally out of touch every one of those people over there is—absolutely terminally out of touch.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton
—Just look at the body language. He thinks you’re a dud.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Dickson is warned! The Treasurer has the call. The question has been asked; the Treasurer is responding.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—I have conducted a price watch in my electorate since 1993—well over a decade—and, do you know what, it is one of the ways I stay in touch with my electorate, absolutely, and it is how people like you get so out of touch; it is how those opposite get so out of touch. They do not have a clue what life is like around the kitchen table. They have not got the faintest idea. And it is because they are so out of touch that they brought in Work Choices. Only somebody terminally out of touch could bring in Work Choices to rip away at the wages and working conditions of Australian working families. They have learnt nothing at all. They have demonstrated they are completely out of touch with the lives of average Australians. If they think that the average Australian who goes shopping thinks that those tips are ludicrous or laughable, they have not got a clue about what is going on in Australia.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I seek to table the government’s ‘grocery watch’ scheme.
Leave not granted.
Budget
5038
5038
14:24:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Minister, how will the government’s fiscal policy assist in the fight against high inflation and high interest rates? And, Minister, what are the consequences of this policy not being implemented?
5038
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
1
Mr TANNER
—Inflation in Australia is currently at a 16-year high, at a rate of 4.2 per cent. What that means is that ordinary Australians throughout the country are experiencing rising prices in supermarkets. It appears I have to remind the opposition about or perhaps introduce them to the concept of what a special is because clearly they appear to have no idea. Ordinary Australian working people do know what specials are—there are little labels on the shelves underneath the product with the word ‘special’ and a price on it—and they have to look for specials because prices are rising. So perhaps you might want to do a little bit of a trip to the supermarkets of Australia yourselves to find out how most Australian working people actually live.
It is crucial that we have a tough fiscal position, a strong budget, to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. That is why the government has delivered a $22 billion surplus and that is why we brought spending down from a growth rate of five per cent in the last budget, delivered by the member for Higgins, to a rate of one per cent, and that is why it is crucial that the government’s budget legislation is passed in the Senate. Some of the items that the opposition is proposing to block would blow a giant hole in the surplus, and even delaying the key initiatives in the budget—things like the condensate excise initiative, the luxury car tax, the means test for family payments—will blow a significant hole in the surplus; in fact, Treasury calculates about $284 million simply from that delay. The opposition has taken an ultra-populist line in response to the budget. They have thrown responsibility out the window. They are feeling everybody’s pain: the teenagers who are losing their access to cheap alcopops, the foreigners who are paying more for their visas, the big resource companies who are losing their tax breaks, the millionaires who are losing their family payments—the opposition is feeling their pain.
Yesterday I urged the opposition to heed the wise words of the member for Higgins—admittedly, they were from 12 years ago—and, sadly, it appears that I spoke too soon, because it appears that the honourable member for Higgins has joined the irresponsible populist bandwagon too, which is a source of great distress to me. In today’s Financial Review there is an interview with the member for Higgins where it states that he ‘warned against an excessive short-term response’ to inflation and pointed out that when the CPI had gone negative he did not pump up the economy. Therefore, by implication, if the CPI—the consumer price index—the rate of inflation, goes above the Reserve Bank’s target zone, then there is no reason for tightening the budget, there is no reason for strengthening the surplus. Perhaps, as he is the architect of the wasteful, profligate, growing-too-fast budget that this government inherited—the 2007 budget—with five per cent real growth in the middle of a mining boom, perhaps I expected too much from the member for Higgins.
Although I certainly do not welcome his recent conversion to the cause of fiscal incontinence, I do note that there is something else happening with the member for Higgins. He has been working hard on his application to join the book club. After all these years of pouring scorn and vitriol on people who write, he has decided, belatedly, he wants to join the book club. As a member of the book club, including, I am sure, various other members—the Treasurer and so on—we welcome the interest of the member for Higgins, but there is one word of caution: we write about issues. It is a pretty safe bet that the member for Higgins’s book is going to be about ‘me, me, me’ and that will be the end of it. It certainly will not have any serious savings initiatives.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How is this relevant to the question that was asked of the minister?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Minister for Finance and Deregulation will return to the question.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—The opposition’s response to the budget has been all over the place. Their position changes virtually on a daily basis. They are sniping at most of the major initiatives but relentlessly avoiding taking responsibility for the wider picture and relentlessly avoiding taking any clear position on the inflation problem and what the fiscal settings in this nation should be. This is the core question they have to answer—indeed, it is the core question the member for Higgins should be asked to answer: what fiscal settings would be appropriate for dealing with the inflation problem?
The government will not be diverted from our task of putting downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. We intend to do everything necessary and everything possible to preserve the integrity of the surplus and to ensure we have a strict, responsible budget position. Unlike the opposition, who appear not to know what specials in supermarkets are, we understand the pressures that ordinary families in this country are under, we understand the rising prices that they are having to pay and we understand the importance of getting inflation under control. The opposition are putting this at risk—they are putting the government’s efforts to put downward pressure on inflation and get the inflation problem under control at risk by their actions in the Senate. They should think again. They should act responsibly in the interests of working people in this country.
Child Care
5040
5040
14:31:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
0
Mr ABBOTT
—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Which of the government’s powers is she proposing to use to penalise childcare price rises such as 10 per cent by ABC Learning Centres and 13 per cent by Warringah council? Does she think that these price rises are fair and can she explain how publishing childcare prices on a government website is going to keep them down?
5040
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 Warringah for his question. Obviously the government are a substantial player in the childcare market, and we have a range of policy levers at our disposal because we are a substantial player in the childcare market. On the supply side, the levers at the government’s disposal include our election commitment to introduce up to 260 new childcare centres. That is a significant contribution to the childcare industry and the childcare market as we know it. In terms of the locations of those centres, we are looking at establishing new centres in areas where the market is not working. One of the reasons that the market may be perceived to be not working in an area is that there are higher fees than in other locations. When we are working out who should be the providers for those new centres we are obviously going to be assessing diversity of provision and equity of access, including through new private and/or community partners. Significantly, when we are selecting the providers for these new centres, a track record of affordability will be taken into account. So it is a significant policy stream, a significant policy measure, which will make a difference for childcare centres.
On the demand side of course we have introduced, through the recent budget, an increase in the childcare tax rebate, which—as I presume the member opposite appreciates—is not income tested. So that is a significant measure on the demand side to assist working families. We are of course reviewing the regulation in the sector to ensure national consistency in quality standards and licensing. Finally, as part of this suite of policy measures, we are looking at the transparency and indeed acting on the transparency of the sector. This is actually implementing a pre-election commitment. I know that it is not fashionable amongst the Liberal Party members to implement pre-election commitments; it is fashionable to make them, to describe them as rock solid, rolled gold and all that sort of thing and then to back down on them later. The member for Warringah would probably remember all about that from the last parliament. I know it is not fashionable with the member for Warringah to make an election commitment and then actually implement it, but the government committed before the election to a major transparency measure to make sure that parents had access to information about fees, availability of places and quality standards.
I think the thing that members opposite should be reflecting on, as they show throughout this question time just how out of touch they are, is what a track record of failure it is that, after 12 years in government, they left a situation where parents looking for child care could not get ready information on fees, availability or quality. That is the situation they left after 12 years of inaction; and, as part of a suite of measures dealing with affordability, accessibility and quality, we are acting on it.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I just indicate to the member for Warringah that the latter part of the question was asking for an opinion. It could have easily been fixed so that is why I ignored it. When somebody asks a minister whether they think something or other is fair I think that is slightly outside the standing orders.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for O’Connor should not go near the cognitive processes of members. I hope that he does not believe that that was an overly great reflection upon him.
Budget
5041
5041
14:35:00
Cheeseman, Darren, MP
HW7
Corangamite
ALP
1
Mr CHEESEMAN
—My question is to the Treasurer. What measures will the government implement from 1 July to help families with the rising cost of petrol and groceries? What is the government’s response to market research which has been undertaken on the budget?
5041
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for his question because this is a government that does deliver for working families and those finding it tough to make ends meet around the kitchen table. We do understand that, at the end of the week, a lot of people have trouble paying the bills. We absolutely understand why they need to shop for specials. We on this side of the House are absolutely in touch with the fact that people are under tremendous cost-of-living pressure at the moment and that is the reason we are putting so much effort into tackling inflation. That is also why we put so much effort in the budget into delivering the tax cuts from 1 July this year—because prices are going up at the supermarket and at the petrol bowser and inflation is high, as the Reserve Bank has indicated again today. On top of that we have this oil shock going on. So many people do have to shop for specials and that is why they need the tax cuts that we are delivering in this budget.
In two weeks time, a young couple earning $87,000 a year will have an extra $20 in their pay cheque each week from tax cuts alone. That will help them. That will help them with the rising cost of living. That will help them with rising petrol prices. But it is not just tax cuts. There is a range of measures we are bringing in that were never contemplated by those opposite while they were in government. A typical young family with two young children will be $51 to $54 per week better off as a result of our initiatives, which will kick in in a fortnight. Let us just take child care. From 1 July this year, this young family will receive a 50 per cent rebate for their children’s child care, saving them $24 a week. That recognises cost-of-living pressures. The family will also be eligible for a $375 education tax refund—something the Liberals never delivered. And the Liberals never delivered on child care either. They made people wait. They make them wait initially for 18 months to get some relief for their out-of-pocket childcare costs. We are delivering in all of those areas.
Meanwhile, the shadow Treasurer is sitting around organising focus groups asking questions like: do they think he was an old Liberal or a new Liberal? I think we got the answer today from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: he is an out-of-touch Liberal. The pretender from Point Piper is an out-of-touch Liberal, and he is an out-of-touch Liberal because he does not understand that we need to fight inflation and we need to do it for all of those people out there that are being hit by the high cost of living. We have to do it; otherwise, they will face permanently higher interest rates. This team opposite left this country with eight interest rate rises in three years—10 in total attributable to them. That is their legacy to the Australian people and they still do not get it—they still do not understand that we have to fight inflation to put downward pressure on interest rates. This government will do it, and they will continue to behave recklessly. For doing that they will be condemned by the Australian people.
Education Funding
5041
5041
14:39:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister rule out parents having to pay new levies or higher school fees to help fund the installation and operational costs of the government’s promise to put a computer on the desk of every upper secondary school student?
5042
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Deputy Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I am delighted to get a question from the shadow minister—absolutely delighted—and I certainly will be answering it. Can I say when it comes to the reaction of the Catholic and independent schools sector to the government’s recent announcement of computers in schools, rather than rely on the shadow minister I would prefer to rely on Bill Daniels, the Executive Director of the Independent Schools Council of Australia, and Monsignor Tom Doyle of the National Catholic Education Commission, who have both welcomed this new investment. This new investment was made into schools that applied and were invited to apply because they had a student-to-computer ratio of one to eight or worse—the legacy of the Liberal Party to Australian students in those schools.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question was about whether parents will have to pay new levies or higher school fees as a result of this initiative.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The question is to do with the program of instituting computers to upper secondary schools. Over many, many years, despite those who asked the questions believing that they require yes/no answers or the like, that has not been the way in which the relevance test has been used in this place. The Deputy Prime Minister will respond to the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Can I answer the honourable member’s question this way. Before the election of the Rudd Labor government, independent and Catholic schools were funding the introduction of computers wholly and solely through fees and fundraising. What are they doing now? They have a government that has a National Secondary School Computer Fund of $1.2 billion that is working with them. There was no dedicated fund for computers in schools prior to this government. Prior to this government, schools were left to their own devices. There was no dedicated focus, no care or concern from members opposite about computers in schools—absolutely nothing of substance happening. Here is a government that has come along and is prepared to work in partnership with schools with a $1.2 billion investment. What I can certainly say to members opposite is we understand that schools want assistance from government to get computers into schools. We are providing it and there is no-one on this side of the parliament that is so out of touch that they would utter a statement like that uttered by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She said:
… I’m yet to see a school that is not well served with computers.
There is no-one over here that out of touch. We understand schools want assistance, and we are providing it.
Same-Sex Relationships
5042
5042
14:43:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
1
Mr DANBY
—My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General inform the House of what the government is doing to remove discrimination against Australians in same-sex relationships, under Commonwealth superannuation laws? Attorney, are there any obstacles to these moves to remove this discrimination?
5042
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
Mr McCLELLAND
—I thank the member for Melbourne Ports for his question; he has been a long-time advocate for the removal of discrimination. Three weeks ago I introduced the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill. That bill will do nothing more and nothing less than remove discrimination against a group of Australians who for far too long have suffered an injustice and, moreover, will remove discrimination suffered by children brought up in those households. Many members will be disappointed to learn that today the opposition has used its numbers in the Senate to delay passage of this legislation by referring it to a committee without any end date and specifically with a provision that it will not report until subsequent legislation is introduced and considered.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—You could backdate it!
JK6
McClelland, Robert, MP
Mr McCLELLAND
—The legislation will not undermine marriage. Both sides of this House have supported legislation that confirms marriage is between a man and a woman; it is the position of both parties. Indeed, so much was acknowledged by the shadow Attorney-General when he was asked about it in a radio interview on 5 June. The question was:
Could you answer me and our listeners really, really simply, how a change in a piece of legislation regarding superannuation will in any way question or challenge or chip away at the institution of marriage?
And the reply from the shadow Attorney-General was an honest:
I don’t think it will.
One of the main reasons the opposition has referred the legislation to a committee is because of its proposal to have coverage of people in close personal relationships—the example given was of two elderly sisters living together and caring for each other. But we have made it perfectly clear our purpose is to remove discrimination as a matter of principle, and in that process there will most certainly be winners and losers. For instance, two elderly sisters on the age pension would each currently receive $546.80 per fortnight. If, as the opposition proposes, they are recognised as a couple under Commonwealth laws then each would receive $456.80 per fortnight. In other words, they would be $180 worse off per fortnight. Indeed, they would also lose $500 per year in a utilities allowance. We would certainly ask the opposition to have regard to that. They made great play earlier in the year at the prospect of carers suffering a reduction in benefits; this is most clearly something that would reduce the benefits to carers by about $180 per fortnight.
There is no question that this delay will cause hardship. It is inappropriate in these matters to be overly dramatic or emotional, but it is unquestionably the case that there is a prospect of superannuants dying before this legislation is passed and their partners or their children being deprived of the benefits of the legislation. Perhaps to avoid embarrassment, perhaps indicating some goodwill on the part of members opposite, it has been proposed that it can be backdated—indeed, I heard an interjection to that effect during my presentation. But the trouble with that is that we are talking about reversionary benefits, benefits that are paid fortnightly or monthly—in other words, sustaining the family—that are a regular income for the family. The delay would effectively deprive or create a hiatus in the income of that family unless and until that legislation is passed. It would also introduce very complex issues with respect to recovery. The law, as I understand it, is that trustees are required to make payments; they have a duty to make payments under the law as it currently stands, and in circumstances where that law was subsequently changed there are very complicated issues regarding recovery.
In short: this law will do nothing more and nothing less than remove discrimination against a group of Australians and their children who have suffered an injustice for far too long. Indeed, I think that was recognised, in fairness to him, by the member for Sturt in his contribution in the debate. I would again implore those opposite to support the expeditious passage of this legislation.
Workplace Relations
5044
5044
14:49:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that over 42,000 working days have been lost due to strikes and industrial action in the first three months of this year, which is almost as many as were lost in the entire previous 12 months. Would the Prime Minister explain to the House why there has been such a significant increase in strikes and industrial action under this Labor government?
5044
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—When you are dealing with enterprise bargaining, it follows that these things come in seasons and in sequence. Obviously there will be tips up and tips down in the level of industrial activity. That is the first point. The second point is this: those opposite, having had 12 years to act on the undersupply of skilled labour in this market, should have thought clearly what the consequences were for the economy overall. After all, they received 20 warnings from the Reserve Bank of Australia about infrastructure bottlenecks and skill shortages. They failed to act systematically, and as a result we have these factors at work in the economy today. As a result of that, it does alter the overall bargaining equation. We believe, through the industrial relations system that the government is introducing based on the dual principles of fairness and flexibility, that we will have at its core productivity based wage increases—best for the economy, best for workers, best for global competitiveness. If those opposite, after 12 years, could not act more effectively on providing enough skills for the economy given its long-term needs, then they should hang their heads in shame.
Education Funding
5044
5044
14:51:00
Ellis, Annette, MP
5K6
Canberra
ALP
1
Ms ANNETTE ELLIS
—My question is to the Minister for Education, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the reaction to the first round of the digital education revolution?
5044
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 Canberra for her question and I also thank her for participating in the launch of the first round of the government’s digital education revolution, which happened on 12 June. Through that first round, 896 schools will receive 116,000 computers, including 1,600 for 13 schools in the member for Canberra’s own electorate. This is a $116 million investment, the first instalment of our $1.2 billion commitment to bring secondary schools into the 21st century.
I thank the member for Lowe for handing to me during the course of question time a letter from one of his principals, Maxine Kohler of the McDonald College. This letter says:
I would like to thank you and the federal government for including the McDonald College in the first round of the national secondary school computer rollout. The 86 additional computers will make a very valuable contribution to the learning of our students and the staff is excited about the prospect of this additional education investment.
Of course, those words of praise join words of praise from teachers and principals around the country.
I was also assisted in the launch of the first round of the digital education revolution by the member for Maribyrnong. I would like to thank him for his participation. At the school we visited, the principal, David Adamson, welcomed the 529 computers his school will receive, saying:
We have been held back by a lack of facilities, and this is going to accelerate our progress.
This commentary joins the commentary of the Ulverstone High School principal, who said of their 113 new computers:
I reckon it’s one of those things where any big investment does make a difference.
The principal of the Corio Bay Senior College said:
Most of our current computers are very old, which makes it difficult for any students who are trying to do online research. It’s not really assisted learning if the students are sitting there twiddling their thumbs.
She went on to say how pleased she was that Corio Bay Senior College would get 170 new computers through round 1. The principal of San Clemente High School in New South Wales, Tony Kelly, said of the 117 new computers his school will receive:
There’s no way in the world we could have afforded to pay for them.
Bruce Armstrong, the principal of Balwyn High School, described the 533 new computers his school will receive as an exciting opportunity. We also received positive comments from teachers. Victor Davidson, for example, from Birrong Girls High School, said:
We’ve got 210 computers. Now I feel assured my work to get students to engage in ICT is worthwhile.
Of course, these words of praise from principals and students echo the words of praise from the leaders of the Independent Schools of Australia and the National Catholic Education Commission, Mr Bill Daniels and Monsignor Tom Doyle respectively, both of whom welcomed this new investment.
When we line it up, what do we see? We see the leaders in education welcoming this investment. We see principals welcoming this investment. We see teachers welcoming this investment. We certainly saw some very excited students on launch day welcoming this investment. The only people who are whingeing and carping about this sit over there: the members of the Liberal Party. Amazingly, we have had people like the member for Wannon complaining even though six schools in his electorate will get 280 computers in this first round. The member for Paterson has been complaining, saying that his schools have been ‘short-changed’ despite the fact that 10 schools in his electorate will receive a total of 1,392 computers. One can only imagine what he thought of the performance of his own government on the basis of that. The member for La Trobe has also complained—
E0F
Wood, Jason, MP
Mr Wood interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for La Trobe!
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—despite receiving 269 computers for schools in his electorate. This whingeing, carping and moaning is from an out-of-touch opposition that sailed through 12 years of government—
E0F
Wood, Jason, MP
Mr Wood interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for La Trobe is warned!
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—with education ministers who used to say things like:
... I’m yet to see a school that is not well served with computers.
Those opposite might be living in a bubble, be out of touch and be unable to join in the spirit of enthusiasm for the digital education revolution, but people who lead schools and who teach in schools understand this is a worthwhile investment. I thank them for working with the government to change our classrooms into 21st century classrooms.
Small Business
5045
5045
14:57:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
Mr CIOBO
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the recent Sensis survey of 1,800 small businesses which shows that the number of small businesses that believe the government’s policies support them has plummeted from 46 per cent to only 10 per cent. Prime Minister, which of the government’s anti-small-business policies will be changed to reverse this dramatic decline in small business confidence in the government?
5046
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—If you were out there in the business community and had copped 10 successive interest rate rises in a row courtesy of the fiscal indiscipline of those opposite, it would have an effect on your confidence as well. It does not just affect people on mortgages, important as that—
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order of relevance. The question was very—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—No. The member for Moncrieff will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is starting his reply. I will listen to it carefully, but the Prime Minister has just started.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. Firstly, there is an impact on confidence after 10 interest rate rises in a row; and, secondly, when this government assumed office, inflation was running at a 16-year high, and that has an effect on confidence as well. The flow-through effect of that in terms of activity and unemployment, unless you actually turn things around, is there for all to see. That is why this government is committed to undertaking a policy based on fiscal discipline, fiscal rectitude and a $22 billion surplus, in contrast to those opposite, who are in the process of conducting a $22 billion raid.
Beyond that, the government can also embark upon a serious program of business deregulation. I draw the attention of honourable members to the work currently underway by the minister for small business through the Council of Australian Governments looking at key critical questions of the compatibility of business regulation right across Australia. For 12 years in office, those opposite had ample opportunity through the Council of Australian Governments to do something cooperative with the states on the business deregulation agenda. If you are a small business trying to become a medium-sized business and operating in one, two or three states, one of the huge barriers to entry is practical questions like the conflicting arrangements for the registration of business names and other conflicting business regulatory arrangements. This government has actually taken this challenge seriously. Currently—before the relevant working group of COAG—we are examining 27 separate items of legislation and regulation which impact right across the business community. That is a practical course of action which we have embarked upon in our first six months in office. After 12 years in office, they had done zip.
Alcohol Abuse
5046
5046
15:00:00
Rea, Kerry, MP
HVR
Bonner
ALP
1
Ms REA
—My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on police views on binge drinking?
5046
Debus, Bob, MP
8IS
Macquarie
ALP
Minister for Home Affairs
1
Mr DEBUS
—I thank the member for Bonner for her question and indicate that last week I attended the regular national meeting of police ministers and police commissioners. There was there unanimous agreement that alcohol related violence and binge drinking is the single biggest drain on police resources across the country, particularly on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. One police minister spoke of a recent visit to Los Angeles, where law enforcement authorities apparently expressed amazement that so many Australian venues have 5 am liquor licences. That is something that we are hearing more concern about from our local communities.
HWE
Simpkins, Luke, MP
Mr Simpkins interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Cowan is warned!
8IS
Debus, Bob, MP
Mr DEBUS
—In March, the day after the Prime Minister announced a new national strategy to address the binge drinking epidemic, the police commissioner in New South Wales, Andrew Scipione, said that any move to tackle alcohol abuse was a ‘wise investment’. He described that abuse as an enormous national problem and he said that 70 per cent of every police engagement with a member of the community in the streets of New South Wales has alcohol as a factor. That is an astounding statistic.
Recent research shows that the New South Wales Police Force spends the equivalent of the salaries of 1,000 full-time constables just to deal with alcohol related issues. Two weeks ago, Commissioner Scipione said drinking habits have changed. There had been what he called a normalisation of binge drinking, with many young Australians now going out determined to get drunk whatever the consequences, and that involved both men and women. The commissioner pointed out that he was not himself a wowser. He said it was, however, time to listen to the community and to work to change the drinking culture. Those comments were echoed by commissioners and commanders across the country. Young people who binge drink think they are bulletproof. Young men get into fights and young women are left vulnerable to sexual predators.
The link between alcohol use and road trauma is also well known. There is a wealth of evidence to show that a substantial proportion of assaults are alcohol related. A trends and issues paper by the Australian Institute of Criminology is to be released later this month and it will show that recorded assaults have increased steadily over the past 10 years by over 40 per cent. There is recent research which conservatively estimates that alcohol related crime in Australia costs $1.7 billion a year.
Nobody wants to spoil the enjoyment of having a few drinks, but moderate consumption is not the problem. Police commissioners have praised the government’s recent decision to increase the tax on premixed drinks. We cannot ignore advice from officers who are in the front line dealing with a major national problem. Frankly, criticism of any measure to reduce binge drinking is very hard to fathom. A definition of binge drinking can indeed only assist responsible drinking.
Northern Australia
5047
5047
15:04:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
Mr KATTER
—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The minister would be aware that 300 million megalitres of Australia’s water is in Northern Australia and only 80 million megalitres is in the south. In light of the depressing reality that the north uses only one per cent of this water and provides less than five per cent of agricultural production, could the minister discuss with local councils a small developmental loan fund, secured and guaranteed by Queensland government land resumed for irrigation purposes? Finally, is the minister aware that just two million of the six million hectares of black soil destroyed by the prickly acacia weed will, with sugar and some grain, increase Australia’s beef production and, with a green car, provide Australia’s oil requirements indefinitely?
5047
Burke, Tony, MP
DYW
Watson
ALP
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr BURKE
—I thank the honourable member for the question. The issues that he raises are particularly important issues at a time when the nation is experiencing such drought, and they were among the issues that came up at the 2020 Summit. At the 2020 Summit significant discussion took place about the fact that we do have so much more water in the north of the nation and we are experiencing such severe drought in the south of the nation. Of course, it is not simply a case of shifting the agriculture and transplanting it from one part of the country to the other, for the obvious reason that in the north of the country overwhelmingly the rain that does fall falls in particular months of the year and you then have knock-on impacts in terms of what can be grown there with soils as well as one of the critical problems being the increased proliferation of pests and diseases in the north of the country.
There has been success with respect to agriculture for some time, with mangoes being grown in the north of the country outside of the sugar regions themselves. More recently, there have been expansions of industries such as the peanut industry across Northern Australia. So it is an issue not simply in Queensland but across the whole of Northern Australia. I have been talking at length and am still working through some proposals with the member for Brand, who has policy carriage in this area in his role as Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia.
Some of these opportunities may also be advanced in having plant varieties that are resistant to pests and diseases through the development of some GMOs, genetically modified organisms. There may be some further opportunities in the north of Australia coming out of that. With respect to the proliferation of weeds, I am pleased the honourable member refers to the fact that you can actually get around the food versus fuel argument through biofuel options which do provide very real outcomes at the same time in terms of beef production. These are issues that the government is still working through. The honourable member is aware, with respect to biofuels, of some of the work I have reported to the House previously, which is being jointly done by the Minister for Resources and Energy and me.
Aviation: Open Skies Policy
5048
5048
15:08:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
1
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister advise the House of recent achievements in developing an open skies agreement between Australia and the European Union?
5048
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
Mr ALBANESE
—I thank the member for Wills for his question. Last Friday the aviation relationship between Australia and the European Union, Australia’s largest aviation market, took a significant step forward. European transport ministers approved a mandate for the European Commission to negotiate an EU-wide comprehensive air services agreement with Australia.
I welcome this decision as an important step towards a historic open skies agreement which could deliver greater competition, more flights and lower airfares between Australia and EU countries. It is a step that could never have been secured by the previous government. The decision of the Rudd Labor government to ratify the Kyoto protocol was clearly instrumental in achieving a shift in European opinion and a shift in the European agreement to this mandate. An EU-wide comprehensive air services agreement could remove many if not all of the existing limitations for Australian and European airlines operating between Australia and the EU.
The Rudd government has actively pursued an open skies agreement and it was discussed when the Prime Minister met with the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, in Brussels in April of this year. More recently, I hosted a lunch in Parliament House on 5 May where the potential open skies agreement with the EU was discussed with Mr Bruno Julien, the Ambassador and Head of Delegation of the European Commission to Australia and New Zealand, and Mr Francois Descoueyte, the French Ambassador to Australia. Of course, France takes over the presidency of the EU from 1 July.
In order to progress the important open skies agreement with the EU, I will be travelling in July to meet with the EU and with the French and German transport ministers. Recent progress with Europe builds on the Rudd government’s success in concluding an open skies agreement with the United States. It has been only three months since the Prime Minister signed the Australia-US open skies agreement and the benefits of competition are already being felt. This has the potential to lead to cheaper airfares and a greater variety of cities served. This is a win for consumers, a win for the tourism industry and a win for the Australian aviation industry. Achieving an international air services policy which serves our national interest is a key issue being considered in the development of the government’s aviation white paper, which will be finalised by mid-2009.
Member for Robertson
5049
5049
15:11:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his statement at a press conference in Japan on 9 June, in answer to questions about the member for Robertson, when the Prime Minister said:
... I understand my office has been in contact. And ... I understand she has issued a statement ...
Given that the member for Robertson did not issue a statement until the following afternoon of 10 June, what involvement did the Prime Minister’s office have in the preparation of that statement?
5049
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I honestly cannot recall the sequence of events.
Opposition members interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I just can’t. You are asking me about events last week. It is just the truth. We are talking about the events of a week or so ago. I was in Japan and there were events unfolding back here. What I know for a fact is as follows. My statement at the time was that it appeared that there had been an unacceptable pattern of behaviour in relation to the honourable member. Furthermore, I indicated that the honourable member had agreed that there would be appropriate counselling. Furthermore, I said that it would be proper for all members of parliament to reflect on the fact that no-one is guaranteed of a future in this place. Those have been my consistent comments on this matter since then. They remain my position now and I await the outcome, as all honourable members do, of the police investigation.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was referring to a press conference on 9 June, not 11 June.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat.
Afghanistan
5049
5049
15:12:00
Perrett, Graham, MP
HVP
Moreton
ALP
1
Mr PERRETT
—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister outline the role Australia is playing in development and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan?
5049
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—I thank the honourable member for his question. I was pleased last week to represent Australia at the successful International Support Conference for Afghanistan in Paris. That conference very much underlined the Australian government’s approach, which is that in Afghanistan we need to secure two things: firstly, peace and security through combat or military enforcement action; and, secondly, to build the Afghan nation through civil reconstruction.
The conference in Paris was a very necessary step in aligning the civilian contribution and the military contribution and an important follow-up to the Bucharest NATO summit. It sent a strong message of international community commitment to Afghanistan’s rebuilding, reconstruction and development. Nearly US$20 billion was pledged, including a $250 million contribution from Australia, which of course is in addition to our troop commitment in the south of the Afghanistan, part of which involves a reconstruction task force.
Australia joined with the international community in making the point that the time has now come for the Afghan government itself to assume a greater responsibility in the administration of civil reconstruction and to assume a greater responsibility in addressing the major threats to Afghanistan’s stability. I made the point to the conference and generally that Australia saw four main threats to Afghanistan’s reconstruction: firstly, the ongoing security situation; secondly, the need for the Afghan government to ensure good governance; thirdly, the essential need for building the capacity of state institutions; and, finally, the need to address and attack Afghanistan’s significant narcotics problem.
The conference underlined these things and also made the point that, in addition to an enhanced international community commitment to this civil reconstruction, there needs to be greater coordination of international efforts. The conference expressed its very strong support for the United Nations Special Representative, Mr Kai Eide, in his role. In the course of the conference I had the opportunity of speaking to Mr Eide and also the Secretary General of NATO, my foreign minister counterparts from the United Kingdom, France, Pakistan and Italy and the Secretary of State of the United States. In these meetings I emphasised Australia’s long-term commitment to Afghanistan, including the essential need to parallel-track both military enforcement action and civil reconstruction. I also emphasised Australia’s very significant concern about the potential deleterious consequences to our troops in the south of Afghanistan near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. It is quite clear that the potentially deteriorating situation on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is a matter which is now of necessary interest not just to Afghanistan and Pakistan but also to the region and the international community generally.
I indicated that Australia pledged $250 million for civil reconstruction. We particularly see that as occurring in agriculture, good governance, law enforcement and capacity-building of state institutions. My attendance at the conference as Australia’s representative followed upon a trip to Afghanistan, where I had the opportunity of having discussions with the new Commander of the International Security Assistance Force, General McKiernan, about the implementation of the political and military strategy from Bucharest and also the prospects for civil reconstruction. It is true to say that the work being done by Australian troops—both in a military sense and also in a reconstruction sense—in Oruzgan province in southern Afghanistan is very much appreciated by the international security forces and very much admired by NATO members and the international community.
In conclusion, I welcome very much the recent announcements from NATO states that their military commitment is being upgraded. I welcome very much the announcement overnight by the British Secretary of State for Defence, Des Browne, of the increase in the United Kingdom’s contribution in Afghanistan, which is its largest military contribution. I welcome very much the announcement by the Italian Foreign Minister that the so-called caveats applied to the deployment of Italian forces will now be made significantly more flexible, and I welcomed this in my discussions with Foreign Minister Frattini.
It is unambiguously the case that Australia’s long-term commitment in Afghanistan, both militarily and in civil reconstruction, is in our national interest. There is absolutely no doubt that it is also in the international community’s interest. There is no doubt that Afghanistan, and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, is currently the international hotbed of terrorism. And that terrorism is potentially quickly mobile—to the north and west for Europe and to the south and east for Asia and Australia. That is why Australia’s ongoing, long-term, enduring commitment to Afghanistan is of both a military enforcement and civil reconstruction nature.
Member for Robertson
5051
5051
15:18:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his statement at his press conference in Japan on 11 June. In answer to questions about the member for Robertson, he said:
There appears to be a pattern of unacceptable behaviour here.
Will the Prime Minister explain what he meant by ‘a pattern of unacceptable behaviour’?
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That question is clearly outside the standing orders. The statement speaks for itself, and the question is out of order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants to speak to the point of order, I will allow her to do so. At the moment, I see it as being similar to a couple of questions from yesterday, but I will allow the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to approach the box.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—Mr Speaker, in framing this question I ensured that it went to the statements of the Prime Minister—his statements, his action, what he meant by what he said. The question is not in relation to the behaviour of the member for Robertson; it is in relation to what the Prime Minister said—his own statement in relation to his actions.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her points. As I said yesterday, I am trying to be consistent with the rulings that I have given—and, to be consistent with the rulings that I have given, I would have to rule it out of order.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, on what basis is a question about a statement by the Prime Minister out of order? What standing order? Where is it?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It is under the standing order that was raised yesterday. Also, I am quoting again from page 538:
… the attitude behaviour or actions of a member of parliament or the staff of members …
And the comment was made outside the chamber. As I said, that is my ruling. Is there a further point of order?
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, page 538 of the House Of Representatives Practice does not specifically exclude this question. Identify for me the particular area on page 538 that says you cannot ask the Prime Minister a question about his words.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have ruled the question out of order. The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. On this occasion, I will offer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to rephrase the question.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—If she does not want to, I will just continue with question time.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—No, the member for North Sydney and the member for Menzies will resume their places.
DISSENT FROM RULING
5052
Dissent from Ruling
5052
15:22:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Manager of Opposition Business
0
0
Mr HOCKEY
—I move:
That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—No, it is not overreached. Mr Speaker, I move dissent from your ruling about ruling that question out of order. Page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice nowhere precludes asking a question about the Prime Minister’s own words.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: as I understand it, your last ruling was to give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to rephrase her question. Is the dissent being moved in that position?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney has the call.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—Mr Speaker, I am moving dissent from your ruling because you have broken all practice in relation to this. There is a litany of examples where there has been a range of specific questions—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the dissent motion that the member for North Sydney has to speak on is your ruling relating to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He failed to move dissent when you ruled the question out of order. He failed to move dissent at that point in time. It was available to him. He chose not to do so. You then made a ruling, and he then moved dissent from that ruling.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the House will resume his seat, and the member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The ruling I gave was that the question was out of order. It is not a ruling when I then offer the opportunity to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to rephrase her question.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—Mr Speaker, I am reluctant to move dissent in this situation, but I make the point that you have broken new ground as Speaker in relation to questions that are available to the opposition. When we cannot ask the Prime Minister a direct question about public comments he made as Prime Minister about the behaviour of one of his own members, then this parliament is reduced to a shambles by that sort of ruling. There is a rich history in this place over the last 12 years of questions that have been asked in relation to individual members of parliament and in relation to the Prime Minister’s discussions with those members of parliament. If you are relying on page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice, I refer you to questions that were asked in September 2007 in this parliament by the member for Brisbane. There was a question about the behaviour of the members for Bonner, Bowman and Moreton and the police investigation in relation to that. Why at that time did the Speaker allow questions to be asked about a police investigation when you, Sir, ruled them out of order yesterday? I will go one step further. In September 2007 the now Leader of the House asked a question of the then Speaker about the printing entitlements and the police investigation relating to the members for Bonner, Bowman and Moreton.
It goes further. In 2001 the Labor opposition asked almost 20 questions without notice in this House regarding Ian Macfarlane, the member for Groom, and the application of a GST by his own federal political party. That is assumed to be a breach of page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice but—do you know what?—the Speaker allowed those questions to be asked. Furthermore, in March 2005 the Labor opposition asked five questions without notice in this House about the behaviour of Senator Ross Lightfoot, a member of the Senate. They asked a question to the Prime Minister about what Senator Lightfoot had done and the Speaker at that time allowed those questions to be asked. I might also note that the member for Griffith—the now Prime Minister, who is walking out of the chamber; he is running away—asked a question. The member for Griffith asked a question about Senator Lightfoot. He was allowed to ask that question in the chamber. The Speaker allowed that to proceed. Then, if you are relying on page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice, Mr Speaker, in February 2005 the Labor opposition asked four questions without notice about the behaviour of Graeme Hallett, an employee at that time of the then Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads. But, Mr Speaker, yesterday and today you are ruling out questions where we not inquire about the behaviour of the member for Robertson but ask the Prime Minister specifically about what he said to the member for Robertson and what he said publicly about those discussions.
Mr Speaker, if we cannot ask those basic questions that go to the heart of democracy about whether a Prime Minister has formed a view about one of his own colleagues, but more significantly if we are not allowed to ask a question about the Prime Minister’s own public statements, then we do move dissent from your ruling. We are very concerned about a trend that this is establishing. It is not page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice that you are relying on, Mr Speaker, and it is certainly not the standing orders you are relying on. We cannot find an example where a question to a Prime Minister has been ruled out of order when it goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s own public statements. We cannot find an example of that. This is new ground that you, as Speaker, are treading upon and it cuts to the heart of the value of question time.
Mr Speaker, if we still go to page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice, as you, Mr Speaker, appear to be relying on and as the Prime Minister relied on yesterday in relation to police investigations, I note that from November 2005 until May 2007 the member for Griffith, as shadow minister for foreign affairs, joined in in asking 190 questions without notice about issues before a royal commission. Forget the police investigation run by the New South Wales police; the opposition previously asked 190 questions whilst a royal commission was being held on the subject matter. The Speaker at the time allowed those questions to be asked.
If we go back to 2002, we see that the Labor opposition asked over 60 questions without notice in the House with regard to the so-called ‘children overboard’ issue. At that time, the now Minister for Trade specifically referred to staff of the Prime Minister: Tony Nutt and Tony O’Leary. Over the years, the Labor opposition specifically referred to numerous staff—even going back to 1996, when they were asking about travel rorts. But, no, under you as Speaker, we are not allowed to ask questions that involve the staff of a member of parliament or of the Prime Minister.
This is a significant issue for this parliament. If you, Mr Speaker, are creating new ground in restricting the questions that can be asked of a Prime Minister about his public statements, it cuts to the heart of the value of this chamber as a chamber of the people. We believe that we have the right—and it goes to the foundations of what this parliament stands for—to ask the Prime Minister questions. We have the right to ask the Prime Minister questions about public statements. We have the right to ask the Prime Minister questions about his duties and responsibilities as Prime Minister. In this case, he made his comments in Japan, as Prime Minister, at a prime ministerial press conference. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has made further statements, even earlier in question time, and the same principle applied to the last question as applies now. But you, Mr Speaker, have two different rulings on the question of admissibility.
If we cannot ask questions about an issue that goes to the integrity of a member of parliament—or, indeed, to the integrity of the Prime Minister—then question time is enormously devalued. It also, I might add, affects the impartiality of the chamber. It is a very serious issue. The Prime Minister, in this situation, was asked a specific question about his specific words, his public comments. The specific point, which I made, was: to what was the Prime Minister referring when he said—and it is public—that there was ‘a pattern of unacceptable behaviour’? That goes back to a press conference the Prime Minister had on 11 June, where he said:
… there appears to be a pattern of unacceptable behaviour here.
The Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, has formed a view. If we are not entitled to ask the Prime Minister why he has formed a view about a member of parliament—and it goes to the heart of his responsibilities as Prime Minister—then what are we doing here? This goes beyond page 538 of the House of Representatives Practice, it goes beyond the standing orders and it cuts to the very heart of democracy. If an opposition cannot ask questions of a Prime Minister, then it devalues not just the Prime Minister and not just the parliament but also the democracy that we all believe in.
5054
15:32:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
0
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—Mr Speaker, I second the motion. This government and this Prime Minister promised the Australian people that the government would be open, accountable and transparent, essentially inviting the opposition to ask this government and this Prime Minister in question time questions that the Prime Minister would answer in an open, accountable and transparent way. Mr Speaker, today I asked a question, which you allowed, regarding a press conference that the Prime Minister gave in Japan on 9 June—this was my first question. At the press conference, the Prime Minister answered questions about the member for Robertson—and I put that information in my question, which you allowed, and then I quoted the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said:
… I understand my office has been in contact, and … I understand that she has issued a statement …
Then I asked whether the Prime Minister’s office had any involvement in the preparation of that statement. You, Mr Speaker, allowed that question, and the Prime Minister stood up; he got the date wrong and thought it was another press conference, but nevertheless he attempted to give some sort of answer to the question. He said he would go away, work out the timetable and come back. I then asked a second question based on another press conference two days later in Japan, where the Prime Minister, in answer to questions about the member for Robertson, said—and I again quoted him:
… there appears to be a pattern of unacceptable behaviour here.
I then asked the Prime Minister if he would explain what he meant by ‘a pattern of unacceptable behaviour’. The Prime Minister himself said at that press conference, when he was answering questions about the member for Robertson in public, rebuking her publicly, that his talk with Ms Neal was:
… a clear-cut conversation between me as the leader of the parliamentary Labor party, and as the prime minister, and with her as a member of the parliament.
So the Prime Minister was telling the world at large that his statements about the member for Robertson were made in his capacity as the Prime Minister of this country. If we are denied the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister of this country what he meant by a phrase he used in a press conference in Japan, then we will have our hands tied for the next 2½ years in the lead-up to the next election.
This government promised to be open, transparent and accountable. Mr Speaker, you must not use standing order 100(c) to suggest that the question I asked was anything other than to the Prime Minister in his capacity as the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of this country must answer questions that go to the very essence of his role as Prime Minister. He chose to use that opportunity to make a statement in public, at a press conference, about the member for Robertson. The Australian people are entitled to know what he meant by a ‘pattern’. We are not talking about one incident. The Australian people do not have the opportunity to go down to the Lodge or turn up at Kirribilli and ask the Prime Minister, ‘What did you mean by that?’ We as the elected representatives of the people of Australia are entitled to ask the Prime Minister, ‘What did you mean when you, as the Prime Minister of this country, said at a press conference in Japan that “there appears to be a pattern of unacceptable behaviour”?’ The Australian people are entitled to know what he meant. The forum for the Australian people to ask that question is through the elected representatives, in question time, in this chamber.
Mr Speaker, this question should not have been ruled out of order, with the greatest respect. We spent time overnight reading your statements yesterday in Hansard and, with the greatest respect, I am cognisant of the statements you made. I sought advice and I spent a lot of time drafting these questions to ensure they did not offend whatever interpretation you, Mr Speaker, put on the standing orders. So we directed the question to the Prime Minister’s statement, and you allowed that in question 9. You allowed a question about the Prime Minister’s statement and what that statement meant. The statement said that his office had been in contact with the member for Robertson and that he understood the member for Robertson had issued a statement. The fact is she had not issued a statement; therefore, we ask, ‘What did he mean by that? What did he mean by the issuing of that statement?’ The second question, question 10, is again in the same form, exactly the same form, as the question that you allowed. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister must be required to answer this question. (Time expired)
5055
15:38:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—Mr Speaker, I rise for the fourth time to speak in support of your ruling, consistent with the way in which I think any independent observer of this chamber who has looked at the way that you have held yourself in your high office since December would acknowledge: you have carried out your duties in an impartial way which has brought honour to this chamber.
The fact is that this motion is the fourth motion of dissent from your ruling. When there is a bad Newspoll, you can almost, like clockwork, find those opposite performing a stunt in an attempt to distract from their own issues.
Mr Speaker, your ruling is absolutely correct. It is consistent with the rulings that you made yesterday. It is consistent with page 538 of House of Representatives Practice. It is consistent with standing order 90, which says:
All imputations of improper motives to a Member and all personal reflections on other Members shall be considered highly disorderly.
There are avenues open to people in the chamber if they are serious about these issues. Standing order 100(c)(i) states:
-
For questions regarding persons:
-
questions must not reflect or be critical of the character or conduct of a Member ... their conduct may only be challenged on a substantive motion;
Standing order 100(d) states:
-
Questions must not contain:
-
inferences;
-
imputations;
It is quite clear that not only was your ruling correct but, at the time it was made, that ruling was not challenged; it went unchallenged. When parliament last sat, the member opposite, the shadow minister for the environment, was excluded from the chamber for one hour for repeatedly defying your ruling. You then allowed him back into the chamber, a precedent which I do not believe had been made before. That was a generous precedent from you that was not challenged by those opposite.
Mr Speaker, you have gone out of your way to be fair in the way that you have presided over this chamber, in spite of the behaviour we have seen from those opposite in moving some 290 points of order, in interrupting almost every second question and in moving dissent motions just because the Manager of Opposition Business did not have a chance to speak. Rather than being the most serious thing that can be done about the conduct of this magnificent chamber, motions of dissent have now become a vehicle for an opportunity for the competitors for Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition to speak.
Mr Speaker, it is very clear that your ruling is correct, and that is why it should be upheld. It is clear that the Prime Minister has conducted himself appropriately and dealt with this matter appropriately. The Prime Minister has said that the comments were very inappropriate, that they were out of step with all parliamentary standards past and present. The Prime Minister has said that he strongly believes it was appropriate that the comments be withdrawn. With regard to the police investigation, the Prime Minister has said that it is appropriate that that police investigation take place without political interference and the use of parliamentary privilege to interfere with that, just as the previous Prime Minister did in this chamber.
It is extraordinary that this is all the opposition wants to talk about when there are serious long-term challenges facing this nation. We have inflation at 16-year highs, we have Australian families who have had 12 consecutive interest rate increases, yet we have from those opposite an obsession—
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The member is supposed to be explaining to this House the worth of your decision, and he is making a very poor case.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister knows that he has to be relevant.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—I am certainly doing so. This dissent motion, like the others, is not actually about the rules and procedures of this House. It is about an opposition struggling for relevance, a divided opposition obsessed with itself, determined to look outward in order to distract from its own inefficiencies and its own inadequacies. We saw it on display again today with the questions that were asked by those opposite. As usual, they left the low-grade stuff to the end, as they always do.
We have heard from those opposite that there was going to be an attempt to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee. Have we heard anything from those opposite advancing those arguments? Nothing whatsoever. It is actually the occurrences in this parliament that are the responsibility of this parliament; occurrences outside are being investigated by the police. And it is appropriate that that be the case.
We opposite have said that we are quite prepared for there to be scrutiny of occurrences in this chamber, but there will be scrutiny of all the occurrences in this chamber, including, might I add, what appears to be the draft Hansard that was changed on 28 May. Mrs Mirabella is in Hansard interjecting, ‘You pathetic man hater,’ across the chamber. You will not actually find that in the real Hansard. You will not find that because it has been expunged and changed. Perhaps that is why we have not heard any matter with regard to privileges.
The fact is that this dissent motion reflects an opposition leader in an increased state of desperation—an opposition leader who has been rejected because of the negative, carping role that they are playing, being prepared to blow a $22 billion hole in the surplus. We know that the shadow Treasurer, the person who wants to be the Leader of the Opposition, is clearly already out there holding focus groups about himself in Melbourne.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the House knows that he has to refer to the matter before the chair.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—Mr Speaker, quite clearly your ruling is correct on this matter. An opposition in search of a quick, cheap headline does not change that one iota. There is something ironic about those opposite talking about the dignity of the chamber. These are the people who brought in a cardboard cut-out of the Prime Minister. In opposition I disagreed strongly with the then Prime Minister. We did not treat the chamber like that. We did not treat dissent resolutions as a matter of convenience. We did not move points of order in one out of every two questions. We did not refuse, when provided with the opportunity by the Speaker, to rephrase questions to get them in order—even though the Speaker has been generous in allowing the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to do just that.
Yesterday, we had you, Mr Speaker, refer specifically to page 538 of the standing orders and the opposition deliberately defied that and asked a question that they knew was out of order. They know this question was out of order. They only moved it so as to move a dissent motion, and they are exposed on it by the fact that they moved a dissent motion after you gave them the opportunity to rephrase the question. This is an opposition that is out of touch, as best shown by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who ridiculed those people who would search for specials in supermarkets. That is absolutely outrageous. (Time expired)
5057
15:48:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
0
Mr WINDSOR
—I would have to check the record but I do not think I have ever supported a dissent from a Speaker’s ruling. I am about to do that today because I believe that if this ruling is allowed to stand it would create a precedent that this parliament may well live to regret. The substance of the question is almost irrelevant in terms of this particular issue. I understand that the government is trying to protect a member, but the question is to the Prime Minister of this country. The question is about a statement that the Prime Minister made and, if the standing orders as you interpret them, Mr Speaker, allow for this to happen into the future, I think the general public would be very disappointed that an opposition or other member of this House—an Independent or whoever—is not allowed to ask the Prime Minister about a statement that he made whilst he was overseas.
I do have the utmost respect for you, Mr Speaker. I would have to check the record but I am pretty sure I have never supported a dissent ruling, though that might be found to be incorrect. I urge you, Mr Speaker, perhaps on another day, if this ruling is to stand, to explain very clearly—not to the people in this building but to the general public—why a member of the opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is not entitled to ask the Prime Minister a question about a statement he has made as part of his Prime Ministerial responsibilities.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Attorney-General.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—I was standing at the dispatch box.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Sturt will resume his place.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Sturt will withdraw. That was a reflection on the chair. The member will withdraw the remark.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—I withdraw.
5058
15:50:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—Mr Speaker, in examining your conduct, as the motion seeks to do, it is appropriate also to examine the context of the debate that has occurred over the past two days on this issue. It is also appropriate to examine the conduct of all parties in this chamber. Indeed, one would ask: what more did you need to do to keep the show on the road, as it were, and to keep the situation flowing, where the opposition was entitled to ask the executive to be accountable for its decisions in accordance with the provisions of the standing order? You went out of your way to facilitate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition rephrasing her question—a course of action which I might infer from her body language she was well intending to do until she was pulled to order.
Why was she pulled to order? Because the opposition’s actions in this respect have more to do with political tactics than the substance of the issues. The purpose and intent of question time is to hold members of the executive accountable for their actions and not for their opinions. It is a very, very important exercise. It is where the process of democracy literally hits the road. Members of parliament from both sides of the House have the opportunity to represent their constituents and ask members of the executive about why they are doing something with respect to public policy, and that is underlined, I might suggest, by standing order 98, which says:
A Minister can only—
and I will emphasise that word ‘only’—
be questioned on the following matters, for which he or she is responsible or officially connected ...
The first paragraph—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired.
Question put:
That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.
15:57:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
62
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Downer, A.J.G.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
80
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
5059
16:02:00
Questions Without Notice
Member for Robertson
5059
16:02:00
5059
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—I have a question for the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! If the House would come to order, the position that the House is at at the moment is that there was a dissent from my ruling about the question being out of order. The House has confirmed that ruling. I had then offered the Deputy Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to rephrase her question. I assume that that is what she is doing.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—I am asking a question.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Wakefield was on his feet for several minutes before, half an hour ago, and he was on his feet the whole time that people were milling around. So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition can resume her seat. I call the member for Wakefield.
Wheat Exports
5059
5059
16:03:00
Champion, Nick, MP
HW9
Wakefield
ALP
1
Mr CHAMPION
—My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister update the House on the predictions for this year’s wheat crop?
5059
Burke, Tony, MP
DYW
Watson
ALP
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr BURKE
—I thank the member for Wakefield for his question. I note his strong engagement with the wheat growers in his electorate of Wakefield and their support of the need to reform wheat marketing. More information on the future of this year’s wheat crop was made clear at 10 am today with the release of the ABARE Australian crop report. The area sown to wheat is forecast to be a record 14 million hectares for this year 2008-09. The forecast crop is still only a prediction—and, given that we had a bad season in May, it is still being revised and the most recent revision is slightly downwards. The current forecast is for 23.7 million tonnes, a significant increase on last year’s harvest of 13 million tonnes.
Looking at the future of this year’s wheat crop, the most important part of that future—along with the total tonnage—is under what system it will be sold. The new system will, for the first time, allow growers a choice: if they wish to sell through a pooling arrangement then they can do so and if they wish to sell through a different mechanism then they can also do so. Providing this sort of choice for this year’s wheat crop is an important part of the future of the crop. Many people have said that these options for the future have only come out of the wheat for weapons scandal, but the warnings actually came much earlier than that. In the year 2000 the Productivity Commission concluded that the benefits of single desk marketing, be it for wheat, sugar, barley or rice, could be achieved without a monopoly buyer or seller. I will quote the Productivity Commission report of 2000:
... producers can benefit from the increased range of services provided in a more competitive environment.
The national competition policy review, also in the year 2000, eight years ago, concluded that a single-desk operator is less responsive to both its clients and its suppliers. In eight years the warnings have not changed; what has changed is that we no longer have a government willing to neglect and fail to act on difficult economic reforms. The monopoly did let down wheat growers. This is not only about the $300 million in bribes paid to Saddam Hussein. If you look at the 2006 growers report from the Export Wheat Commission, you will see that it found that those who did not export through AWBI were getting higher prices than the AWBI in the container market and that delays in executing a contract for the sale of wheat to India cost growers $9.5 million. This pain to growers under the single desk system will not be part of this year’s wheat crop.
The 2007 growers report looked at chartering arrangements and found that, for 39 vessel charters, the national pool was $14½ million worse off for growers than it would have been if prevailing commercial shipping rates had been used. I have directed the Export Wheat Commission to investigate this issue and I am awaiting their report. The 2007 growers report addendum, released only yesterday, concluded that AWB Ltd’s hedging strategies were speculative and placed unacceptable risks in the 2005-06 and 2006-07 national pools. Given that the monopoly has, year after year, let growers down, it is important that, as we wait for the Senate debate on this issue, we also reflect on the response of the Leader of the National Party when I allowed an extra permit through earlier in the year for Glencore to also be allowed to export wheat. What happened there? For the first time in some years, Australian wheat growers were allowed back into the Iraqi market—a benefit again for wheat growers. These are difficult economic reforms. These are challenges that have been put to the previous government dating all the way back to 2000. They are challenges that this parliament and this government are happy to take on. All the evidence points to growers being the beneficiaries of the changes.
Member for Robertson
5060
5060
16:08:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his announcement of his intention to improve the standards of behaviour of members of parliament. I also refer the Prime Minister to his press conference in Japan on 11 June, where he said:
There appears to be a pattern of unacceptable behaviour here.
Will the Prime Minister explain to the House what he meant by that term?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—For consistency, the first part of the question is in order.
5061
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I am more than happy to answer the question. ‘Unacceptable’ means not acceptable, ‘pattern’ means a series of events and ‘behaviour’ means what you do. That is just the truth. As a consequence of that, having observed what transpired in Australia, I therefore took action on that in relation to an agreed activity concerning counselling. That is my answer to the substance of the question. On the other point which was raised, I will add to an answer to an earlier question which was asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She questioned the sequence of a statement I made in Tokyo and a statement made by the member for Robertson. The statement I made in Tokyo was dated 9 June, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to it before. A journalist asked me: ‘Have you spoken to the member for Robertson? What would you say about what was going on and disciplinary action?’ The answer from me was:
No I haven’t. Secondly I understand my office has been in contact, and thirdly I understand that she has issued a statement, and I draw your attention to that.
That is a transcript of me, in Kyoto, on 9 June 2008. There was a media statement from Belinda Neal, the member for Robertson, on Sunday, 8 June 2008. That is the sequence.
MEMBER FOR ROBERTSON
5061
Miscellaneous
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
5061
5061
16:10:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Curtin from moving immediately:
That following the statement by John Della Bosca today in the New South Wales Parliament, the Member for Robertson be required to appear before the House at the first available opportunity to explain the incident at the Iguana Bar on 6 June 2008, in terms of its relevance to her position as a Member of Parliament.
Over the past 10 days there has been intense media attention about—
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
16:11:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
16:16:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
80
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
59
NOES
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Downer, A.J.G.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the motion seconded?
5062
16:19:00
Pyne, Chris, MP
9V5
Sturt
LP
0
0
Mr PYNE
—I second the motion. This government has lower standards than Morris Iemma in New South Wales—
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
16:19:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
16:20:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
80
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
59
NOES
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Downer, A.J.G.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Original question put:
That the motion (Ms Julie Bishop’s) be agreed to.
Question negatived.
PRIVILEGE
5063
Privilege
Dr NELSON
(Bradfield
—Leader of the Opposition)
16:22:00
—by leave—I move:
That the following matter involving the Member for Robertson be referred to the Privileges and Members’ Interests Committee:
Whether the Member for Robertson has committed contempt of the House:
-
when on the evening of Wednesday, 28 May 2008 in a Main Committee debate the Member for Robertson said to the heavily pregnant Member for Indi, that “your child will turn into a demon if you have such evil thoughts”, “you’ll make your child a demon”, “you’ll make your child a demon” and again, “evil thoughts will make your child a demon”;
-
when the Member for Indi sought the intervention of the Deputy Speaker and said “I have become increasingly offended and would ask the Member for Robertson to withdraw a comment she made earlier, the comment being: ‘Evil thoughts will turn your child into a demon.’ I ask her to withdraw unreservedly”, the Member for Robertson advised the House, “That statement was not made, so I will not withdraw what the Member imagines she heard.”
-
when the Member for Indi pursued the matter, and said to the Member for Robertson, “You made that comment; it was heard by another member as well. You made that comment. I ask you to withdraw,” the Member for Robertson advised the House that, “I did not make the statement that was said to you. You did not hear it correctly”:
That further, when the Member for Robertson rose in the House at 9.01 a.m. on the following morning, Thursday, 29 May 2008 and on indulgence made the following statement:
-
[the Member for Robertson]: “Yesterday in the Main Committee there was a robust debate and very many robust interjections with both the Member for Indi and me. The Member much later in the debate interrupted another speaker and asked for some comments I had made to be withdrawn and I did not do so. I have had time to reflect on the incident and, though the comments were not completely accurate, I do unreservedly withdraw any remarks that may have caused offence to the member.”
-
that the House notes the Member for Robertson’s assertion that the “comments were not completely accurate” is disputed by the facts, in particular that:
-
in addition to the Member for Indi, the Member for Robertson’s ‘demon’ comments were clearly audibly to the Member for Maranoa who was present in the Main Committee the night before; and
-
that the audio tape from the Main Committee highlighting the ‘demon’ comments by the Member for Robertson has now been widely broadcast on news services across Australia via the Nine MSN website.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Just before we proceed, I think I am obliged to indicate and make some comment about the length of the motion. This is a process that would have been handled in a different way if precedence was sought and, on that occasion, things would have been read into the record. It is on that basis that I will allow the motion at the length it is. Is the motion seconded?
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
5064
16:28:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“The House refer the issue of the exchange between the Member for Robertson and the Member for Indi on the 28th of May and the subsequent withdrawal and apology by the Member for Robertson at 9 a.m. on the 29th of May to the Privileges and Members’ Interests Committee.”
That is actually the appropriate way that we conduct affairs in this House. We do it professionally and we do it in a way which brings credit to all those who have the privilege of being in this chamber. That is an extraordinary motion. You cannot refer something to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Members’ Interests for determination by moving a two-page motion containing innuendo, a position and assertions of fact. Those on this side of the chamber have nothing whatsoever to fear from the privileges committee investigating any member at any time.
This is a very interesting precedent, however—I do say that. A number of interjections have crossed this chamber from time to time—I just make that point—including from the member for Indi. I look forward to an appropriate investigation of just these matters, because those opposite, as obsessed as they are by short-term political opportunism, need to understand that, every time they choose the short-term political opportunistic road, eventually it comes around. Just as the behaviour before this House in relation to the Friday sittings led to a diminution of private members’ business and a diminution of the ability of private members to put things before this chamber, just as the four motions of dissent from the Speaker’s ruling that have been moved lead to a cheapening of the way that standing orders are discussed in this chamber, and just as moving over 280 points of order means that, when points of order are raised, they are taken less seriously than they would be otherwise, those opposite need to understand that there is a consequence for their short-term political opportunism.
Those on this side have made it very clear—the Prime Minister made it clear and I made it clear this morning when asked—that, if the opposition want to refer things to the Privileges Committee, then the government would have no objection to that whatsoever. They are so predictable, in fact, that we prepared the amendment. One of the things characterising those opposite is that they always go a step too far. Today, in trying to make a point about supermarket prices, they ridiculed people who would look for specials. In the way that they conduct both policy debates and procedural debates in this chamber, they continually go a step too far because they are so desperate. It is not about the people of Australia; it is about their internals. Everything that they do is about their internals. Today we had the shadow Treasurer—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I remind the Leader of the House that he has to refer to his amendment and the original motion.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—due to move a matter of public importance on the economy. That is trashed by what they have done before this chamber. It is all about whether the member for Wentworth, the member for Curtin, the member for North Sydney or the Leader of the Opposition has an opportunity—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I hesitate to take a point of order on such a serious issue as a reference to the privileges committee, but the Leader of the House is required to speak to the motion, not about other internal matters.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the House will return to the amendment and the original motion.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—Mr Speaker, I will respect your ruling because this chamber functions when there is a bit of respect and a bit of decency across the chamber. That is why we will be voting for this amendment. I call upon those opposite to stand up for a bit of common sense and vote for this amendment. This is a big test of the Leader for the Opposition. Is he fair dinkum about the reference to the privileges committee? Our amendment, and not the thing that he moved, represents a true reference. This is how you refer things to the privileges committee. To help the member for North Sydney and all of the members, this is what you are going to be voting on: ‘That the House refer the issue of the exchange between the member for Robertson and the member for Indi on 28 May and the subsequent withdrawal and apology by the member for Robertson at 9 am on 29 May to the Privileges Committee.’ That is the appropriate motion—vote for it.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the Leader of the House has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
5065
16:34:00
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Dr NELSON
—Thank you, Mr Speaker—
A government member—He’s already spoken!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition has sought the call and I assume that he is closing the debate.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr NELSON
—Yes, Mr Speaker, I am closing the debate and I will speak to the amendment that has been moved by the government and to the substantive motion. This has been an extraordinary two weeks for Australian public life. It has been an extraordinary day in this parliament. Earlier today, Mr Speaker, we have had the decision made by you in this place that the Prime Minister of this country, when making a statement about a particular matter, cannot be asked specifically about it.
This motion in particular relates to one of the most serious transgressions by any member of the parliament, and that is a misleading of the House. That is the fundamental difference between the motion that I have moved and the amendment subsequently moved by the Leader of the House. This is a referral to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Members’ Interests which relates not only to remarks made by the member for Robertson on 28 May but also to a subsequent statement made in this chamber by the member for Robertson which in our very strong view is a misleading of the House and needs to be considered, as moved by me, by the privileges committee.
It is worth recalling precisely what the motion is that I have moved in this House. I ask every member of the House for a moment just to be quiet and to reflect on what was said by the member for Robertson on 28 May. On 28 May the member for Robertson said this to a heavily pregnant female colleague who happened to be the member for Indi: ‘Your child will turn into a demon if you have such evil thoughts,’ ‘You will make your child a demon,’ ‘You will make your child a demon,’ and, ‘Evil thoughts will make your child a demon.’
By any standard that is an extraordinary statement to be made by anybody to a pregnant woman but, in particular, to make such a statement in the parliament of Australia is a denigration of parliamentary standards. It was also clearly recorded by Hansard. When the member for Indi sought the intervention of the Deputy Speaker, she said:
... I have become increasingly offended and would ask the member for Robertson to withdraw a comment she made earlier, the comment being—
as I said—
‘Evil thoughts will turn your child into a demon.’
The member for Indi asked specifically that the member for Robertson withdraw unreservedly. The important point of this referral, as I have moved it, is that the member for Robertson said then:
That statement was not made, so I will not withdraw what the member imagines that she heard.
In other words, the member for Robertson made a statement to the Deputy Speaker in the Main Committee, which every Australian has now heard on national television, having heard the recording of the member for Robertson making this statement. Then the member for Robertson said again:
That statement was not made, so I will not withdraw what the member imagines that she heard.
In other words, the member for Robertson was seeking to inform the House that she had not said something which she clearly had. Further to that, I would find it difficult to imagine a more inflammatory thing that could be said to another member in an advanced state of pregnancy. To say it is bad enough; to then deny that she said it when it had been recorded by microphones, by the parliament, by Hansard is why this motion that I have moved is so important and why the amendment moved by the government debases the fundamental principle that is at stake here.
When the member for Indi pursued the matter—and I think none of us should need any prompting as to understand why the member for Indi might want to have proceeded with the matter—she said to the member for Robertson:
You made that comment; it was heard by another member as well. You made that comment. I ask you to withdraw.
The member for Robertson again said:
I did not make the statement that was said to you. You did not hear it correctly.
Again, under extraordinary provocation, the member for Indi specifically asked the member for Robertson to withdraw and not only did she not withdraw but she denied that she had actually said it. She denied it although it had been recorded by the parliament and it has now been broadcast, as we know only too well, to all Australians.
On the following day, the member for Robertson rose in this place—I remember it very well: it was just after nine o’clock on Thursday morning, the 29th—and on indulgence made the following statement. She said:
Yesterday in the Main Committee there was a robust debate and very many robust interjections with both the member for Indi and me.
… … …
The member much later in the debate interrupted another speaker and asked for some comments I had made to be withdrawn and I did not do so. I have had time to reflect on the incident—
she said—
and, though the comments were not completely accurate, I do unreservedly withdraw any remarks that may have caused offence to the member.
So even in the statement here in the main chamber on the morning of the 29th the member for Robertson again has sought to deliberately misinform this parliament, if not mislead it, about what actually occurred in the Main Committee the evening before.
This is by any standard an extraordinary and a very serious transgression of parliamentary standards. The government diminishes itself and the Prime Minister diminishes himself by seeking to move an amendment which debases the fundamental principle that is at stake here, and that is that if any member says something which should be withdrawn, if any member says something which he or she subsequently denies saying, then that member is not upholding the fundamental principles that are the architecture of this building and everything that is supposed to go on inside it. That is why the motion that I have moved cannot be amended in the way proposed by the Leader of the House.
I further moved that the House notes that the member for Robertson’s assertion that the comments were not completely accurate is, as I have said, disputed by the facts and that, in addition to the member for Indi, the member for Robertson’s ‘demon’ comments were clearly audible to the member for Maranoa—that of course will be investigated by the privileges committee—who was in the Main Committee on that particular evening. But, more importantly, the audio tape from the Main Committee highlighting the ‘demon’ comments by the member for Robertson has now been widely broadcast on news services across the country.
The government and the Leader of the House are actually compounding the misleading of the House and the falsification of a statement by the member for Robertson by moving this amendment. The government is trying desperately to avoid this motion being passed in its current form and the member for Robertson being referred to the privileges committee because it will expose contempt of this parliament and the fundamental processes of democracy and integrity that are supposed to be upheld by members when they come into this place. Whatever the member for Robertson or anybody else thinks that they can say at any other place, the fundamental principle is that, when you come to this parliament and say things that are inappropriate, that are offensive and that diminish the people whom you purport to represent and you are asked to withdraw them, you withdraw them. You do not turn around and say, ‘I didn’t say them.’ You do not say to a woman in an advanced state of pregnancy who has been told that her child will have demon thoughts: ‘You’re imagining it. I did not say it. It was not said.’
The member for Maranoa knows that it was said. Every Australian who has heard the audio knows it was said. We in this parliament then heard the member for Robertson the following morning, after reflection overnight, seek to withdraw these remarks—that in itself was appropriate. But, in the process of seeking to withdraw the comments, the member has compounded the most serious transgression of a member of parliament, as far as procedure is concerned, by seeking to mislead the House or at least not fully providing the facts in relation to the incident of the night before.
The Prime Minister has made a lot of standards for the Labor Party to meet. The Prime Minister has said that there would be transparency. But the front page of the Australian newspaper this morning says, ‘Rudd turns back on Neal’. Importantly, in the text of that story, the Prime Minister’s office made a statement. The Prime Minister made a statement in Japan that he does not want to talk about here, but that is another issue we have dealt with. The Prime Minister’s office said in relation to this entire matter:
It is now a matter for individual members if they still wish to raise a matter of privilege in the house. The Prime Minister believes the comments were very inappropriate. He also believes they were out of step with all parliamentary standards past and present.
It is not often I say this in response to the current Prime Minister, but all I can say is ‘Hear, hear’. That is exactly what it is. It is out of step with all parliamentary standards, past and present. But it is not only the standards of the member for Robertson that are out of step; it is also the standards of the Prime Minister that are out of step—in a government that seeks to amend this motion of referral to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests that would prevent the privileges committee from getting to the truth of what actually happened. The truth of it is that the member for Robertson made the most provocative statements to the member for Indi—not on one occasion but on several occasions—and she repeated them. When asked to withdraw the statements, she denied that she had actually made them—and then, coming into the main chamber to explain herself, she misled the parliament in the process.
What the government is trying to do, and what the Prime Minister is trying to do, is to bring this down to some sort of petty dispute between two MPs on different sides of the House. You know better than anybody, Mr Speaker, that that is the norm of the parliament—that members on one side contest the ideas, views and opinions of those on the other side. We all know that. That is bread-and-butter democracy. But this goes much further. This goes to what I would suggest are the most provocative, offensive remarks made to a pregnant woman in this parliament since Federation. It then goes to the fact that the person who made these remarks denied having made them despite having made them on more than one occasion. Further to that, and despite all of the evidence from the member for Maranoa and the Deputy Speaker who was in the chair at the time and the audio that has been played to all of Australia, she then seeks to mislead parliament in explaining herself the following morning.
We take this matter very, very seriously—as I know you do, Mr Speaker. That is why we will not accept the removal of the words from the motion as I have moved it. In fact, it is absolutely essential that the privileges committee consider the contempt of the House by the member for Robertson in the terms and for the reasons that I have outlined. To accept the amendment of the government is to take the teeth out of the privileges committee in getting to the real basis of this. The real basis of this is that the member for Robertson has defied the standards of the parliament, defied the standards of her own party and defied the standards proclaimed by the Prime Minister. It is absolutely essential that this motion as I have moved it stand in full.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Albanese’s amendment) stand part of the question..
16:54:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
61
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Downer, A.J.G.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
81
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The question now is that the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—I move that the words including ‘the deliberate misleading of the House by the member for Robertson’ be inserted.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney will resume his seat.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
16:57:00
—I move:
That the motion be now put.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Whilst I am not into advisory rulings, I will just explain so that we know where we are at. The question that we have just dealt with was that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. The question now is that the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted, those words being the words that were in the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government’s amendment. The member for North Sydney has attempted to move an amendment. At this point in time the Leader of the House sought the call and moved the motion ‘That the motion be now put’. The only question that is before me is ‘That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted’, those words being the minister for infrastructure’s words. I really do not like having to do this but if it assists the House I will explain. What is happening here is that by using this part of the standing orders it means that what the member for North Sydney is attempting to do does not occur. The question now is that the motion be put.
Question put.
17:03:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
61
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Downer, A.J.G.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
81
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
61NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Downer, A.J.G.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
* denotes tellers
Question agreed to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The question now is that the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.
Question agreed to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I table turn 70 of 28 May 2008 from the Main Committee.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
5071
Documents
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
17:05:00
—Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH
5071
Governor-General's Speech
Address-in-Reply
5071
5071
17:06:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—Order! I was going to advise the House earlier today that I was going to ask members to come with me across to Government House to present the address-in-reply to His Excellency the Governor-General. I will be glad if the mover, the member for Solomon, and the seconder, the member for Petrie, together with other honourable members, accompany me to present the address.
Sitting suspended from 5.07 pm to 7.00 pm
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH
5071
Governor-General's Speech
Address-in-Reply
5071
5071
19:00:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that, accompanied by honourable members, I waited today upon His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House and presented to him the address-in-reply to His Excellency’s speech on the opening of the first session of the 42nd Parliament, agreed to by the House on 27 May 2008.
His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply:
Mr Speaker,
Thank you for your Address in Reply.
It will be my pleasure and my duty to convey to Her Majesty The Queen the message of loyalty from the House of Representatives, to which the Address gives expression.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
5071
Matters of Public Importance
Economy
5071
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wentworth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure to address cost of living and other economic pressures faced by Australians and the consequent collapse in consumer and business confidence.
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—
Ms KATE ELLIS
(Adelaide
—Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport)
19:01:00
—I move:
That the business of the day be called on.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
5072
Committees
National Capital and External Territories Committee
5072
Membership
5072
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Stott Despoja has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories.
DENTAL BENEFITS BILL 2008
5072
Bills
R3016
Cognate bills:
DENTAL BENEFITS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
5072
Bills
R2999
Second Reading
5072
Debate resumed from 16 June, on motion by Ms Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
5072
19:02:00
Simpkins, Luke, MP
HWE
Cowan
LP
0
0
Mr SIMPKINS
—I rise to speak on the federal government’s Dental Benefits Bill 2008 and Dental Benefits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. Before moving into this bill, I need to state what the government says this bill will do. The explanatory memorandum says:
From 1 July 2008, the Government will provide up to $150 per eligible teenager towards an annual preventative check for teenagers aged 12-17 years in families receiving Family Tax Benefit Part A ... and teenagers in the same age group receiving Youth Allowance or Abstudy.
Let us not beat around the bush here: $150 vouchers to tell young people and their parents that they need more work done—that is all it is. I heard earlier today that a classic check-up will be well in excess of $150. At least this initiative will offset that cost. To use one of the Prime Minister’s favourite script lines, I find it amazing that when the government talks about these vouchers it can do so as if this is something new. I draw upon a webpage titled ‘Dental health’ from the WA Department of Health site. There is actually a section about the school dental service which says:
Free basic dental care is provided to all school children from pre-primary to year 11 ...
I find it amazing that the Rudd government is providing $150 vouchers to school students who are already entitled to the state provided basic dental care. When I saw that line on the website, I thought, ‘Okay, parents can then use the voucher to offset the cost of a filling or other work identified through the state government provided basic dental care.’ But no, the explanatory memorandum clearly covers that:
... the Government will provide up to $150 per eligible teenager towards an annual preventative check for teenagers aged 12-17 years in families receiving Family Tax Benefit Part A ...
It does not look like there is much flexibility there. A person just listening to the headlines or the announcements could very easily believe that dental care was being provided by the government to teenagers, and people in the suburbs of Cowan, and across Australia, would say that getting a filling is a basic part of dental care—a filling is an integral element of going to the dentist. That is what Australians tell me. So, when this bill is put up as some kind of comprehensive dental strategy, some grand initiative, I question it, and the people of Australia will question the hype and the spin that will not match the reality. This bill—this illusion—will bitterly disappoint Australian families, who were provided with great expectation only to have their hopes dashed.
In Cowan, although clearly a majority of voters supported me and my side of politics in the election, I remember very clearly a conversation I had with a young man in Ashby during the campaign. This young man told me that he was a student and that he had severe dental problems. I recall he was 21 or 22 years of age and at university. He told me that he was going to vote for Labor because they had promised a national health plan. He said to me that he did not have health insurance and could not afford to get his teeth fixed. He was confident in the future and supported the Labor Party because they were going to bring in ‘free dental care’ for everyone. That was one vote that the Labor Party took from me in Cowan, but I recommend to the government that it not rely on him next time. Expectations were built up so very high, but the harsh reality is that he is too old for his check-up, and even the check-up would not have fixed the severe problems he had.
The harsh reality is that this bill comes at the cost of the demise of the coalition’s dental program, under which chronic and complex dental problems attracted Medicare support over two years up to the value of $4,250. That program, between 1 November 2007 and 30 April this year, provided 311,943 services to Australians suffering from chronic and acute dental problems. The government want that all gone and would prefer to point to the savings derived from the pain and misery of Australians with those sorts of severe problems. Again, this is a terrible illusion of action, where the government attempt to persuade parents that they will achieve something new while marginalising those with acute and chronic problems. Yes, there are more teenagers in Australia than there are sufferers of acute and chronic problems, so I suppose the Rudd government did their sums and identified that more votes would be available by the perception of action with teenagers than actual action for those with major dental problems. I say it again: there is a harsh reality coming for parents of teenagers if they believe the smoke and mirrors show of the government, and there is a harsher reality for the government which, after creating the strong perceptions of action on housing, transport and food costs, have also failed in this bill to bridge the gap between perception and reality.
Perhaps it is best to go back to some basic economic theory to address the great problems with rising dental costs to the consumer in Australia. The reality is that of supply and demand. For instance, in this country, only around 10 per cent of dentists work in the state systems, and this is a key point. Where, then, are the initiatives to increase the supply of dentists and staff in the state systems? I cannot find anything in this bill. All we have is the Rudd government saying that they would negotiate with the states and territories to ensure patients with chronic conditions have access to treatment. It is fine to have an intention but, without any supporting funding in the budget or forward estimates, this statement by the government is nothing more than a glib one-liner, a smokescreen that seeks to deflect close scrutiny of this facade of a bill which is nothing more than a hollow impression of action, which is sadly consistent with the modus operandi of a government addicted to spin.
I mentioned before that the government of Western Australia already has a standing commitment to school dental services. These are provided through school dental clinics and mobile dental vans. A few weeks ago I received an email from the Parents and Citizens Association of a primary school in Woodvale within my electorate of Cowan. I will not name the person who sent it to me as I have learnt that there are some occasions on which principals and sometimes even members of P&Cs get counselled by representatives of the state government after contacting them, but I will read the email. It says:
On behalf of the P&C association—
it did name the school but I have taken that out—
I would like to voice our concern about the possible closure of our ... school dental clinic at Craigie Heights Primary School.
That supports the school in question here. It goes on:
It has come to our attention that the clinics are understaffed and lacking in modern equipment. With the clinics being understaffed there is a waiting list of up to 6 months at Craigie and some other clinics are 41 months.
We feel that if these clinics are forced to close then families will feel the financial burden of attending a private dental clinic with some children not receiving any dental care at all. It will also mean a loss of jobs.
This is a school with primary school students who are not covered under the government’s plan. The state of Western Australia says that they provide these services. Unfortunately, they are failing and the closure of the clinic at Craigie Heights Primary School in the electorate of Moore, which serves schools in Cowan, is evidence of this fact. It is therefore important to question the Rudd federal government’s mantra of ‘ending the blame game’, because in the end who is responsible? The service must be delivered. The states have failed and this bill has not addressed this problem, which is having a great impact on Cowan and Australian families.
For those who might say, ‘Well, the suburb of Woodvale is a pretty well-off area; perhaps they don’t need clinics as much as other places,’ I would say that Woodvale is no beachside suburb of Perth; there are no million dollar houses in Woodvale. Woodvale families have to buy petrol, they have to buy groceries and they have to pay housing costs, as do the majority of Australians. Some may say, ‘Just as well that Craigie being closed is a one-off case,’ or, ‘Just as well the clinic down the road in a lower socioeconomic suburb, such as Girrawheen, isn’t closing.’ I am afraid that it certainly is. The clinic at Girrawheen Primary School is closing on 20 June. Those who know Cowan know that Girrawheen as a suburb—the majority of the people there—strongly supports the Labor Party. I do not really know why. The area is beset by law and order problems, and Labor has closed a school and is going to close another school at the end of the year. Now the state Labor government cannot even maintain the dental clinic that serves not only Girrawheen Primary School but also Blackmore Primary, Rawlinson Primary, Our Lady of Mercy Catholic Primary and the Emmanuel Christian School. Why is the clinic closing? Because there is not enough staff to maintain it. In fact, there is not enough staff to maintain the other clinic at Craigie. That is because of an ongoing pay dispute.
Again, I find it amazing that the Labor Party—the party that professes to be for the people and for the workers—cannot do their job in this respect. It is their responsibility to provide these services to the children of Cowan and they are not fulfilling that responsibility. Girrawheen is a long way from Canberra but the failure of Labor to do their job in Girrawheen has a human result. Yesterday my office was called by Karon Anderson, a resident of Girrawheen. Karon informed my staff that she called the dental clinic at Girrawheen Primary School for appointments for her son Leslie and her daughter Joslyn, who are teenagers. I understand that Leslie had earlier this year been informed that he had fillings that needed attention, and his mother called the clinic for an appointment to get the work done. I also understand that Joslyn had a similar but less urgent need to see a dentist. When Karon Anderson called the clinic, the staff said that they were closing at the end of this week—as they are—so they were only doing emergencies. It is important to make the point here that if young Leslie Anderson needs a new filling, as I understand he does, the bill we currently have before the House will not be helping him. A $150 voucher will not get him a new filling or a repair for a filling, and the explanatory memorandum to this bill says exactly that.
It may serve federal Labor’s interests, when a clear and present failure of a state government is exposed, to regress to the standard call of: ‘End the blame game.’ But when is someone actually going to be responsible? When is the buck going to stop? The rules by which this government operates are that anyone can be blamed by this government provided that a Labor politician somewhere is not at fault or called to be responsible for their policy failures.
Again, it amazes me that backbenchers opposite can stand up and talk about this bill in glowing terms, as they do. The bill provides $150 for a check-up. That is it. The sum of those great expectations of the Australian people is $150, and it cannot be used for a single filling. That has come at a cost to the program that offered, as I said at the start, up to $4,250 to achieve serious work; not just a part payment for a check-up which will tell teenagers that they might have more work to be done but a payment for some serious work for chronic disease and dental illness.
Each time young people like Leslie Anderson or that young man in Ashby whom I mentioned earlier take a breath, they probably feel that air running down into a dental nerve. They looked to the state government and then to the former federal opposition, now the government, to fulfil their promises and they expected to see that done. The free state dental clinics and the federal dental plan that they thought would provide them with free dental care have not helped them and will not help them. The people of Australia heard the message that Labor wanted them to hear at state and federal levels. The message was that dental care would be fixed by Labor. The passing of this bill will not help the school dental clinics servicing Cowan and will not help the people I have mentioned today. There is not a filling in sight; just the smoke of this planned perception and very real deception.
I will now draw upon some independent commentary regarding the states and territories and their responsibilities. The Australian Dental Association said:
For far too long, the States and Territories of Australia have failed to meet their obligations to ensure proper delivery of dental care to poor and disadvantaged Australians.
They went on to say, with regard to the federal government:
Instead it has provided the State/Territory Health Services with additional funding … to prop up schemes that have not delivered to date. It’s a Band-Aid solution at best.
I have made my position clear on this matter. The government left the very clear impression that this policy embodies a comprehensive national dental plan. There are people out there on the streets right now who think that specific remedial dental treatment is part of this policy and this bill. The only comprehensive dental treatment that was on offer was in the coalition’s plan. If you needed a significant amount of work done as a chronic sufferer from dental problems, there was only one option, and that was the policy provided by the former government and not this government. I call upon the current government to preserve the former coalition government’s highly effective initiative, which remains the only effective response to serious chronic dental problems, as opposed to the government’s so-called Commonwealth dental health plan. I will conclude, as a non-expert in dental matters, with a quote again from those who do know about the subject, the Australian Dental Association, which describes the government’s plan in this way:
The CDHP—
that is, the Commonwealth dental health plan—
delivers too little for too few people and will not be effective.
5076
19:18:00
Marles, Richard, MP
HWQ
Corio
ALP
1
0
Mr MARLES
—I rise to speak in support of the Dental Benefits Bill 2008 and related bill. I start by thanking the member for Cowan for his contribution in this debate. As he set out the description of the difficulties that have been faced by people in his electorate, he neatly set out the very basis on which these bills are now required. The fact of the matter is that the parlous state of dental health care in this country is absolutely the reason for the need for these bills, because of the years of neglect by the Howard government. As the member for Cowan asked the question, ‘When is the blame game going to end?’ and raised the concern about buck-passing, I could only look at him and think that on that side of the House there is an enormous amount of buck-passing. The reason we are in this situation is a blame game which was pursued for 12 long years.
We on this side of the House do take responsibility, and the buck does stop here. The buck stops with the Rudd government. For that reason, we are actually doing something about the issue of the parlous state of dental health care in this country, and that is very much what these bills are about. These bills provide for a legislative framework which is aimed at delivering $780 million, through two dental health initiatives, to this country. Of course, these measures were announced as part of the budget that has recently been announced. It is just another budget measure which is being put forward to overturn the 12 years of neglect and noninvestment that we have seen in this country as a result of the former Howard government.
Fifty thousand Australians each year are hospitalised for preventable dental conditions, and Australian adults rank second worst in the OECD for their overall dental health. That is a disgraceful and shameful position that we find our country in. The measures proposed in these bills will seek to alleviate Australia’s dental health crisis and assist our overall health system. If we look at the state of dental health in our country at the moment, it makes for very sad reading. Six hundred and fifty thousand Australians are on public dental waiting lists. In 2007 the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported that 30 per cent of Australians reported avoiding dental care due to cost, 21 per cent said that costs had prohibited them from having recommended dental treatment and 18 per cent reported that they would have considerable difficulty in paying a dental bill of $100 or more. Further statistics indicate that tooth decay ranks as Australia’s most preventable and prevalent public health issue, with more than a quarter of Australian adults having untreated tooth decay. One in six Australians over 15 have avoided particular foods due to poor dental health. In New South Wales, the hospitalisation rates for children under five for dental conditions rose 91 per cent in the decade between 1994-95 and 2004-05.
Our poor state of dental health is not only a public health issue—although it is a very considerable public health issue—but also a social issue. There is a significant link between dental health care and socioeconomic status in terms of both the cause of dental problems and how people’s dental health contributes to their overall social interaction. The fact of the matter is that if you have broken teeth it leads to poor self-esteem and it makes it difficult to interact within our society. Dr Anne Sanders from the Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, based at the University of Adelaide, made a comment about exactly that link when she said:
If we could grade the social conditions of society from excellent to poor we would find that population oral health status followed precisely the same gradient. Where social conditions are excellent, oral health status tends also to be excellent. Where social conditions are poor, oral health likewise is poor. This is so because the oral health of populations is socially determined.
This is also a fact, or a phenomenon, which has been identified in Victoria. In 2002 the Victorian Auditor-General’s report on the state of oral health of Victorians said:
Poor oral health may cause people to avoid social interaction and personal contact, reducing their quality of life.
So poor dental health in this country is not only a public health issue but also a very significant social issue, which is why it is absolutely critical that it be addressed, and the Rudd government means to address it.
In Geelong, where my electorate is, we face all these problems, as does the rest of the country. Currently in Geelong the approximate waiting times for public dental health assistance amount to 30 months for general dental care and 37 months for denture care. Statistics provided by the Barwon Health Community Dental Service in Corio in February this year were that there were 2,249 patients waiting for general dental care and 571 for denture care, a 43 per cent increase on the previous six months.
While dental health may not be on the radar of the Commonwealth opposition, the Victorian Liberal opposition do at least recognise that dental health care is a problem. The Victorian state opposition health spokesperson, Ms Helen Shardey, recently asked this question: ‘When will the Brumby government realise the dental problem is not just a small toothache but an excruciating pain across Victoria?’ In that question Ms Shardey has correctly identified that dental health is an issue but she has completely missed the mark in terms of laying the blame for why this issue has come about and how it needs to be fixed. It is absolutely ironic that she should be pointing to the state Labor government when it is in fact the neglect of the former Howard government, in its refusal to properly fund public dental health, that has given rise to not only small toothaches but also large and excruciating pain.
The Rudd government understands that a proper dental health service cannot be provided by our states if it is not first funded by the Commonwealth government. The Howard government did not do that. In 1996, when the Howard government came to power, one of its initial acts was to scrap the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, which was introduced by the Keating government, and in doing so it ripped $100 million from public dental health services. After eight years of Howard government neglect, in 2004 it started to take some dental health measures through Medicare in relation to those who were suffering chronic illness or who had complex care needs. But the criteria for the program that was put in place at that time was so restrictive and the process for gaining access to that program so complex that the program was, at the end of the day, an utter failure. It assisted 7,000 people at an expense of $1.8 million to the public purse over three years, despite the program originally being forecast to assist 23,000 people at an expense of $15 million. By September last year only 14 preschoolers had had their dental needs addressed through that program.
The reality is that the Howard legacy on dental care is one of failure and neglect. They started by ripping money out of the system and then they designed programs that were so intricate that, at the end of the day, they were guaranteed to fail. As with so many other areas of public policies, 12 years of neglect has resulted in the current parlous state of dental health care in Australia. The Rudd government is absolutely committed to addressing that neglect, to building a system that can meet the public need for dental health care and to ending the blame game over the issue of dental health.
As I mentioned, the Rudd government is providing an initial investment through the budget, of which this bill is a part, of $780 million to address the current state of dental health. This money is going to be provided through two schemes. There will be $290 million over three years provided to the Commonwealth Dental Health Program and $490 million provided over five years for the Teen Dental Plan, which of course is the subject of these bills. That is in stark contrast to the Howard government initiatives, which over four years to April 2008 provided less than $50 million. This government’s programs are deliberately targeted to assist those who are currently most in need of dental services, and they will be done in partnership with the states and territories, precisely so that we end the blame game and start a cooperative approach to the way in which this country is governed.
Could I mention briefly the Commonwealth dental plan. This assists states to reduce waiting times. It will provide for up to one million dental consultations over the next three financial years. The funding is being provided in accordance with strict conditions targeting people with chronic diseases as a priority; for example, cancer, cardiac patients and those suffering from HIV-AIDS. It seeks to meet the challenges left by years of the Howard government’s neglect and ineptitude and it will assist the most vulnerable and the most in need, in particular by prioritising Indigenous people and preschool children.
The Medicare Teen Dental Plan, which is of course the subject of these bills, is a very important initiative. It will provide up to $150 per eligible person towards an annual preventative check-up, which can be used at a private dental clinic. Those who are eligible are persons aged between 12 and 17 in families receiving family tax benefit part A or persons in the same age bracket who are receiving either the youth allowance or Abstudy benefits. It is estimated that ultimately this will cover about 1.1 million teenagers.
The preventative check will cover the examination and, where clinically required, X-rays, scaling and cleaning of teeth and other preventative services. The plan will be administered by Medicare using client eligibility data from Centrelink. It will operate on a calendar-year basis without just being distributed in January of each year. Following the first year of the program, vouchers will be valid for the entirety of the calendar year, even if the family circumstances alter during that year.
As I said at the start, dental health is not only a public health issue but also a social issue. So this program provides for an intervention during the teenage years of a person’s life—a critical point in their life—where they can go forward with good dental health. They will be able to engage in the normal social interactions, so if they are looking for jobs or engaging in study or other social activities their dental health will not be an issue.
This bill, along with the Dental Benefits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 also provides for the dental benefits scheme. These two bills will have the combined effect of legislating for the creation of a new dental benefits scheme which will be established to implement the Teen Dental Plan program. The DBS will also provide the legislative framework that will allow the Minister for Health and Ageing the discretion to make dental benefit rules whereby the minister may seek to make additions to the scope of dental benefits items in the future. Unlike the Medicare Benefits Schedule the DBS allows provisions to be targeted to specific groups—for example, by means testing or by age.
In summary, these bills absolutely cut to the core of what the Rudd government is all about—that is, providing services to those who are most in need—and in doing so rectifies the neglectful practices of the Howard years. This program seeks to cut through the red tape of previous programs to provide much greater access and to provide a much less complex system. It is a program that will be delivered hand in hand with the states, precisely so that we can end the blame game.
The Rudd government understands the pressures on working families when it comes to prioritising household incomes, and the Rudd government believes that these bills will allow families to prioritise preventative dental health care in their family budgets, both for their benefit and also for the benefit of the wider community by alleviating the strain on the public health system. These measures will greatly benefit the people of Corio and the people of Australia, and I commend these bills to the House.
5079
19:32:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
0
0
Mr NEVILLE
—It gives me pleasure to rise tonight to speak in this debate on the Dental Benefits Bill 2008 and related bill but no pleasure to listen to some of the claims that have been made by the government, to the breast-beating that has been going on and to the talk of the blame game. It is as if the government have been wound up like toy soldiers when everyone comes in and trots out the same line. The line is about the blame game: ‘Let’s look at the blame game.’ With the exception of a four-year period in the early nineties, dental services have, since Federation, been the sole responsibility of the states. It is plain and simple. It has never been any different. That is my first point.
What happened in the mid-nineties? In its dying days the Keating government plucked a program out of the air—much akin to some of the moves that Mr Rudd, the Prime Minister, has pulled in recent days in association with his Asian tour—following a paper called the National Health Strategy background paper. Out of that the Prime Minister of the day, Mr Keating, designed the Dental Health Program. It was mentioned in the 1993-94 budget and it started in January 1994. It was available to both private and public dental practitioners. It was only available to people over 18 who had various types of cards—health cards, benefit cards, pension cards, DVA cards and the like. Its estimated cost was $278 million, and it delivered 1.5 million services over the four years.
By the admission of the government of the day, it was a catch-up scheme. Again, this is plain and simple. It was never intended to be an ongoing program for dental care. How do we know this? We know it because no mention was made of it in any forward estimates. In the years following the introduction of that scheme in the 1993-94 budget it could have been updated and rolled on into the future but it was not. The Keating government, if re-elected, almost certainly would have dropped it. There was no provision made for it.
And we are told that this dreadful coalition government cut it out! That too is incorrect, because this so-called terrible Howard government actually completed the program. In fact, over that period $245 million was spent. So let us get that first myth out of the way. It was never meant to be an ongoing program; it was a program to help the states, which had got behind, to catch up. There was no intention by the Keating government to take that over on a permanent basis. Indeed—and I will come to this further in my address—if the Rudd government had intended to really enter the field they would have done something more substantial than introduce the program that we are debating tonight.
The coalition introduced, in two stages, a dental program to help people whose health was affected by bad teeth. The whole business of dental care needs to be handled by one or the other levels of government—either all by the state or all by the Commonwealth—or it needs to be very carefully segmented. You cannot have bits and pieces here and there, because inevitably, when you go down that route, some people miss out. Under the coalition government’s program, which had really only just got started, $41.4 million was to be spent in the first year. Over four years it was to be $377 million, and the current government projected forward another year for a five-year program of $491 million—which is amazingly close to the cost of the teen dental component of the government’s overall program.
I do not knock the idea of helping teenagers to have good dental health albeit that this is confined to a certain extent by means testing. What does it deliver when you really get down to the nitty-gritty of it? You receive a voucher, you go to a dentist and you can get up to $150 worth of work done. In one sense this is commendable—everyone in that category, if they want to take it up, will be able to get an assessment done. But that is all they will get. They may get a cleaning and scaling of their teeth but that is all that they will get. It is estimated that some dentists charge up to $190 for a first comprehensive assessment, so $150 is at the lower end of the spectrum. So those children or young people will get their dental assessment, but if the family cannot afford dental care and cannot get into a dental hospital in their state then where do they go from there? What has the net advantage been for anyone? The assessment could say, ‘You’ve got to have four teeth seen to,’ but mum might say, ‘We can’t afford it.’ So you have a $150 assessment and nothing else.
As I said, this plan is commendable in one sense, but if it had included, say, two occasions of service—or even just one occasion of service—then a kid with a broken tooth, an abscessed tooth or whatever it might be could at least be treated for those particular immediate ailments. I have heard the government tonight talking about people being in desperate pain. My understanding of it is that all state dental hospitals are supposed to see people with acute pain immediately, and if that is not happening then they as members of parliament should be doing something about it; because, let me tell you, even though I am a federal member, if I see something unfair happening at the state level then I am not frightened to step in—not frightened for a second.
We are going to spend the equivalent of what would have been cut out of the Howard government’s program for five years on this teen dental health program. I would think that, for that amount or for a similar amount of money, you could get a lot better value if you extended the dental program for primary schools into secondary schools. I know that not all states have that. I understand that South Australia, Queensland and one of the other states have these dental fixtures—sometimes they are permanent fixtures in the school grounds, such as a small brick building, and sometimes they are a caravan that alternates between three, four or even five schools. They are generally run by a supervising dentist and dental therapists. I know that might mean some changes to dental therapy training because when you are dealing essentially with milk teeth—as you do with a lot of primary school children—the level of dental expertise required is probably less. But I would have thought that if the government wanted to put all kids on the road to good dental health then it might have considered spending that amount of money—or perhaps up to $1 billion—on equipping the states with dental clinics for schools. If you could not contain that within that price range then could you not use your CCD sociological profiles of areas and say the schools in the areas with the poorest profiles would get the dental clinics first? In other words, you would essentially get the dental care to those people in most need and have kids leaving school at 18 or thereabouts with reasonable dental treatment—it may not be the ant’s pants, but certainly preventative dental care would have taken place.
At the age of 18 the kids can either go to uni or—as for perhaps 70 or 80 per cent of them—go out into the workforce to apprenticeships, to work in shops and other jobs in the community. They will be earning money of their own. If they come out of school with some pride in their teeth then isn’t it more likely that they might wish to look after them and budget from their own savings to do that? Let me tell the House that when I started my first job I had to do that and I do not feel any the worse for it. It was difficult. It was an impost. I have crooked teeth and I have always had trouble with my teeth. It used to cost me a fair slice of my meagre income at the time for a year or 18 months. I have never regretted that. I do not think that kids, given the opportunity of having their teeth looked after by the state until they are about 18, would do anything else but respond positively—getting the resources while they were 19, 20, 21 or 22 to be able to keep it up. So, whilst I think that symbolically this Teen Dental Plan is very good and will help some people with assessments, I ask the question: what will it do for people in real terms?
The government is going to put another $290 million into the states—which was essentially what the Keating plan did. Actually the figure there was to be $278 million. In fact, it is not as much, on adjusted figures, as the Keating government was to put into actual dental care, albeit with a means test. It worked to varying degrees. I am sure it did do some catching up. It is said that 200,000 families got into the system and that there were 1.5 million occasions of service. I think that is about 7½ services per family treated. So, obviously, it did get to a small segment of the market, and it probably looked after those kids and families well—but it depended on the goodwill of the states. One state minister, who shall remain nameless, said to me: ‘Wasn’t this Commonwealth stuff the greatest joke of all time! As fast as the Commonwealth put it in the top, we took it out the bottom.’ That was the attitude of the states. It was just a top-up. Rather than say, ‘Oh, look, let’s match this and get a lot more done,’ I bet you that the attitude in every state was, ‘Well, we are getting all this Commonwealth money; we will not have to go so hard in the next budget with dental care.’ It would be interesting to do a study on the extent to which the states over that period of the Keating plan—and I do not deride the Keating plan other than to say that it was a catch-up program—increased their dental care and whether they kept it in line with CPI or with the general cost of health. That would be a very interesting exercise. Another aspect of this—and I am not straying from the subject, let me assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker—
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll interjecting—
KV5
Neville, Paul, MP
Mr NEVILLE
—I am sure the member for Oxley will be quite relaxed when I tell him what I want to talk about. I want to talk about health insurance and the fact that the government is raising the threshold from an income of $50,000 per annum to one of $100,000 per annum. I am not against the lifting of the threshold. It has not been lifted for some years. I would have been reasonably relaxed about it if the threshold figure had been fixed at $65,000 or $75,000 per annum, having been taken in line with a growth figure per year in the health budget or with CPI. But to take it up to $100,000 is definitely going to cause a lot of people to drop out of private health insurance. It is probably going to affect the younger married sector who are pretty healthy and who say, ‘Oh well, we don’t really need this and we’ll drop out.’ The government estimates that 500,000 families will drop out of private health insurance as a result of lifting that threshold—in other words, they will no longer have to pay the levy. Various other sources—economists, commentators, the AMA and so on—estimate the figure as somewhere between 800,000 and one million. That is nearly twice the figure estimated by the government.
Here is the point I want to make—I am sure the member for Oxley will understand it now: amongst that one million people are people who are taking the extras on their private health insurance, including dentistry. I do not know the percentage figure—I would like to know it; I think I would find it very enlightening—but that means that when they drop out they also drop out of having the capacity to pay for dental care. As a result of this, a proportion of those people will shift to the state system. Not all of them will. Some will still say, ‘We can put a bit aside for dental care because we do not have to pay the health insurance premium,’ but most of them will probably say: ‘We will now go on to the state system. We are not going to have private health insurance. We will go on to Medicare for our normal health services and on to the state system for other dental care.’ That is going to add to the number of those seeking dental care.
I also question whether the government has really thought through—and this also impacts indirectly on this dental matter—the idea of the superclinics. I have not found a community yet—although this may not be the case in the outer metropolitan suburbs with which I am not familiar—where anyone wants one of these superclinics. There are perfectly well-run, bulk-billing clinics in Bundaberg that are seven-, eight- and nine-doctor practices but which have only four or five doctors. What possible good would it be to build a superclinic in Bundaberg where we cannot get doctors in the private sector? We cannot get enough doctors in the public hospital. How in heaven’s name are we going to be able to get the doctors into these superclinics? I am told that the government may consider tendering these things out. That would introduce a third level of compliance. You would probably have private doctors, public doctors and these superclinic doctors. The government is equivocating even about that program. It was going to be $5 million, but now it is up to $5 million. Now it may not be a new superclinic; it might be the renovation of a building—in other words, they might do up the old outpatients’ building somewhere that has been closed for a few years. But why would you invest the quantum that would be required to do that at the expense of what could be going into dental care?
I recognise, all Australians recognise, that dental care has not been as good as it might be. We all recognise that. But we need to have a wider strategy that involves, for one thing, the fluoridation of water in those states that do not have it. I would like to see an examination of the ability of dental health clinics to be used in secondary schools. I would like to encourage people to stay in private health insurance and even encourage people to take up dental benefits within that private health insurance. I think that in that way we can share the burden fairly and give the state clinics a better chance of catching up and doing the job that they were destined to do. They are interesting bills, symbolically good; but in practice, in delivering things on the ground, no, they fall very short.
5083
19:52:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
1
0
Mr RIPOLL
—It is a great privilege to speak in support of this bill, the Dental Benefits Bill 2008, and the cognate Dental Benefits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. I note, before I begin, that it is always interesting to hear from the now opposition because it is always the case that we as the government should be doing more but, when the coalition were themselves in government, they did nothing at all, particularly on this issue. They come in here and complain and bleat on, but for the 12 years they were in government not once did they take up the measures that we are moving here tonight. Not once did they reason that more could be done. It is easy for them to come in here and criticise us for not doing enough and say that this does not go far enough, but the reality is that they did not even begin the process—and that is disappointing. It is disappointing for all those people that missed out on all of the possible dental services that they needed over the past 12 years.
What we are finally seeing here with these bills is Australians getting a decent dental healthcare program, something that the Rudd government have made a top priority, something that was part of our election promises and something that we will be delivering through this legislation. The reintroduction of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program and the new Teen Dental Plan are just the start of a continued commitment to Australian health, including Australian dental health.
Previously, dental health was a major issue in my seat of Oxley in Queensland, where many ordinary people suffered because they could not afford proper dental care, let alone check-ups to get the sort of assessment they needed to then go and get further care. A petition about this in my electorate was signed by 1,400 people, making very plain to me, and to the parliament, their strong support for these types of programs. It was a very serious issue then and it is a very serious issue today. I am very proud to have the Minister for Health and Ageing here in the chamber. I am very proud to support this and that we are actually getting on with the job of helping ordinary people get better access to dental health, something that was neglected at the federal level for many years.
Let me just take a little bit of time—and I am conscious of time tonight, as so much of it was wasted today by the opposition—to indulge the House with the recent history of dental health in this country. For 12 long years we saw the previous government continue to neglect and, in fact, refuse to act on Australia’s escalating dental crisis. It was the previous government, the Howard government, that now sits opposite, that cut Labor’s Commonwealth Dental Health Program in 1996, ripping $100 million from the public dental sector across the country. They then continued to ignore the growing impact of their neglect, which led to a whole range of problems—problems like 650,000 Australians on public dental waiting lists across the country; 50,000 Australians hospitalised each year for preventable dental conditions, putting additional pressures on our already strained hospitals; and dental conditions constituting a quarter of hospitalisations of children. These are significant numbers and significant issues and significant people—people who deserved better but were treated very poorly by the previous government, those now sitting in opposition.
There are more problems. Up to one in 10 visits to GPs is caused by dental problems, again placing more strain on GPs, dental clinics, hospitals and the health system in general in this country. More than one in five Australians go without recommended dental treatment because of the cost; it is just too expensive for some people. I heard the comments of the previous speaker, who said this did not go far enough, that in fact this is just for a check-up. It is actually a lot more than that, but you need to at least make that first, conscious decision to provide that access, to get that cost out of the road so that people can make proper decisions and be advised what they need to do next. I think that is the very first and the most important step. One in six Australians avoids certain foods because of dental problems. The aged, the frail and the young endure a lesser quality of life because of this, and I think it is our responsibility to do everything we can—and we are, through these bills.
These facts are indeed an indictment of the previous government. What is frightening is that, all along, they knew what was happening but they did nothing. Today they can support these bills and help ordinary people or they can just bleat and carry on, although for 12 years they did nothing. These are good bills and should be passed.
The list goes on. Tooth decay ranks as Australia’s most prevalent health problem: 25½ per cent of the Australian adult population have untreated dental decay. During the last 12 months, one in six Australians aged over 15 have avoided certain foods because of problems with their teeth. Between 1996 and 1999, five-year-olds experienced a 21.7 per cent increase in deciduous tooth decay—that is, teeth falling out. Hospitalisation rates for children under five for dental conditions increased by 91 per cent between 1994-95 and 2004-05. There was a 42 per cent increase in children being treated in hospitals for dental cavities between 2000 and 2005. These are terrible figures, terrible statistics and a terrible shame. They are a terrible indictment of the previous government. According to the OECD, the dental health of Australian adults ranks second worst in the OECD, with a rapid deterioration in dental health observed in the teenage years in particular.
The previous minister for health, Tony Abbott, and those opposite repeatedly refused to accept any responsibility for Australia’s dental health crisis and continued to play the blame game, leaving it to the states to pick up the pieces. They took no responsibility, they blamed everyone else and, in the end—even worse—they just did nothing. That is the truth of the matter: they just did nothing. They left it to others.
By contrast, this is yet another election promise that Labor are delivering on. We have a massive agenda of reform and work in front of us to ensure Australians have a better quality of life. The dental blame game is now over and funding of $780 million will be allocated over five years to these two new and very important dental programs. The Rudd government’s Teen Dental Plan will assist one million Australian teenagers between the ages of 12 and 17 with dental costs. This is very good news. There are a whole range of other measures, and, as I am conscious of the time, I will respect the proceedings of this House and try to do everything I can—while there are many more good things that I can say about this program, I think it is self-evident in what we are trying to achieve and what will be achieved by it. I give it my wholehearted support. This bill ensures that there will be an overwhelming recommendation of support for people’s dental health care, and I seek the support of the opposition to guarantee that over one million young people can now have affordable dental care and that others can access this program as well. I commend the bill to the House.
5085
20:00:00
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
0
Ms ROXON
—in reply—I thank the members for contributing to this debate on the Dental Benefits Bill 2008 and the Dental Benefits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. I acknowledge that many members on this side of the House, and the occasional one on the other side of the House, are pleased that this measure is going to provide significant benefits to many hundreds, in fact thousands—if not over one million—teenagers and other people who will be assisted through the Commonwealth Dental Health Program across the country. These two bills will allow the government to deliver on a key part of its election commitment to improve dental health for working families and address Australia’s dental crisis. The government has committed a total of $780 million over five years for two new dental programs: the Medicare Teen Dental Plan and the Commonwealth Dental Health Program. Both of these programs are squarely targeted at people who are most in need of help, many of whom could not afford dental care without this assistance. We will work with the states and territories and the dental profession to expand the provision of dental care, with a focus on treatment for those in greatest need and preventative care for eligible teenagers. These significant commitments will help ease Australia’s dental crisis, help end the blame game and start addressing the serious problems in oral health that the Howard government ignored for more than a decade—not least the 650,000 people left to languish on public dental waiting lists across the country.
The passage of these bills will enable the Medicare Teen Dental Plan to commence next month. The government is providing $490 million over five years for the Medicare Teen Dental Plan, which will provide up to $150 per each eligible teenager towards an annual preventative check. This will target those who are aged between 12 and 17 in families receiving family tax benefit A. Teenagers in the same age group receiving Youth Allowance or Abstudy will also be eligible under the program. About 1.1 million teenagers will be eligible under the Medicare Teen Dental Plan each year, and the Medicare Teen Dental Plan will operate as part of the broad Medicare arrangements through a new dental benefits schedule.
Under the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, the Rudd government will be providing an additional $290 million over three years to improve access to public dental services, working in cooperation with the states and territories. This marks a stark change from the last decade of the Howard government: playing the blame game and criticising the states for not doing enough on dental health. Commencing in July this year, the Commonwealth Dental Health Program will assist the states and territories to reduce waiting times by funding up to one million additional dental consultations and treatments over the next three years. This means that pensioners and concession card holders will be able to get more help. It will assist the poorest members of our community and people with the poorest dental health. It will also give priority to Indigenous people and preschool children, groups that the Howard government’s dental program clearly failed. We are negotiating with the states and territories to ensure that those with chronic disease will still be given priority through this program.
In summing up, I again wish to thank the members for their contributions to the debate on these bills. In the debate we heard the member for North Sydney claim that the opposition ‘clearly understands the burden of dental disease in our society’. In fact, we heard many opposition members bemoan the poor dental health of many Australians. But it seems to me that the member for North Sydney and the opposition are crying crocodile tears when it comes to dental health. If they really understood dental disease, why did the former government rip $100 million a year from the Commonwealth Dental Health Program and ignore dental health as an issue for more than a decade?
The member for North Sydney professed concern for the 650,000 Australians on public dental waiting lists, and yet, bizarrely, after 11 years of inaction, argued that it is the Rudd government which is leaving them languishing on these waiting lists. Let me provide the House with some pretty basic historical facts. As I have said, it was the previous government that ripped $100 million a year of funding from public dental programs, leading to an explosion in waiting lists. The member for North Sydney says he cares for those people having to wait too long for dental care, but it is something that, when he sat on this side of the House for 11 years, he did not care sufficiently about to convince his government to do anything to fix the problem. And now he still offers nothing to fix the problem, instead engaging in the tired old blame game, saying it is simply the states’ fault and ignoring the history of the government he was a part of. It is only the Rudd government, now having come to office, that is working to address the public dental waiting lists through our $290 million investment in the Commonwealth Dental Health Program alongside our $490 million investment in our kids’ teeth through the Medicare Teen Dental Program.
We now understand, as of today, that the opposition is also planning to disallow the closure of the former government’s failed chronic disease dental program. As I have said in this House before, we do acknowledge that some people got help from that program if they could navigate the complex referral process and the red tape, but many, many people—often the most needy in the community—did not get help and it was not a targeted program. You could be assisted if you had a particular chronic disease in particular circumstances, but you could not be assisted if you had poor teeth simply because of your poverty, simply because you did not have proper health care, you did not have early enough dental care, you did not have a good diet—any range of these problems that can cause severe oral health difficulties would not qualify you for assistance. For example, over the four years to 30 April 2008, in the whole of the Northern Territory no services at all were provided to children and young adults aged up to 24 years. In South Australia over the same four years, no services at all were provided to children up to the age of 14—zero. This means, as I have noted before, that any children born in the Northern Territory or South Australia during the entire life of the Howard government did not get any assistance for their dental care during the life of that government. And now we have the opposition saying that we are not doing enough or that they want us to continue their program as well as invest our new $780 million. It really is pretty cheeky, I have to say.
In total, over the four years to 30 April 2008, the Howard government’s failed scheme will have spent less than $50 million compared to the $780 million that the Rudd government is investing in dental health. In disallowing the closure of the failed chronic disease program, the opposition will be opposing the savings measures that will help pay for the Rudd government’s better targeted programs. We think this is thoughtless, reactionary opposition. It is opposition for opposition’s sake. We see it on dental care, on hospitals, on alcohol and on unfair tax slugs like the Medicare levy surcharge. The opposition is following a clear pattern: do nothing for 11 years and then attack the new government for pursuing the path of reform. The Liberal Party has until the end of the month to choose between responsible economic management and responsible health policy and short-term, cheap politics. I hope that they will make the right choice.
In conclusion, the Rudd government is delivering on its election commitment and making a $780 million investment in Australia’s dental health, an investment in preventative care for our kids and treatments for the most needy in the community. It demonstrates that the Rudd government can make the tough decisions to close down ill-targeted programs which have demonstrably failed and to replace them with targeted programs that help more Australians and those most in need, such as pensioners and concession card holders.
The programs demonstrate the Rudd government’s determination to address the immediate pressures on Australia’s dental health system and the 650,000 people on public dental waiting lists who are the Howard government’s sad legacy, and they demonstrate the Rudd government’s commitment to building for Australia’s future by encouraging our teenagers to develop good dental habits and to preserve their dental health for the long term. Together, these programs will attack the sorry state of dental health in Australia and they mark the start of a new era in dental care and preventative health.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
5087
Ms ROXON
(Gellibrand
—Minister for Health and Ageing)
20:09:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
DENTAL BENEFITS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
5087
Bills
R2999
Second Reading
5087
Debate resumed from 29 May, on motion by Ms Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
5087
Ms ROXON
(Gellibrand
—Minister for Health and Ageing)
20:11:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (ELECTION COMMITMENTS NO. 1) BILL 2008
5087
Bills
R3022
Cognate bills:
INCOME TAX (MANAGED INVESTMENT TRUST WITHHOLDING TAX) BILL 2008
5087
Bills
R3024
INCOME TAX (MANAGED INVESTMENT TRUST TRANSITIONAL) BILL 2008
5087
Bills
R3023
Second Reading
5087
Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Mr Bowen:
That this bill be now read a second time.
5087
20:11:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
0
0
Mr KEENAN
—I want to begin my remarks today by going over some of the history of the measures contained within the Tax Laws Amendment (Election Commitments No. 1) Bill 2008 and cognate bills that are before the House for discussion. I want to go over that history because I think we need to understand some of that history to understand how slippery and tricky this government has already become. In the measures that are contained within this bill, the Australian taxpayer is being asked to fork out hundreds of millions of dollars seemingly to essentially protect the government from an embarrassment of their own making. This is money that is going to be taken out of the pockets of hardworking Australian taxpayers and put directly into the pockets of taxpayers in other countries such as the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom. Or, worse, the money that will be taken out of the hands of the Australian taxpayer will just go directly into the treasuries of other countries. It will go directly into the US Treasury or the Chancery of the UK.
This is a measure that reveals that we have a government that really does not seem to have a clue about economic and taxation policies. We are being asked to spend $630 million over the forward estimates period. It is an expenditure that is really just a tax cut for foreign investors who invest in Australian property trusts. I do not need to remind the House that all this is being done in the context of a budget that increases taxes and increases expenditures, a budget that increases the pressure on average Australians who are trying to make ends meet.
With the exception of the coalition tax cuts that have been delivered by the government in this budget by Wayne Swan, this is the only other tax cut that this budget contains. I think it is worth pondering why it is that this group is being so favoured by this government. The government are happy to slug you if you like to have a Jim Beam with Coke, they are happy to slug you if you want to drive a Tarago people mover that comes in over the luxury car tax threshold and they are happy to slug you if you live in a rural area and need a four-wheel drive to get around. If you like to travel, they are going to slug you. You had better watch out if you are a consumer of gas in Western Australia, because they have a $2½ billion tax grab and the Prime Minister has been unable to rule out whether it will increase the price of gas in Western Australia. This government are going to slug you if you have private health insurance.
But, strangely enough, if you live in Japan, in the US or in some of the other countries around the world, we are going to give you a tax cut. I find this a relatively absurd proposition. While the government are delivering the coalition’s tax cuts they are telling the Australian people that these will be the last tax cuts that anyone will receive under this government. They do not really believe in cutting the taxation burden, so they are happy to deliver the coalition’s tax cuts that they were forced into promising during the last election campaign. The only other people to get a tax cut will be foreign investors in Australian property trusts.
There is absolutely no explanation as to why this is the case. There is no reason why foreign investors in property trusts have been so favoured by this government. We really need to ask: what is the reason? What is the rationale? Why are we discussing $630 million coming out of the pockets of Australian taxpayers and going into—in many cases directly into—the treasuries of other countries with no discernible benefit to the Australian taxpayer? Why is it that we have a government that is so parsimonious with its own citizens—saying, ‘Oh, no, we’re not going to give you access to any more of your money that you have earned; the era of tax cuts has come to an end’—and so generous to foreign investors?
We can only understand this by examining the history of this measure. After the 2007 budget, the then opposition, now the government, were desperately casting around for something to say in reply to the budget. They came up with an idea to make Australia a financial services hub of the region. That is actually not a bad idea; in fact, it is an extraordinarily good idea. Sadly, the then government had been pursuing that policy goal for 12 years. It had been doing it by reducing the taxation burden for Australians and providing a competitive regulatory regime for the financial services industry in Australia. The opposition needed to come up with something in reply to the budget, so they decided they would plagiarise this idea of Australia as a financial services hub for the region. Of course, they needed to put some meat on those bones and come up with a policy that they could point to that would achieve that. So they plagiarised a suggestion from industry, which was to reduce the rate of withholding tax for foreign investors in Australian property trusts.
The problem with that is that they did not seem to have any idea about how much that measure would actually cost. They have been adamant, and they were adamant in opposition, that the measure would cost some $15 million per year. We are actually discussing $630 million here tonight, but the opposition were adamantly saying that it would only cost $15 million per year, which wildly underestimated the actual cost of this measure. Indeed, Treasury and the then Treasurer stated publicly on many occasions that the then opposition’s proposal would cost in excess of $100 million per year. But the then opposition were not to be moved from the idea that what they were proposing—this tax cut for foreigners—was only going to cost the Australian Treasury $15 million per year.
I would like to remind the House of some of the things that were said in this House about a year ago. They really show that this government has absolutely no credibility on economic matters. I quote the then shadow Assistant Treasurer, now the Assistant Treasurer, talking about the costings for this measure that we are discussing tonight. On 23 May last year he said in this House:
Let me deal with the matter of costings, because the Treasurer—
the then Treasurer, of course, the member for Higgins—
went out and said: ‘The Leader of the Opposition has his sums wrong. This wouldn’t cost $15 million a year; it will cost $100 million a year.’
The then shadow Assistant Treasurer went on to say about this outrageous costing of $100 million a year that the government came up with:
How much credibility does the Treasurer have on this issue? Zero.
He said that it was not correct to say that:
... Labor’s proposal will cost the taxpayer $100 million a year. Labor’s costing is conservative, and it is thorough.
I think we will find in a minute when I go through the costings for this bill that that is complete and utter unadulterated rubbish. I will go a little more into what he had to say because it goes to credibility. Only last year, the then shadow Assistant Treasurer said:
The Treasurer thinks he is going to get away with saying that this costs $100 million ...
Many times in this chamber he attacked what the then government was saying about this measure costing in excess of $100 million. He said that the then government would have absolutely no credibility if it stuck to that costing and he was adamant during many debates in this chamber that the measure that was being proposed would only cost $15 million per year.
If I may, I will go to what the costings actually are for this measure because I think this is a pretty interesting indication of the slipperiness of the then opposition, now the government, on this issue. In fact, even up until a couple of months ago the Assistant Treasurer was blithely repeating to journalists that he essentially did not believe Treasury’s costings on this. Funnily enough, when the Assistant Treasurer gave his second reading speech last week on this bill, guess what he did not mention at all? What was the one thing that the Assistant Treasurer did not mention when he gave his second reading speech? He made absolutely no reference to costings.
The Assistant Treasurer spent the last year talking about the costings of this measure saying that it was only going to cost taxpayers $15 million. He spent the last year attacking the then government for correcting him and saying, ‘No, it’s going to cost in excess of $100 million a year.’ Then he comes in here and takes a totally different tack last week when he is making his second reading speech on this bill and he never once refers to costings. I have a good idea why that is. It is because the costings contained within his own legislation show what a joke his arguments were that this was only going to cost $15 million. The financial impact of these measures is substantially more than that. In fact, it shows that, when the then government was arguing that the measure would cost in excess of $100 million, we were actually being conservative. That is a very conservative estimate of what this measure is actually going to cost.
I want to turn to the costings. The nature of this bill is that the rates come down over a three-year period. In the first year the rate is 22½ per cent; in the second year, it is 15 per cent, which was what the government actually promised before the election; and then in the third year it moves down to 7½ per cent, an extraordinarily low rate for any taxation measure in Australia. The financial impact of these measures in the first year will cost taxpayers $60 million. In the first year, as I have just said, the withholding tax will be 22½ per cent. Even when the withholding tax is 22½ per cent, not the 15 per cent that the then government was advocating, the cost of that is $60 million. Remember that the Labor Party were arguing that the withholding tax rate of 15 per cent was only going to cost $15 million a year. Already that is four times the estimate that the opposition supplied the Australian people with prior to the last election.
In the following year when the withholding tax rate goes down to 15 per cent—which was of course the magic target the government promised prior to the last election—it is going to cost $125 million. So, it is not going to cost the $15 million that they promised prior to the election, nor the $100 million that the Treasury estimated. Now it is actually going to cost $125 million in the second year. The following year it is going to cost the Australian taxpayer another $210 million and in the final year of the forward estimates it is going to cost another $235 million. If I am not mistaken, that makes a grand total of $630 million over the forward estimates period. So that is the final costing for this measure that the then opposition said would cost the Australian people $15 million a year. I think that is outrageous. For so long the Australian people were promised that this measure was actually not going to cost terribly much and it turns out that it is actually going to cost a truckload.
As I said, the Assistant Treasurer failed to mention the costings in his second reading speech. This measure means that the rate will come down over time from 22½ per cent to 15 per cent and then finally to 7½ per cent. That is in excess of what the Labor Party promised prior to getting into government, which was 15 per cent. But not once has this new rate actually been justified. Why is it that foreign investors only investing in Australian property trusts will pay the 7½ per cent rate of withholding tax? I cannot think of anybody within the Australian system that gets a more generous treatment than that. Certainly, Australian citizens do not get anywhere near that level of generosity when they make their investments. Why are we now levying a different rate of withholding tax on income from property trusts than we are from other types of investments? Why are we levying a different rate than, say, the rate that we levy on interest or the rate that we levy on dividends? The government has not provided one word of explanation as to why its stated policy goals have suddenly changed.
In fairness, there is actually some logic to the 15 per cent rate because that brings it down to be generally in line with the withholding tax regimes on other investment types. That is actually justifiable. I pause just to say that even the most gung-ho members of the industry are only calling for this withholding tax to be brought down to 12½ per cent over time. As far as I am aware, nobody within the industry was actually calling for the rate to be 7½ per cent and I would be fascinated if the government could actually provide any evidence of anybody who thinks that this was an appropriate response.
I think we need to ask ourselves why this is the case. Why would a government essentially deliver a windfall to foreign treasuries out of the pocket of the Australian taxpayer? We all know the answer to that. What is happening is that they are covering up for the fact that they totally misrepresented the costings of this measure prior to the last election. They did not give the Australian people a chance to examine the costings for this policy and they stuck to their guns even though there was ample evidence that those costings were incredibly inaccurate.
This bill contains measures that the opposition would normally be very happy to endorse. We are ultimately the parties of lower taxation in Australia. We have a record that a tax-and-spend Labor Party will never be able to match and we see their approach within this latest budget. There are arbitrary and relatively wide-ranging tax hikes on certain industries all of which, as is the nature of tax hikes, will ultimately flow back to Australian consumers. We are the parties that over many years authored consistent tax cuts for the Australian people. We provided much-needed tax relief in successive budgets over the 12 years that we were in government.
We are also the parties that wholeheartedly embrace foreign investment. We understand that foreign investment creates jobs and prosperity here in Australia. We also have a good record of championing Australia as a regional financial centre. Indeed, we did many things to enhance Australia’s competitiveness to make it a regional financial hub. From the tax perspective alone, we accepted the great majority of the recommendations that were made by the Board of Taxation when they were reviewing Australia’s international taxation arrangements. Remember that they recommended that the rate of withholding tax for foreigners investing in Australian property trusts should be 30 per cent—that was their recommendation. This is obviously an important issue for the industry. Every player within the Australian financial scene would like to see Australia become a regional investment services hub.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
5091
Adjournment
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 8.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Calare Electorate: Peak Hill Explosion
Fuel Prices
5091
5091
20:30:00
Cobb, John, MP
00AN1
Calare
NATS
0
0
Mr JOHN COBB
—Yesterday at Peak Hill near Parkes in my electorate, there was a tragic accident on the grounds of a service station. My sympathy is with the family of the man who died as a result of that accident. Police were told that the explosion occurred while two trucks were involved in a refuelling procedure. Children from two schools had to be evacuated. But it was great to see recognition today for the local firefighters, who were praised for their bravery and their quick action in bringing the blaze under control. It was a very, very tragic accident.
That accident brings to mind the issue of fuel prices. In my electorate of Calare, which is certainly the largest in New South Wales, and right around Australia, the price of fuel and the price of petrol in particular—because the excise obviously does not deviate in it—is an incredible cost to everybody. In an electorate like Calare, it is not uncommon for people to travel 100 kilometres every day to and from work. That is a huge cost even for people who might have good jobs, because the cost of transport today makes a big hole in their wages. In the fight for survival in the bush, the cost of fuel is an enormous issue. It is an enormous issue for those involved in production. Farmers are now paying up around $1.90 for diesel just to put a crop in, and that is no small thing, especially in times of drought. A school bus operator with a fixed contract, in my electorate, is absorbing the rising cost of diesel, which at last report, as I said, was $1.90 and going skywards. His business is becoming very, very marginal, if not unprofitable, because that sort of cost is not built in as a rising factor in his contract.
It is all very well to bring in Fuelwatch, but quite obviously the government knows it will not have a flat effect but will have a negative effect for the people in country areas because the scheme will not be imposed on them. I do not think it will have any effect anywhere else either, and it will probably have a negative effect for users around Australia, particularly in areas like mine. Thank heavens it is not being imposed upon us.
I think this government should think very hard about what Brendan Nelson suggested the other day. The idea of a reduction of 5c a litre has had water thrown on it and been ridiculed put on it by those opposite, but I do not think they travel very far. Somebody in my electorate who travels 100 kilometres a day to work and back would save $150 a year on that basis—and many people do travel that distance. You have only got to go from Molong to Orange or from Narromine to Dubbo and you are going to be doing 100 kilometres a day. A saving of $150 a year may not be very much for those who do not use a car much or do not travel very far when they do, but I can assure you that, for people in my region who travel thousands of kilometres sometimes just to go to the hospital, it is not uncommon to travel 300 kilometres on a round trip to see a doctor.
GT4
Truss, Warren, MP
Mr Truss
—It’s a legitimate tax cut, isn’t it?
00AN1
Cobb, John, MP
Mr JOHN COBB
—As the Leader of the Nationals has just said, it is trying to help people, but those opposite do not like it because it is not their idea. Fuelwatch will cost them nothing and give them nothing. It is good spin, but it certainly will not help the people of Calare. Something serious has to happen to help people. In an area like mine, where travel is part of everyday life—whether it is for pleasure, whether it is for business or whatever it might be—something must happen to relieve the pressure on working families—the favourite phrase of the Prime Minister. There are no harder-working families than the ones in the biggest electorate in New South Wales, Calare, and I think they deserve more than they are getting. They need more than someone watching their fuel prices. Let us give them the five cents, because for a lot of them it is 150 bucks a year—and it might be a lot more than that for many of them.
Braddon Electorate: Aged-Care Facilities
5093
5093
20:35:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—Tonight I am really pleased to discuss two aged-care facilities which I had the great privilege of opening in the last few months. Both are great examples of community self-help. Both are examples of community based not-for-profit organisations that are trying to look to the future and are looking to government—they have certainly looked to their community and got support—to consolidate and reinforce the belief in community based not-for-profit organisations. We need to and will support them into the future. The area I come from, unfortunately, has a markedly ageing population—one of the highest and fastest-growing aged populations in Tasmania and one of the fastest growing in Australia. The services these facilities provide are first class, but they are going to need support. It is very much an issue for both sides of this House. We all have aged-care communities in our electorates and we need to be able to help them sustain their services into the future.
The first facility I had the great privilege of opening was Emmerton Park in the far north-west of Tasmania on 29 April. Mr Speaker, you know it well because you visited it many, many years ago when you were kind enough to support me as a lowly candidate in the 1998 election when I had the great privilege of being first elected to this place.
You might not remember, Mr Speaker, but Emmerton Park was in a 40-year-old motel and they developed services from there, but it became so large and the demand was so large that the demand on the facility to reach standards was too much. So you would be very pleased to know that they have built an $8 million-plus facility to cater for 60 beds for the full range of services, and most of it came from the community. But the federal government kindly—and I recognise both the former government and ours for this—was able to contribute $2.5 million towards it. The state government contributed $1 million towards the cost of it and the local community contributed nearly $800,000. The rest was raised by the community itself and the local government. So I congratulate Jonathan Smith and his board and the mayor, Daryl Quilliam, on the creation of Emmerton Park, the 60-bed supermotel. The things they have in them nowadays—it is a credit to them and a credit to that wonderful community in the far north-west. I hope you all have the opportunity to go up that way and visit sometime.
Mr Speaker, you would also be aware of another facility that is located in Burnie. It is called Umina Park. ‘Umina’ is a beautiful name, because it means ‘repose’, which is a great description of what it means to be in this home. Again, it was built for around $8 million and is part of OneCare, which has now consolidated itself in Tasmania. The new wing, Westpark Grove, provides 40 beds and a full range of low care, in the main, through to high care and high-care dependency and secure wings. Of course, Umina Park itself, which has something like 198 residents, has the full suite of services, which is going to be the future. You are going to have gated communities, where you go in and start to purchase services of support until you move on to the lower but dependent care, to high care, to high dependent care and—hopefully not for anyone here—to dementia care itself. That is, first and foremost, part and parcel of what is going on.
I congratulate OneCare. I congratulate Roz Hill, who is a director at Umina, Michael Powell, the chair of the board, and Jeff Briscoe, who is the chair of OneCare in Tasmania, for their excellent work and the wonderful contribution they make to their communities. They look to this place to help them provide these services into the future. Looking around this House, I know that everyone here cares and that it is something we need to look to in the future. It was a great honour to open both these magnificent homes for the aged.
Mental Health
5094
5094
20:40:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
0
0
Mr JOHNSON
—Mental health is an extremely serious issue in our society. We probably all know someone, directly or indirectly, who has or is suffering from a mental health illness. Those suffering from mental illness are suffering an illness. Mental health is an illness; it is not just a personality problem or a passing mood problem. Those suffering from mental issues are not crazy people or mad or insane. They should not be forgotten in our community. They are ill and they require the very best treatment that a rich and prosperous country like ours can deliver. Some one million Australians experience some form of mental health illness, which can be in the form of depression or severe and sustained anxiety.
The Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, based at the University of Queensland, which is one of this country’s great universities and is in the Ryan electorate, reports that each employee with depression symptoms would cost their employer up to $9,665 a year. The interesting aspect of the UQ research was that $7,878 of this amount could be recouped if sufferers of mental health problems had accessed treatment right at the very beginning. So just from this economic perspective we can see how significant it is for us as a nation to tackle mental health issues.
I know that the Rudd government has allocated $50 million towards mental health services, including $20 million to tackle suicide prevention, particularly for young Australians. This is a good start, and I am pleased that it has been done. But let me just make one comparison with what the Howard government invested in mental health. In May 2006 the Howard government invested a massive $1.8 billion in mental health programs. The Howard government’s $1.8 billion package was a remarkable and innovative funding package. For one thing, it allowed clinical psychologists and clinical psychiatrists to bill patients under a Medicare entitlement. The consequence of this was that in its first month of operation, some 45,000 Medicare billing transactions took place involving clinical psychologists and psychiatrists and accredited GPs who were able to take advantage of the new Medicare coverage.
The $1.8 billion funding package also provided for more mental health nurses, some 650 new respite places and the employment of some 900 support workers to help with the daily chores of the sufferers of mental health problems. The $1.8 billion funding package of the Howard government was funding well beyond the substantial resources that had already been committed to mental health through the national mental health plans that have a five-year lifespan and are negotiated between the states and territories and the Commonwealth.
I refer also tonight to an aspect of mental health that is very important for me as the member for Ryan, because I have had the opportunity of seeing many local constituents about this particular aspect of mental health. I want to talk about bipolar disorder very briefly. Bipolar disorder is a term used to describe extreme fluctuations of mood. The term describes the exaggerated alternating pattern of emotional highs and lows—the low being a reference to depression, in particular. The intensity of the associated signs and symptoms varies. Bipolar disorder can range from a mild condition to a terribly severe condition, and there may be periods of regular behaviour in between. The mood swings pattern for each individual is generally quite distinctive, with some people having episodes of mania only once a decade, while others have daily mood swings. Bipolar disorder can commence in childhood, and this is of interest to me because many young people who could potentially have great lives ahead of them may not reach their potential. Some people develop their first episode in their mid to late adulthood, so it varies quite dramatically amongst Australians.
I raise that here because I have recently been invited to join a not-for-profit association that has its roots and its conception in the Ryan electorate. I will be pleased to elaborate further on this at another time. The Bipolar Expedition is something which I am very proud to be part of, and I want to commend Dr Tim Silk, who is based at the University of Queensland, for his leadership and stewardship, and also to commend the committee members of the Bipolar Expedition, which aims to raise significant funds to bring bipolar disorder to the attention of the Australian public as an issue within the Australian community. I also want to thank all those who are associated with voluntary work in bipolar disorder for their contribution to making the lives of so many Australians much easier. (Time expired)
Blair Electorate: Roads
5095
5095
20:45:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—I want to speak tonight about a motorway up in my electorate which has often been regarded as Queensland’s worst national highway—that is, the Ipswich Motorway. There have been some media reports which have misconstrued the Rudd government’s position in relation to the Ipswich Motorway. The Ipswich Motorway is the main arterial road from Brisbane, and approximately 80,000 vehicles a day travel along it. It services Ipswich, which has 150,000 people. In the next 15 years another 150,000 people will be added to that, and there will be great growth in the Lockyer Valley as well as in the old Boonah shire.
For those interstate who do not quite understand where Ipswich is in relation to Brisbane, it is about where Parramatta is in relation to Sydney, and Toowoomba is about where the Blue Mountains are. The Ipswich Motorway leads from Brisbane to Ipswich and veers off to the Logan Motorway down to the Gold Coast. It keeps going to the south, going into the Cunningham Highway, which goes down towards Warwick and into western New South Wales. It veers off to the north, up to the Warrego Highway, which goes from the Brisbane Valley up towards the South Burnett region. As I say, it goes along the Warrego Highway towards Toowoomba and western Queensland. So those from interstate can see how important that motorway is. It is a vital link between Ipswich and Brisbane, and also for other parts of Queensland and also western New South Wales.
For 11½ years the Howard government did very little in relation to the Ipswich Motorway.
GT4
Truss, Warren, MP
Mr Truss
—Wrong! Absolutely wrong!
HVO
Neumann, Shayne, MP
Mr NEUMANN
—It is interesting that the member for Wide Bay interjects. It is all words now, but there was no action for 11½ years. Where were the National Party and the coalition on the Ipswich Motorway for 11½ years? It is all rhetoric. Their response to the Ipswich Motorway can be characterised by three things: ignorance of the issue, inertia and inaction.
GT4
Truss, Warren, MP
Mr Truss
—And hundreds of millions of dollars!
HVO
Neumann, Shayne, MP
Mr NEUMANN
—No, inaction. I can tell you what, Mr Speaker: it is quite clear that the coalition says a lot now but did nothing for the people of Ipswich on the motorway. The member for Oxley and I have campaigned on this issue for years against the coalition government, which fought against the upgraded Ipswich Motorway, I can assure you. The Ipswich Motorway upgrade is important for the safety of property and people in the Ipswich area, and not having the upgrade—because of the opposition of the previous government—has been holding back economic development. The reality is that the Ipswich Motorway is going to be upgraded in four stages, just like the M1 between Brisbane and the Gold Coast: the Dinmore to Goodna section, which the coalition steadfastly refused to upgrade; the Goodna to Wacol section; the Wacol to Darra section; and the Darra to Rocklea section.
The coalition government had a report back in the middle of 2003 and did nothing in relation to it despite the requests of the Queensland government and the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, a Liberal. Despite the support of the coalition opposition in Queensland, of all the councils in the surrounding area and of the Queensland state government, the coalition did nothing much in relation to the Ipswich Motorway. The reality is that we will be investing $2.2 billion to upgrade the busiest section. Of course, $255 million is being put towards the Ipswich-Logan interchange, and it will be completed by 2009. Seven hundred million dollars is going to the Wacol to Darra section, which will be completed by 2010. A further $100 million has been set aside for the Wacol to Darra section stage 2. There is $1.14 billion to upgrade the most critical section, the Dinmore to Goodna section, which Labor pledged during the election campaign.
I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister has declared that we will honour our commitment to the Ipswich Motorway in full. We will upgrade the Ipswich Motorway from Dinmore to Rocklea. The Prime Minister said today:
“On the Ipswich Motorway, we committed ourselves to its upgrade prior to the election … For the remaining 6km as you describe it through to Rocklea, we will either have that submitted for consideration by Infrastructure Australia to be funded out of the Building Australia Fund or alternatively from the next round of AusLink funding. Either way we will be honouring that commitment.
He went on to say:
It’s basic for us, for the people in that corridor who have suffered from very poor treatment in terms of their major road connections through the city of Brisbane for far too long … Far too many people frankly have found themselves in real difficulty on that road in terms of traffic accidents as well.
Labor is committed, and the Rudd government is committed, to upgrading the Ipswich Motorway in full. As the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has said on occasion in the past, this is the most critical funding priority. On 29 January 2008 he said:
There is no more important road project than the Ipswich Motorway on our priority list. No more important anywhere.
(Time expired)
Recycling
5096
5096
20:50:00
Wood, Jason, MP
E0F
La Trobe
LP
0
0
Mr WOOD
—I rise today to discuss Australia’s need for a national container deposit scheme. In my electorate of La Trobe, I am lucky enough to see many of Australia’s most unusual and exotic creatures, such as the lyrebird, the wallaby, the echidna and the platypus, living in their natural environment. In particular, one of the things I have been most fascinated by is going around the local creeks in the Dandenong Ranges and never actually seeing a platypus but hearing the stories about how we have them living there. But one of the biggest problems is weeds. I must digress for one second and say how upsetting it was that the Rudd government removed a $450,000 commitment to removing wandering trad, a weed which is clogging up the creeks, in my electorate. Also, sadly, in these creeks we have bottles and containers, which are a great nuisance to the local animals and, in particular, to the platypus.
There is something that seems quite remarkable. Recycling is a very important issue in my electorate, and all the people of La Trobe do their utmost to recycle. In particular, Clematis Creek—where there is talk that a platypus has been seen recently—is bounded by two shires, the shire of Yarra Ranges and the shire of Cardinia. Both councils have very strong recycling programs, yet when I go down and have a look at Clematis Creek I come across bottles and cans.
Two or three weeks ago I was walking along Sherbrooke Road in Sherbrooke and, to my amazement, every 20 or 30 metres I saw bottles and Coke cans. This area abuts Sherbrooke Forest, a beautiful place. It just goes to show how uncaring some people can be about where they drop their rubbish and, with a lot of these cans and bottles having been there for a number of years, it shows that rubbish is not being collected.
In 1975, the Dunstan Labor government of South Australia, fed up with people not heeding the anti-litter message, passed the Beverage Container Act—and I congratulate them on doing that—which legislated for a container deposit refund system. It was hoped that the Beverage Container Act would reduce the amount of litter in the streets. Every plastic bottle has the words ‘This bottle can be exchanged for a 5c refund when sold in South Australia’ printed on its label. So you see this refund message in South Australia but not in Victoria. On visiting Adelaide several years ago, I noticed a sizeable reduction of litter in the streets; in fact, I did not see one soft drink bottle or aluminium can. The success of container deposit legislation in South Australia is self-evident.
I believe that the best way to tackle the littering problem and encourage recycling is to establish a national container deposit scheme. Based on South Australian figures, a national scheme could save up to 500,000 tonnes of packaging landfill each year—equal to about 12 billion bottles and cans. That would be 12 billion bottles that are currently not being recycled, that are lining our streets and that are flowing into our stormwater drains and down our creeks or taking up space in landfills.
Figures from the 2007 Clean Up Australia Day show that beverage containers and associated litter account for more than 20 per cent of all litter collected, up from 18.5 per cent of litter collected in the 2001 Clean Up Australia Day. Container deposit legislation will provide more incentives for people to recycle and can work in conjunction with existing kerbside recycling services.
The advantages of a container deposit scheme are not limited to environmental benefits. I recall when I was in the scouting movement how we used to collect bottles and cans for the 5c refund. What I am proposing here, as has been proposed by environmental groups, is a national scheme where there is a 10 per cent item deposit on cans and bottles. I strongly support this and believe it is in the interest of not only my electorate but electorates right across the country.
I disagree with those who are opposed to this because it will affect the kerbside recycling done by the council. It will mean that the council will have another avenue of funding and at the same time we will be doing our utmost to protect the environment. (Time expired)
Chifley Electorate: Blacktown Girls High School
Chifley Electorate: Media Article
5098
5098
20:55:00
Price, Roger, MP
QI4
Chifley
ALP
1
0
Mr PRICE
—I wish to speak tonight on the adjournment debate to congratulate Blacktown Girls High School and six students in year 10: Shuravi Paul, Jade Lambert, Myo Khine, Shae-Lee Hourigan, Tatupu Vaoga and Rachelle Lupingna. These students at Blacktown Girls High participated in a program called Future Problem Solving Australia. It is an initiative that aims to give young people the skills to design and promote positive futures for the society in which they live. The aim of Future Problem Solving is essentially to develop critical, creative and futuristic thinking skills.
In October last year the team travelled to Perth as regional representatives where they emerged as national champions in the Community Problem Solving Division. They are the only public school in New South Wales to reach the national round and now the only public school in Australia to be invited to the international round. I am pleased to say that the international round was held at the beginning of the month in Michigan, USA, where these students were judged overall winners in three categories: education, health and civic services. I wish to congratulate their coaches, teachers Martina Rapisarda and Narelle Best. I particularly want to congratulate Blacktown Girls High community for the environment that they obviously encourage. This is an outstanding achievement by these six students from Blacktown Girls High. Mr Speaker, I hope that should they accept my invitation to come to Parliament House you might be pleased to receive them and perhaps even pass on your congratulations as well.
On a less happy note, in an article in the Daily Telegraph on 16 June 2008, a constituent in my electorate, Mr Garry Nean of Lethbridge Park, said that his son was allegedly misquoted and labelled a bludger. Mr Nean claims that he and his family were randomly approached by a reporter, David Barrett, and a photographer from the Daily Telegraph while they were outside his son Steven’s home. He claimed that David told him he was trying to understand the lifestyle situation for families in relation to the budget. Mr Nean told my office that David did not immediately identify himself or who he worked for until Mr Nean asked for identification. So much for the journalists’ code of ethics.
David asked Garry if he was working and Garry replied that because of an operation and as a result of a workplace accident he now has a caged fusion to the back and is unable to work and therefore receives the disability support pension. Garry’s wife, Noeleen, is on a carer’s pension, while Steven is also on a disability support pension. Garry alleges that Steven was misquoted by the Daily Telegraph reporter. Instead of saying that Steven would ‘wake up at 8.30 am and then it’s coffee, cigarettes and bludge all day’, Garry claims that Steven actually said that in the morning he would have a cup of coffee, a smoke, then take the kids to school.
Mr Speaker, you would agree that there is a great disparity between what was printed in the article and what Steven had allegedly said. Garry claims that he asked David if anything would be printed and that David said it would not. Garry said that he asked David not to print anything. After Noeleen arrived home, Noeleen called David Barrett, the journalist, and again asked if anything would be printed. However, this time the journalist said that it depended on his editor and the circumstances of other people interviewed. Following the release of this article, Today Tonight approached Garry at his house and asked to do a follow-up interview, which he declined.
I do not think it is correct for journalists to prey on vulnerable people in our community, and I think it is a very serious allegation to misquote them. I hope the Mount Druitt Community Legal Centre will see what legal redress my constituents have to such abuse by an important profession, by individuals who should know better.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9 pm, the debate is interrupted.
5099
21:00:00
House adjourned at 9.00 pm
NOTICES
5099
Notices
The following notices were given:
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
to present a bill for an act to amend the law in relation to the protection of the sea, and shipping and marine navigation levies, and for related purposes. (Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2008)
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr Garrett
to present a bill for an act to amend the law in relation to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and for related purposes. (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008)
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson
to present a bill for an act to amend the Offshore Petroleum Act 2006, and for other purposes. (Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Bill 2008)
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson
to present a bill for an act to amend the Offshore Petroleum (Annual Fees) Act 2006, and for related purposes. (Offshore Petroleum (Annual Fees) Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Bill 2008)
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr Bowen
to present a bill for an act to amend the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, and for related purposes. (Governance Review Implementation (AASB and AUASB) Bill 2008)
008K0
Byrne, Anthony, MP
Mr Byrne
to present a bill for an act to amend the Governor-General Act 1974, and for related purposes. (Governor-General Amendment (Salary and Superannuation) Bill 2008)
HRI
Kelly, Mike, MP
Dr Kelly
to move—
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed Australian SKA Pathfinder radio telescope in Geraldton‑Greenough and in Murchison Shire, Western Australia.
YT4
Scott, Bruce, MP
Mr Bruce Scott
to move—
That the House:
-
calls on the Federal Government to amend finance legislation so as to prevent credit providers from sending unsolicited letters offering an increased credit limit to credit card holders; and
HVR
Rea, Kerry, MP
Ms Rea
to move—
That the House requests that the Australian Government:
-
condemn the illegal continued detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and demand the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the 18 members of parliament who are in prison, along with other political prisoners;
-
instruct the Australian Embassy in Rangoon to request regular meetings with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and members of parliament who are in prison;
-
initiate an urgent meeting of the United Nations Friends of Burma Group; and
-
report to Parliament on the progress of the Group.
2008-06-17
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr MJ Washer) took the chair at 7 pm.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
5100
Statements by Members
Agriculture: Young Farmers
5100
5100
19:00:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
0
0
Mr NEVILLE
—Farmers are the custodians of much of our land and are a crucial component in looking after the country and its economy. For the future, the successful transition of farms between generations is critical. I recently opened a workshop in Bundaberg which focused on that issue. It was attended by agri-advisers, farmers, peak body representatives, banks and development practitioners. Nationwide, around 70,000 people previously working in agriculture have left the industry because of the recent terrible and, in some areas, ongoing drought. As the drought fully breaks, the sector will be crying out for people to come back into agriculture and horticulture, for people to work on farms, to handle livestock, to grow crops. As well, rural communities are looking to keep more young people in the country to ensure regional sustainability.
It is important that the right mix of incentives and training is offered to attract workers back to agriculture and horticulture and to encourage our young farmers to stay on the land. As we see prices of food commodities rise, attracting young people into farming is crucial for the future of Australian rural industry and the price of commodities. At the moment, only a third of all people in agriculture, fisheries and forestry are aged between 18 and 35. With the average age of Australia’s farmers currently at 58 years—and in Bundaberg, my home district, even higher, at 62½—the contribution of young farmers is essential. It is likely that they are going to have to learn industry leadership roles very quickly.
Succession planning makes a real difference in managing the transition of farming operations from the current generation to the next generation. Of course, this only partially happens when a farm is passed on informally in a family. Bundaberg Fruit and Vegetable Growers, Canegrowers Bundaberg and AgForce are conscious of this issue. Against this background, the convener of the workshop, Patrick Logue, and his colleagues offered some models for enticing young people back to the land. Patrick, a horticulture adviser closely involved in the macadamia industry, proposed a subsidy and mentoring scheme—based on one he experienced in Zimbabwe before coming to Australia—to help young people to own their own farms. We need to investigate that sort of model further. I also recognise AgForce for its proactive stance in supporting and developing the state’s agricultural sector. AgForce gives its members the training and guidance that they need to manage their farms well and actively encourages young people to consider a career on the land. Finally, the school to industry partnership program sponsored by the Queensland government is the only program of its kind in Australia and has grown from strength to strength since the year 2004. So far, 12,000 students have been in this program. If it continues, as the government plans, to the year 2011 there will be another 60,000 students. (Time expired)
Corio Electorate: Avalon Airport
5100
5100
19:03:00
Marles, Richard, MP
HWQ
Corio
ALP
1
0
Mr MARLES
—I rise to advise the House of recent efforts undertaken by the government to facilitate the development of an international airport at Avalon, in my electorate. Avalon Airport has been since its inception a strategically important piece of infrastructure for Geelong and greater Melbourne, servicing more than one million passengers per annum and now employing in excess of a thousand people. It has become a gateway through which holiday makers and business travellers have passed to access the diverse scenery of the Bellarine Peninsula, greater Geelong and the Surf Coast, as well as the vast commercial and industrial opportunities made available by the region’s growing economy. I am a keen supporter of Avalon’s international bid and have been part of a team that is working diligently to lay the foundations required for Avalon Airport to go international. But it must also be made clear that, inherent in a desire to meet this objective, opening the region to the international travelling public is a big and a serious step. In today’s Geelong Advertiser, Victorian opposition leader, Ted Baillieu, a man who has only just discovered that Avalon exists, sought to fire a cheap political shot at Geelong Labor politicians and, in turn, those who are currently working hard to deliver on this project. Amongst others, they include representatives of Geelong Council, the Committee for Geelong, G21, Geelong Otway Tourism and Linfox. The comments from Mr Baillieu reeked of populism as he dismissed the formulation of an appropriate customs strategy at the airport as ‘a purely administrative issue’.
I am a passionate believer in the importance of delivering an international airport at Avalon and I am confident that it will happen. But, as the federal representative for the electorate in which the airport resides, it is incumbent upon me to ensure not only that the region is striving for greater commercial and industrial opportunity, the kind which this project represents, but also that the federal government is taking the appropriate steps to ensure the safety and security of the residents of the Greater Geelong region.
Customs and quarantine are the cornerstone of our nation’s border security, and by making Geelong an international gateway we place it on the front line of border security. This is no small issue. It involves considerable public resources. Becoming an international airport will be a permanent step, so it is important that we get it right. If the Liberal Party wish to flippantly dismiss border security and the involved costs as ‘purely administrative issues’, I ponder aloud what other liberties they are willing to take with the public purse in the pursuit of votes at any cost.
The Rudd government has put considerable resources toward the process of making Avalon an international airport. This is why Mr Andrew Tongue, a deputy secretary in the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, has been tasked with overseeing this process. Mr Tongue is recognised as an individual with all the attributes required to bring together the parties in this process, which, aside from business, also include five federal government departments. Mr Tongue took the opportunity to visit Geelong last Thursday, meeting with civic and business leaders, and he was exceptionally well received by all those stakeholders who had the opportunity to talk with him. I look forward to working with Mr Tongue in progressing Avalon’s international bid.
Make Indigenous Poverty History
5101
5101
19:06:00
Morrison, Scott, MP
E3L
Cook
LP
0
0
Mr MORRISON
—The Make Indigenous Poverty History campaign is an initiative of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ecumenical Commission of the National Council of Churches in Australia. The campaign aims to ensure that the Millennium Development Goals do not overlook the poverty suffered by indigenous peoples around the world, especially in Australia. The development goals do not specifically target indigenous peoples, yet worldwide they are the most affected by extreme poverty and are usually ranked at the bottom of most social and economic indicators.
This is certainly true in Australia, where statistics show that Australian Indigenous people are living in poverty, that they suffer more from preventable diseases, that they experience higher unemployment and lower home ownership, that they have lower engagement with education and, in some places, that they are six times as likely to be murdered. Indigenous children are also twice as likely to die in infancy, and we are all too well aware of the ever present threat they face of abuse.
The Make Indigenous Poverty History campaign is calling on state and federal governments to adapt the Millennium Development Goals to ensure that by 2015 the living standards and levels of health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are comparable to those of the rest of Australia. A poverty pole, one of which I have brought along today for the benefit of those present, is a creative and personal way to support the objective, as is the Poverty Pole Charter, which is all about remembering the past, recognising the present and rectifying the future. People can sign or write comments on it to represent their understanding of Indigenous poverty and hope, and all members have the opportunity to go to the website and see how these are put together, and take them around their community.
The Shire Poverty Pole, which this is, was initiated by Sutherland Shire Citizens for Native Title and Reconciliation, of which I am patron, at their special journey-of-healing ceremony at Cook’s landing site in Botany Bay National Park on 31 May as part of National Reconciliation Week. The pole was also taken to local National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Day of Celebration events held just last week, and I will be pleased to present the pole as a gift to the parliament and to the Speaker on Thursday.
Now that the national apology has been made, it is important that we move forward and do the practical things necessary to ensure that Indigenous Australians can one day enjoy the same quality of life as all other Australians. Above all, I want to see that everyone who lives in these communities is afforded the peace of mind that comes from living in a safe and secure environment, which in turn enables them to have the self-respect and confidence to realise their potential as individual human beings. It is nice to show our commitment by signing a poverty pole, but on its own it will achieve nothing. On all these fronts we have a long way to go. However, through initiatives such as the poverty pole we can maintain a public focus on these issues that keeps the pressure on all of us to live up to all our commitments.
The pole has been signed by local Aboriginal elders including Merv Ryan, Uncle Max Harrison and Deanna Schreiber, as well as by community leaders including me, the federal member for Cook; the state MP for Cronulla, Malcolm Kerr; the Sutherland Shire Mayor, David Redmond; and ward councillor and former mayor Kevin Schreiber.
Petrie Electorate: Redcliffe Area Youth Service
5102
5102
19:09:00
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
HVN
Petrie
ALP
1
0
Mrs D’ATH
—I speak today about the great work being done by the Redcliffe Area Youth Service in the electorate of Petrie. The Redcliffe Area Youth Service is situated on the Redcliffe Peninsula and provides many services to the local youth and young adults in the community. These services include outdoor activities and projects that provide support to many people and especially our youth in the community. These projects, including the Community Jobs Plan, the Get Set for Work program, the Re-Engage project, which is a parents and carers program, and CHECKPOINT, the Peninsula School’s flexible learning program, are just some of the projects they deliver.
The Redcliffe Area Youth Service has now expanded its service to the broader community by successfully receiving funding through the federal government’s Healthy Active Australia Community and Schools Grants Program. This program is part of the government’s preventative health measures to reduce future health risks and chronic disease. Healthy eating and an active lifestyle are crucial to avoiding and overcoming obesity, an issue which is taken seriously by this government and the whole community.
On Sunday of last week, I spoke at the official launch of HEAL, the Healthy Eating Active Lifestyle project. The youth service was successful in receiving $109,621.03 from the Australian federal government. This funding is being used over a 16-month period to deliver a health and lifestyle expo, fitness equipment training for local teachers, and health lifestyle programs targeting population groups such as our youth, young parents and Indigenous and older Australians. The funding also provides for the installation of outdoor fitness equipment. This equipment is placed in a public area, accessible to the whole community. This means that people throughout the community can access free advice on healthy eating and physical activity through workshops throughout the year and can engage in physical exercise to improve their health and fitness at no cost to themselves.
The new fitness equipment was handed over to the Moreton Bay Regional Council by me on behalf of the Redcliffe Area Youth Service on Sunday, and the council will maintain the equipment into the future for the benefit of the whole community. I congratulate Jarryd Williams, the manager for the Redcliffe Area Youth Service and his team and the Moreton Bay Regional Council for their continuing work to deliver important services to the people of Redcliffe. Of course, this is just one of many efforts from the local area to support our local community and especially our youth, and I congratulate all of those people who have been involved in this initiative.
Mr David Martin
5103
5103
19:12:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—I rise this evening to pay tribute to the late David Martin, a friend of mine and a great servant of the local community in Casey, who died earlier this year. David was born in New Zealand in 1938. He was one of nine children, and he came to Australia in the early 1950s when his family returned to Melbourne. After schooling he commenced working with a steamship company but quickly progressed to work in accounting. In 1961 he suffered a tragic injury in a car accident, being left a paraplegic in his early 20s at a time when he was a star hockey player. After a lengthy period in hospital he took the bold step of establishing himself as a retailer in Croydon, in the outer suburbs of Melbourne in the electorate of Casey. He then went on to establish a local newspaper, which he ran for a short period of time, and then went on to perform a wonderful role in local government and in many volunteer organisations, which typified his approach to life, his guts and his absolute determination that his disability would not hold him back from contributing to the community and from living life to the full.
He was a founding member and a life member of the Croydon hockey club. He was elected as a councillor for the City of Croydon in 1972 and served for many years. He was elected mayor in 1975 and again in 1986. He was also a man of great faith; he had a very strong belief in God, and that was what gave him his strength and determination. He was a regular churchgoer, attending St John the Divine Anglican Church at Croydon, where he was involved with the parish council, including 10 years as treasurer. He did great volunteer work for many other churches. He was also a long-time member of the Liberal Party and did much to assist the state and federal branches of the Liberal Party, and it was through that that I met him as a candidate and then as a member. He served the community as justice of the peace for 30 years until his death, receiving recognition for his work there. A local Rotarian as well, he received a Shine On Award in 2004, recognising outstanding service by people with disabilities, and he was also named a Paul Harris Fellow in appreciation for his community work. David will be remembered by many hundreds of people in the Croydon area for his quiet but substantial achievements. He was not someone who enjoyed recognition or notoriety, but he was someone who made a wonderful contribution to his community.
Leichhardt Electorate: Committee for Oncology Unit Cairns Hospital
5104
5104
19:15:00
Turnour, Jim, MP
HVV
Leichhardt
ALP
1
0
Mr TURNOUR
—I rise today to lend my support to the good work of the Committee for Oncology Unit Cairns Hospital, known locally as COUCH. COUCH is a local action group that was formed by Charles and Pip Woodward, well-known business leaders and philanthropists, at a public meeting they organised on 4 September 2006. This meeting was called after cancer sufferer Liz Plummer highlighted in an interview with the Cairns Post the inadequacy of cancer facilities in Cairns. COUCH has garnered much local support from private businesses, community organisations, the general public and the local media, including the Cairns Post and radio commentator John MacKenzie.
The lack of radiation oncology facilities in Cairns forces local people to travel to Townsville or Brisbane for treatment. This means a significant financial burden for sufferers and separates them from family and friends during treatment. It is not surprising then to find that people in regional areas with cancer are 35 per cent more likely to die within five years of diagnosis than patients in larger cities and that mortality rates increase the further away the patient lives. These are frightening statistics and the reason why securing a radiation oncology facility for Cairns is so important. The passion of Liz Plummer and the leadership of Charles and Pip Woodward and the rest of the COUCH committee, with support from the community, have brought us a long way since that first meeting, and they are to be congratulated.
I am proud to be part of a government that has strongly supported COUCH. The Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, met with COUCH twice in the lead-up to the election last year. She listened and responded to my representations on behalf of COUCH and cancer sufferers in tropical North Queensland. The Rudd opposition at the time committed $8 million to an oncology drug mixer and an MRI machine at Cairns Base Hospital to assist with treatment and diagnosis and, subsequently, $8.3 million towards a radiation oncology facility. We have delivered on that election commitment. We are delivering on all our election commitments, but I am particularly proud of the government’s commitment to improve health services in tropical North Queensland.
Critical to establishing this facility has been gaining the support of the Queensland government. The Queensland Minister for Health commissioned KPMG to undertake an investigation into a proposal for a public-private partnership to deliver a radiation oncology facility for Cairns. Last week COUCH organised a meeting following on from that report, and Queensland Health attended that meeting to answer questions and outline the Queensland government’s proposal in relation to radiation oncology in tropical North Queensland. Sadly I was unable to attend that meeting as I was away on parliamentary business with the member for Lyons in Western Australia. A member of my staff, Andria Rowe, attended the meeting on my behalf.
I am pleased that Queensland Health advised of their commitment to provide radiation oncology services to tropical North Queensland and Cairns within three to four years. They also advised of their intention to fast-track CT services to enable, within one to two years, mapping of a patient’s treatment prior to travelling to Townsville for their actual radiation treatment, which means for patients less time away from their home and loved ones. This is a welcome commitment. I look forward to working with the Queensland government and I thank COUCH for their work and their ongoing watchdog role in ensuring that we deliver these commitments on time. (Time expired)
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Rural Women's Awards
Mrs Maggie Edmonds
5105
5105
19:18:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
0
0
Mrs MOYLAN
—It was a great pleasure to attend the 2008 Australian Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation—hereafter I will refer to them as RIRDC; it sounds rural—Rural Women’s Awards at a dinner in Parliament House recently. From the outset I acknowledge and warmly congratulate my Senate colleague the Hon. Judith Troeth, former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, for having the foresight to initiate this award. Senator Troeth has always been a great advocate for women, and this is a great legacy of her efforts to highlight the achievements of rural women.
On this occasion I speak of the remarkable achievement of the runner-up of this year’s RIRDC award, Mrs Maggie Edmonds, who comes from Gingin, north of my electorate. In fact, I am told that Gingin is the only town in Australia to have had two women recipients of this national award. Mrs Edmonds is a local Gingin olive, passionfruit and protea flower grower and received her award at a gala dinner held here in Parliament House. I have known Mrs Edmonds for some years as an enormously energetic woman of considerable talent. Her passion for promoting not just her own produce but that of others in the region has become the stuff of legend. She displays those great rural qualities of innovation and thoughtfulness towards others.
Mrs Edmonds’s contributions have been wide ranging—too numerous to list here—but in the case of olives she was instrumental in thrusting the product into the state spotlight. She was a founding member of the Gingin Region Olive Growers, which later became the Moore River Olive Association, and she was instrumental in initiating an olive festival which was held in Gingin for two years and then celebrated in the nearby Swan Valley.
Mrs Edmonds has many passions. One is growing flowers, and what she hopes to do with her $10,000 bursary award from RIRDC is to help other women to do what she has done—that is, take the next marketing steps with their product. She has set up a website—www.tastewa.com.au—designed for produce growers to network. It is her first project, and Mrs Edmonds hopes to follow this up in one or two years with a retail and information outlet based in the Swan Valley.
Mrs Edmonds is the second RIRDC rural women’s award winner from Gingin. In 2005, Mrs Maureen Dobra from the Loose Leaf Lettuce Company was the Western Australian winner. I am excited about the new projects that Mrs Edmonds will promote in Pearce and I thank and commend her and indeed all the other women involved in the rural industry across Australia. At a time when world leaders ponder issues of food security and much of the talk with regard to Australian agriculture is focused on water and trade reforms, it is a time to celebrate the extraordinary people behind business—in this case, these women and their role in assisting such a vital industry.
Australian Honey Bee Industry
5106
5106
19:21:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
1
0
Mr ADAMS
—I want to add a few comments to complete the report that was tabled last night about the future of the Australian honey bee and pollination industries. The humble honey bee is an amazing creature: a hard worker and homely but also fascinating and terribly important to humans. We need to know more about their habits and their industrious work. You cannot think of them as single. A hive of bees is an entity and works like a body. Every bee has its role within the body. There is a series of different roles each bee plays. They communicate between each other, describing their food sources—where they are—in some detail, warning of danger, telling each other when there is damage to their hive, calling for protection of their young bees and sending many other complex messages.
The queen is like the head, and the main part of the hive consists of the workers. They act as foragers, as nurses for the young and the queen and as soldiers to protect the hive. Within that, there are other roles such as cleaning the hive and grooming and feeding the queen. The young nurse bees make royal jelly. It is a secretion from glands on the top of their heads. For two or three days, royal jelly is the only food given to the young larvae in their maturation process, while, for the queen, larvae is the most specific food for her whole life period. During the three days in which the worker bee larvae are fed on royal jelly, they reach their maximum development. Their weight multiplies about 250 times. The queen, fed only on royal jelly for her entire life, reaches maturity five days earlier than the worker bees and, when she is fully grown, her weight is double that of the worker bee.
The span of the worker bee life is about 35 to 40 days, while the queen lives five or six years and is extremely prolific. She is fertilised once and from that moment can lay as many as 3,000 eggs a day during the season. As incredible as this may seem, she can lay that many eggs for five years. Any creature that has that amount of energy and vitality has to be respected.
Other social insects, including the termite and the ant, have a similar holistic structure, and the equivalent in the sea, of course, is coral. We can learn a lot more about these entities. Nature is fascinating to work with. (Time expired)
Forrest Electorate: Telecommunications
5106
5106
19:24:00
Marino, Nola, MP
HWP
Forrest
LP
0
0
Ms MARINO
—I rise to raise issues facing the tiny community of Windy Harbour, in my electorate of Forrest. Windy Harbour is a holiday settlement situated on just 190 hectares of crown reserve land, surrounded by the D’Entrecasteaux National Park, and it is located on the extreme south coast of Western Australia. Approximately 220 cottages have been developed on individual leases since the early 1900s. Leasehold tenure, seasonal occupation, a strong community spirit and social ties have generated a settlement of unique character.
Fishing has always been and still is a major recreational activity at Windy Harbour and is one of the principal reasons for the establishment of the settlement. The settlement is the only two-wheel drive access to the south coast between Augusta and Walpole and it provides visitors with spectacular scenery and safe harbour on the rugged coastline as well as rewarding fishing. However, the Southern Ocean provides not only some wonderful fishing for the thousands of visitors each year but also some treacherous waters. Community volunteers provide a critical sea rescue service. However, this lifesaving service is compromised by the lack of mobile phone coverage. There is a Telstra tower in the settlement providing limited landlines but no mobile coverage. Sea rescue emergencies are dependent on good communications. There is one land based public phone, but it is out of action for up to 40 per cent of the time. It has no door and it is subject to wind and salt damage. It takes cards and coins but often will take neither cards nor coins, as it is often not working. It is a highly unreliable source of communications.
The Windy Harbour Sea Rescue Group have sent a letter to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, but have had no response on this issue. The group have a very simple request. They really need the provision of funding for the upgrading of the Telstra tower that is close by, to provide lifesaving mobile coverage for the sea rescue group, the community and thousands of visitors. The sea rescue group do not want a tragedy to force action on this issue. Let us face it: those thousands of visitors do not understand local conditions in all weathers. So we need a program under the government that will provide funding for the upgrade. I call on the minister to respond to the Windy Harbour Sea Rescue Group immediately and to provide the necessary funding to upgrade the Telstra tower for mobile coverage.
Mr Michael Francis 'Mick' Nolan
5107
5107
19:27:00
Hale, Damian, MP
HWD
Solomon
ALP
1
0
Mr HALE
—I rise today to put on the public record my condolences to the family of Michael Francis Nolan, better known to his friends and family as ‘Mick’. Mick was a premiership player for North Melbourne. In fact, he played in the Kangaroos’ inaugural premiership in 1975. Mick played over 100 games for the Kangaroos and was known as the Galloping Gasometer, a nickname given to him by Collingwood legend Lou Richards. When his AFL career had finished, Mick and his loving wife, Netty, moved to Queensland. This was the beginning of a successful playing and coaching career with the Mayne Football Club. On 1 June this year a special tribute luncheon was held in Brisbane just days after Mick’s passing. He was awarded life membership of the North Melbourne Football Club, as well as becoming an inaugural member of the Queensland Australian Football League Hall of Fame. Former team mates, friends and family toasted the life of Mick Nolan, a life that was cruelly cut short by cancer. Mick was just 59.
Mick was a country boy. He was born in Wangaratta on 9 November 1948. He loved the country life and enjoyed all the activities that it had to offer. He spent his days fishing, shooting and playing football in the winter and cricket in the summer. I knew Mick through his sons Rick and Danny, who played in premierships for me at St Mary’s Football Club in Darwin when I was coach. We tried to lure younger brother Dale to the Top End without success. Mick was immensely proud of his sons and their achievements on and off the football field.
Mick was an imposing man, a mountain of a man; however, he had a heart of gold. We shared a few beers and some tears after grand finals, and most of our conversations centred on what footy meant to us and how we felt about the young men who played under our guidance. I valued these conversations and looked forward to them as the finals approached each year.
Mick is survived by his wife of 36 years, Netty; sons Ricky, Danny and Dale; grandson Noah; and daughters-in-law Anne Marie and Jackie. Mick Nolan passed away on 27 May. His funeral was held at St Gerard Majella Catholic Church in Brisbane. It was raining heavily on the day of the funeral and as I arrived at the cemetery I spoke to Helen Smith, a close and dear friend of mine and a cancer survivor as well as being Mick’s sister. She commented that Mick would be up there claiming he had already broken the drought—and he probably did.
Mick Nolan—footballer, father, friend, fisherman and family man—I was proud to call you a friend. Your family, while mourning your passing, can take solace in the fact that you were so widely known, loved and respected.
Many of my own colleagues in this place—and I note that the member for Hotham, who is a North Melbourne supporter, is here, and I thank him for that—have commented to me about Mick Nolan: put simply, he was a bloody great bloke. Let me conclude by quoting a small part of a tribute written by Netty:
We as a team made our home a very loving and happy place for our family and friends. This journey with you has made me a very lucky person. Your love from above will help me travel alone. I will always love you and still need you so please stay close.
Mick Nolan, the Galloping Gasometer, rest in peace.
5108
19:30:00
Crean, Simon, MP
DT4
Hotham
ALP
Minister for Trade
1
0
Mr CREAN
—On indulgence, I join with the remarks on the passing of Mick Nolan. Barry Cable always said of Mick Nolan that he was the best tap ruckman he ever roved to, and that is an accolade indeed from a champion rover. I was away at the passing of Mick and I had not caught up with it, unfortunately, but it is a great loss in the tragic circumstances in which it happened. I too extend my condolences to his family.
10000
Washer, Dr Mal (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Dr MJ Washer)—In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2008-2009
5108
Bills
R2973
Consideration in Detail
5108
Consideration resumed from 16 June.
5108
19:30:00
Crean, Simon, MP
DT4
Hotham
ALP
Minister for Trade
1
0
Mr CREAN
—I suggest that the order agreed to by the Committee for the consideration of proposed expenditures be varied by the Committee, next considering the proposed expenditure for the trade segment of the Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio, and then the Resources, Energy and Tourism Portfolio.
10000
Washer, Dr Mal (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Dr MJ Washer)—Is it the wish of the Main Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the minister? There being no objection, it is so ordered.
Foreign Affairs and Trade
Proposed expenditure, $4,524,405,000
5108
19:32:00
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
0
0
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—I welcome this opportunity to ask the Minister for Trade a number of questions. Firstly, I ask the Minister for Trade what Austrade functions will cease or be changed as a result of the imposition of the efficiency dividend on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
5109
19:32:00
Crean, Simon, MP
DT4
Hotham
ALP
Minister for Trade
1
0
Mr CREAN
—I am happy to answer that question but if the member would like to outline the full list of his questions we might be able to deal with them.
5109
19:32:00
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
0
0
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—Being new to this process, I was going to vary my questions depending on what answers I got, but I will take guidance from the chair as to the normal procedure.
5109
19:33:00
Crean, Simon, MP
DT4
Hotham
ALP
Minister for Trade
1
0
Mr CREAN
—Let us see how it goes. He is new to it; we had to sit on the other side, so we know how this goes—but I prefer to be over here. As far as Austrade’s functions are concerned, the extent to which they have been changed is that we have incorporated into the trade portfolio the functions of Invest Australia and the Global Opportunities program. There has been no diminution in the functions of Austrade; there has in fact been an expansion of them and a greater integrated approach.
We believe it is important to bring the investment functions within the Trade portfolio, because what we as a government understand is what the previous government never properly comprehended, which is that the nature of trade has changed. Trade is no longer simply about exporting commodities or producing here and shipping. Increasingly, there has been a very strong trend to direct investment out of this country so that businesses can take advantage of global supply chains or take equity or ownership in markets positioned overseas. If you look at the figures, direct investment out of Australia now almost equals direct investment into Australia. This is a significant change. What we say, though, is that we need a more integrated approach as to how that change, that refocus, has occurred. It is not just the decision that we took in the budget to incorporate the Invest Australia functions, which was part of an election commitment that we made; we have also referred this question of investment and investment flows very much to the Mortimer review.
The Mortimer review has been criticised by the opposition for being yet another review. They, of course, were a government that never had it, because the problem with the previous government was that, in a coalition context, so long as the Trade portfolio always defaulted to the National Party they never thought of trade much beyond commodities—agriculture, specifically, and broadacre agriculture at that. Of course, trade is much more than that.
I congratulate the former government for seeing the light now that they are in opposition, because the portfolio has at least gone to a Liberal. I would have thought that he would have understood much better, because he knew the neglect that the former government demonstrated in the trade portfolio by having this focus on agriculture. He set about building something of an empire in the industry portfolio. That is how Invest Australia came about. That is how the Global Opportunities program came about. But we say that dissipation of resources into another portfolio was costly and wasteful.
By integrating these initiatives into the Trade portfolio, we are obviously looking for considerable savings. The department has, as I understand it from Senate estimates, identified the numbers of people and the costing arrangements by which these programs will be absorbed. So, quite contrary to the member’s question about what the functions are and how they have changed, with the implication being that they have been reduced, they have in fact been expanded.
I also make the point that given the focus on investment, trade negotiations also, as a result, have, from our perspective, to take much more notice of the behind-the-border issues. The previous government, in terms of the extent to which they did have a focus beyond agriculture, were very much tariff barrier orientated. We understand the importance of looking at the services side of the equation and the capital flows—and by definition that means that increasingly the negotiating focus and the thrust of the negotiations, whether they are multilateral, regional or bilateral as in free trade agreements, are increasingly going to have to be on the behind-the-border issues.
5110
19:38:00
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
0
0
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—I thank the minister for his policy speech but draw him back to what the question actually was. The question was: what Austrade functions will cease or change as a result of an efficiency dividend being imposed on DFAT? I hope you will not take five minutes to answer this question, Minister, because I have a few others.
5110
19:38:00
Crean, Simon, MP
DT4
Hotham
ALP
Minister for Trade
1
0
Mr CREAN
—I do not know where the shadow minister has been sitting, but no Austrade functions have ceased.
WN6
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
Mr Ian Macfarlane
—No, ‘will cease’ was the question.
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr CREAN
—And, indeed, no Austrade functions will cease.
WN6
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
Mr Ian Macfarlane
—Or change?
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr CREAN
—Of course they have changed. Haven’t you been listening? I have told you what the functions are that are changing. We are changing them to make sure that there is a focus on investment. We are changing them to make sure that there is more of a focus on services. We are changing them to make sure that they integrate and are more effective in terms of understanding a dynamic approach to trade policy that you never had the wit or the wisdom to comprehend. And the fact is that you would never stand up to the National Party and argue for them, even though you understood them far better than anyone else.
I remember the shadow minister at the table, the member for Groom, being quoted in a newspaper—I do not have the exact quote in front of me; I did not think he was going to go down this line—as saying that he and the former Minister for Trade argued in cabinet for increases in the Export Market Development Grants Scheme but they could never get them. They could not win. Not only couldn’t he win against the National Party; the two of them together could not win in cabinet. As a consequence, we had the ridiculous circumstances in which, despite the fact that he knew the trade facilitation role that Austrade exercises—the Export Market Development Grants Scheme—needed additional resources, he could not win the argument. This was in the context of a government that were spending like drunken sailors—and that is the reason that we have had to impose the sorts of fiscal disciplines we have, including the efficiency dividend, because inflation was out of control under them. That is why there were eight interest rate rises on their watch. This minister could not win the argument in the drunken sailor carve-out. He could not win it, even though he knew that the trade facilitation role of Austrade required it.
Worse than that, what they did was to change the guidelines to make it more attractive to access the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. They changed the guidelines but gave it no money. I heard the member for Groom in the parliament the other day—it was in response to a ministerial statement I made about New Zealand, but he went off about the EMDG—saying that we had no money in the forward estimates for this year, $50 million for next year and nothing for the year after. Whilst that is true, what did their government have in the forward estimates for increased expenditure in the EMDG over the next four years? Zero, zero, zero, zero. What we did when we saw that stupidity, despite the fact of them acknowledging that they had to get the EMDG Scheme up to scratch, was to say, from opposition, ‘This scheme needs additional resources.’ We also said that additional changes to the scheme needed to be made to make it more attractive.
I am pleased to see the member for Leichhardt in the room, because one of the issues that he campaigned on—which was partly responsible for his magnificent win in that seat, I might say—was that not-for-profit bodies that in a group sense want to promote exports should have access to this scheme. That was a meritorious suggestion. We picked it up and ran with it. It is one of the changes that we have now legislated which are in the Senate awaiting approval. I am pleased to acknowledge that the opposition is supporting the scheme. But not only did we make changes; we funded them. As for the question of the resources beyond the $50 million that we have already put in, of course that is going to be subject to the outcome of the review that we get from Mr David Mortimer. This government has a commitment to expanding our trade performance, is prepared to put money on the table and is prepared to put constructive proposals forward when they come forward from interested bodies.
5111
19:43:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
1
0
Mr ADAMS
—The service sector did not expand very much under the last government and probably went backwards. I do not know the figures. I would like the Minister for Trade to tell the House about the potential in that area and where he thinks the services sector could go as an exporter.
5111
19:43:00
Crean, Simon, MP
DT4
Hotham
ALP
Minister for Trade
1
0
Mr CREAN
—I thank the member for Lyons for his question. I think it is true to say that there was serious neglect by the previous government of the services sector as an export opportunity for this country. The services sector of this economy is responsible for 80 per cent of the domestic economy but is only worth about, I think, 30 per cent of our export performance. We have got to do better on the services front. That is why, to start with the multilateral area, we have led the way in suggesting that, as part of the conclusion to the Doha Round, services have to be included. We have also advocated the calling of what is referred to as a signalling conference, a getting together of those economies for which services exports are a particular focus of attention.
Bear in mind that the WTO now has 152 members—a new member acceded just recently. For a lot of developing countries in that context, the services sector is not as important as agriculture in particular and, to some extent, industrial goods. So the signalling conference is a mechanism whereby, despite the requirement for a singular undertaking under Doha, nothing is concluded until everything is decided. At least we have a mechanism to carve it out. That is on the multilateral front.
The director-general may convene the meeting of ministers over the next few weeks to hammer out the settlement between agriculture and industrial goods. He has also undertaken to convene, at the ministerial level, a meeting of the services group, and we will be pushing for ambition. We have made the point that, as much as we have to get ambition in agriculture and NAMA, the non-agricultural market access area, or industrial goods, if you like, we will not be signing off on the Doha Round as a country, as Australia—this is not the Cairns Group position—unless we have an outcome on services.
So far as the regional architecture is concerned, we have also pushed very strongly for the inclusion of the services sector in the regional negotiations, as we have in the FTAs. We have resisted pressure on the part of the ASEAN group to exclude services in the context of the ASEAN free trade agreement that we are negotiating together with New Zealand. We have had a considerable and significant outcome in services—the most comprehensive outcome in any FTA we have had—with the recent one we signed up to with Chile. I know the shadow minister at the table likes to suggest that all this work was done by them, but it was not. I am prepared to acknowledge the great work that was done in terms of negotiations, but I tell you what: we came along and really drove this agenda and spoke at the political level and said, ‘We want an outcome and a comprehensive one.’ Both Chile and Australia have a vested interest in showing the way in terms of a model FTA to enhance the multilateral system and to reinforce the fact that you can drive this agenda at the bilateral level too. That is why we drove so hard to get the Chile agreement up as our first FTA since being back in government. It has a considerable outcome in the services and investment sectors.
In terms of the FTA with China, bear in mind that the negotiating strategy of the previous government was to concede market economy status to that country without getting anything in return, and that is why the negotiations on that free trade agreement stalled for three years. We have reactivated them. We got involved; the Prime Minister got involved—this was a particular focus of his activity in re-engagement. I went to China the week after the Prime Minister’s visit, and we have made clear that we want the FTA to proceed, but it has to be a comprehensive one. As difficult as the argument is going to be about agriculture and, for that matter, industrial goods, we have said that services and investment have to be in the equation.
I say to the member for Lyons: I think there is huge potential to improve our export performance in this nation, in particular through the services sector. A lot of the activity there is going to be involved in the border issues, but at the multilateral front, the regional front and the bilateral front we are putting a major new focus on services as a way forward to securing and sustaining our export base and the future of this economy.
5112
19:49:00
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
0
0
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—Can I go back to the minister’s statements about the EMDG Scheme and ask a couple of questions in relation to that. Firstly, how did he arrive at the figure of $50 million? Secondly, how did he arrive at the decision to put that not in the coming financial year but in the financial year after that and then have no more money available after that? If it is, as he suggests, on the basis of wanting to review through Mortimer—and I have never criticised the fact that you are conducting the review; I have simply stated that you are holding up policy formulation and certainty while you do that review—and the Mortimer review comes back and says that the EMDG is underfunded in the out years 3 and 4, do I take it from the minister’s earlier statements that he will make sure that there is money in those years 3 and 4?
5112
19:50:00
Crean, Simon, MP
DT4
Hotham
ALP
Minister for Trade
1
0
Mr CREAN
—The shadow minister asks how we came to the $50 million figure. That was the figure that I was prepared to fight for and win in opposition. This was an effective advocacy that I was able to make that you were incapable of making. That is my first point. From opposition—where we did not have the resources of Treasury, we did not have knowledge of the extent to which you had blown the budget and spent like drunken sailors and we did not have an appreciation of the extent to which you were going to drive inflationary pressures as high as you did—we had to try and create an environment in which we were not only signalling a commitment to enhancing a scheme that you had run down but signalling an important down payment.
As for the question of the application of the scheme, our changes will apply from 1 July and exporters can plan next year with confidence. Exporters know that the funds have been provided in the budget for 2009-10 to cover eligible expenditure incurred in the next financial year. So what we are doing is covering expenditure from now on.
Let me make this point: you pay a price when you elect a government and get a dud one, and that is what the people who made application under the EMDG Scheme found to their disadvantage when the former government changed the guidelines in 2006 but put no money in to cover it. With their having made the first tranche of payments, there was no money left in the kitty for the second tranche of payments, except 15c in the dollar—and now they have the gall to try to suggest that that is our fault. What we are dealing with is the second tranche and the availability of money under their watch, because they did not provide money from 2006 onwards when they changed the guidelines, and they provided no money in the forward estimates. We inherited a scheme that was fundamentally being undermined because the previous government was not prepared to put money in. So, when the shadow minister asks me why we have underpayment in the EMDG this year, I say: blame the previous Liberal government; it all happened on their watch. I must say I have had great pleasure—not pleasure; that is the wrong term, although I am having pleasure here making the point in terms of our political opponents—
84T
Haase, Barry, MP
Mr Haase
—Your figures are wrong as well.
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr CREAN
—I have had a number of letters written to me by members from the other side of the House asking why the EMDG payment is so poor in terms of the second tranche. I say the reason is simple: the previous Liberal government paid lip-service to the importance of the scheme and even went about changing the guidelines but was not prepared to commit any resources to it. So, when you ask why there is no money, blame the former Liberal government. It is as simple as that: blame the former Liberal and National Party government. They had a minister that knew it was important to put extra money in. He was in the newspaper as saying that he was trying to argue for that extra funding but he could not win it.
WN6
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
Mr Ian Macfarlane
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Can I call the Minister for Trade back to the question. The question related to expenditure in the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The question was not about current expenditure.
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr CREAN
—The shadow minister asked how we came to the figure. I have explained how we came to the figure, but the question I am posing in response is: why, if the shadow minister, when he was the minister, knew that the scheme needed more money, was he not able to win that extra money in cabinet? You cannot tell me the money was not there, because the previous government spent like drunken sailors. That is why we have got an inflation problem. But why couldn’t he manage to get the money that was needed to fund better a scheme that he said he supported, that he saw the need to change but never found any money for?
84T
Haase, Barry, MP
Mr Haase
—Time’s up.
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr CREAN
—Time is not up—I am sorry, it is. Perhaps you can ask me another question.
5114
19:55:00
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
0
0
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—I ask the minister—based on his earlier answers, this is going to be the last question of this session—when he talks so boldly about others being rolled in ERC and cabinet, how he got rolled in ERC and cabinet in relation to the negotiating budget for the Australia free trade agreement to the tune of $1.1 million and, in relation to the Australia-China free trade agreement, to the tune of nearly $10 million.
5114
19:56:00
Crean, Simon, MP
DT4
Hotham
ALP
Minister for Trade
1
0
Mr CREAN
—The fact is we were not rolled. That is the simple fact of it. The shadow minister asked me the question. He does not ask about what he has been out in the newspapers arguing for some time, and that is that our negotiating team has been reduced in China. It has not, nor has it been reduced for the Japan FTA or any other FTAs. We have the same number of negotiators, despite the efficiency dividend that we had to introduce to meet the inflationary profligacy that was occasioned by your mad spending. We have the same numbers in the negotiating teams for all of those FTAs. We have not cut any of the staff in Geneva. We take the view that we require the best of our resources, not just an adequacy of them, at all of those levels of negotiation. We have been active not just in Geneva on the WTO, and it has not just been the department that has been particularly active; we as a government have been active. In particular, I have been active but so has our Prime Minister and so have our industry minister, our resources minister and our infrastructure minister—because we understand the importance of political engagement to try and get an outcome here.
It is one thing to put the resources into negotiations but, if you negotiate a dud deal, there is not much advantage for the country. The previous government was in office almost 12 years and was never able to influence in a proactive way an outcome in the WTO. The last WTO agreement that was concluded was under a Labor government, and I hope that we are able to bring home a new agreement, a bookend to the arrangement, bookends framing those 12 years of wasted opportunity of the former government. This was a government that in its 12 years in office had a circumstance in which net exports contributed to economic growth in only two of those 12 years. When Labor were last in office, we had net exports contribute to growth in 10 of the 13 years. Why? Because we had an activist approach to trade policy. We understood the importance of integrating it with industry policy but, most importantly, we understood the importance of investing in infrastructure and in skills. It is through trade that job opportunities and the sustainability of the economy beyond the resources boom will happen.
We were able to do that because we the current government have a whole-of-government approach. The previous government had absolutely no idea—and the shadow minister comes in here and lectures us about what our intentions are! Our intentions are clear. You had the opportunity; you wasted it. We are now going to take that opportunity. We are going to commit the resources. We do not just have a review. We have made a down payment in the review, the $50 million in terms of the EMDG, the reallocation and recalibration of the trade negotiations and bringing back Invest Australia and Global Opportunities under the umbrella of the trade portfolio.
Consideration of proposed expenditure adjourned.
Resources, Energy and Tourism Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $640,806,000
5115
20:01:00
Turnour, Jim, MP
HVV
Leichhardt
ALP
1
0
Mr TURNOUR
—My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. As the minister knows, we have had some significant cuts in Qantas flights between Japan and Cairns.
AK6
Gash, Joanna, MP
Mrs Gash
—Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your clarification: my understanding is that the minister has to make a statement before the adjournment starts.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—No. The member for Leichhardt has the call.
HVV
Turnour, Jim, MP
Mr TURNOUR
—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I see my time expiring quickly. I have a question for the minister. Cairns has suffered recently from the loss of flights between Japan and Cairns. We have lost 62 per cent of the seat capacity, effectively 182,468 seats per year, because of the cuts in Qantas flights from western Japan and Narita. That equates to 3,500 or so seats per week—a significant loss of opportunities for Japanese to come to Cairns. In the year to the end of March we had 198,000 visitors to Cairns. That represents a significant number of Japanese who came to visit tropical North Queensland and there has been some economic analysis that shows that the potential financial loss to Cairns equates to about $100 million. Those are significant losses.
I sat down with the minister on the day that the cuts happened and had a good opportunity to talk to him about it. I also met the next day with Tourism Tropical North Queensland. They had developed a four-point plan that involved reviewing the Japanese market and other options and looking to accelerate an emerging market strategy and to attract carriers and tourists from new markets. I note that the Chinese market has grown by 71 per cent in the year to March, to 58,000 visitors. An important part of their plan was to look at getting additional funding, and my question to the minister relates to that in particular. They also talked about business support, which was the fourth point. We have just heard from the Minister for Trade about the impacts of the previous government’s cuts to EMDG, which also hurt tourism in tropical North Queensland. Part of their response was to see what this government is going to do to EMDG, because they know they were hurt by the Howard government. I know the minister has done a lot of work and I have enjoyed working with him and the Prime Minister to come up with a response to support tourism in tropical North Queensland. So I would appreciate it if the minister would outline the federal government’s response to this really significant impact on the tourism industry in tropical North Queensland.
5115
20:04:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism
1
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I welcome the question from one of Labor’s strong regional representatives. When I look along the table this evening I can see which party represents regional Australia today: the member for Lyons, a long-serving and outstanding member; the new member for Flynn—the seat could not have a better advocate; and welcome back to the member for Braddon, a very strong advocate for regional Australia.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as you and I appreciate, the member for Leichhardt is a voice of reason in representing that very important northern seat of Queensland. He also well appreciates that it is a seat that, whilst it has a lot of diversity in terms of employment, is highly dependent on the tourism industry—an industry that Australia-wide represents over 480,000 people directly employed, an industry that represents $22 billion in terms of export earnings. But it is also especially important to the state of Queensland, where more than 100,000 people are directly employed in the industry and it accounts for 5.6 per cent of all persons employed. It is also interesting to note that it contributes $8.1 billion to the Queensland economy and it accounts for 5.6 per cent of Queensland’s gross state product.
It is for that reason that last Wednesday I attended a meeting in Queensland to sit down in a constructive way with the state Minister for Tourism, Regional Development and Industry and member for Cairns, Desley Boyle, and representatives of Queensland Tourism, in association with Tourism Australia, to have a hard think about where we go in a very tough market from a tourism perspective. The tourism industry in Australia at the moment is doing it very tough. As the member for Groom appreciates, we have to struggle against what in this industry is a tough issue—the strength of the dollar. That means in markets historically important to Australia, such as Japan, we are actually seeing declining numbers, because not only is it more expensive for the Japanese to come to Australia but we are also competing with short-haul, cheaper overseas holidays for people from Japan.
Added to that recent problem—which is in addition to all the problems of skilled labour due to the neglect of the previous government, who actually failed to invest in training—we now have what is a global oil crisis. In the last 12 months the cost of jet fuel has doubled. That has effectively meant—and, whilst we do not like the decisions, it is the nature of commercial reality—Qantas and Virgin in recent weeks have made tough decisions with respect to the reduction of regional airline capacity. The latest announcement today was made by QantasLink regarding changes in airline capacity in Mildura, Newcastle and Wollongong. For that reason, because northern Queensland was exceptionally hard hit, we sat down with the Queensland government. We contributed $4 million, in association with a contribution from the Queensland government of another $4 million, to try to put proper money on the table.
We also undertook for Tourism Australia to work with Queensland Tourism to think through a strategy which is not only about trying to, I suppose, stop the erosion of the Japanese market but about turning it around and about getting North Queensland to actually look at new markets, such as the growth potential of places such as China and India. I simply want to say that the Australian government, working in partnership with business, will do everything possible to assist in turning it around, because we understand the importance of the sector to Northern Queensland.
I say to the member for Leichhardt: thanks for your assistance. I think the people of Cairns are very fortunate to have you as their voice of reason. You understand the tourism industry and have the willingness to work to get through this period. Tourism has been through similar periods in the past. I think back to events since I have been in parliament: September 11, the collapse of Ansett soon after, the threat of SARS and terrorism and all those associated issues. It is a robust industry and, because of the absolute commitment and contribution of a lot of small and medium sized businesses, we will get through this challenge yet again.
5116
20:09:00
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
0
0
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—I ask the minister for resources, tourism and the other thing, which I have forgotten—energy, sorry.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson
—How can you forget that?
WN6
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—I will ask an energy question on the basis of that. What progress is being made on zero-emission coal technology, in particular in relation to the legislative program to enable geosequestration—it is a long question; it is not as long as Scooter’s but it has a couple more lines in it—in terms of the government’s investment in that technology through, I assume, its coal fund; and when does it expect to make any announcement in regard to further progress in the area of zero-emission electricity generation from coal?
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Before I call the minister I would like to get another question so I can get through a few more.
5117
20:10:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—Minister, I am going to ask you a question about a tourism development in relation to Table Cape Lighthouse. Before I do that, I would like to point out to all those here—because everything has a context in life; everything has a season—that you have been a great friend to the north-west coast of Tasmania and particularly my electorate of Braddon, and I am particularly interested in your tourism portfolio.
I thought you might like to know, Minister, before I ask you the question, that Table Cape, where the lighthouse is located—and I hope you come and visit sometime and enlighten yourself—was named by explorers George Bass and Matthew Flinders in 1798. This is the background to your announcement. It was named after Table Mountain which overlooks Cape Town in South Africa. I have had the great privilege of seeing that and I could see the parallel between the two places. It was fantastic.
You might not know, Minister, but it is very important in terms of the tourist potential of this area that Table Cape is a volcanic plug, unlike Table Mountain, and is some 130 million years old. Once it was very much forested, and now deforestation and weathering have made it one of the most beautiful areas. I know that the member for Groom has been to the north-west coast, to Table Cape, many times and knows that it is a patchwork quilt of fertility. I think it was the member for Groom who once said to me, ‘You know, your soil is so rich at Table Cape, Sid, if you throw a toenail in the ground it will grow a foot.’ That is the fertility of Table Cape.
Minister, could you please enlighten my electorate and particularly the Wynyard-Waratah Municipality, which of course has guardianship of the magnificent Table Cape, with the tulips and that, what we are going to do to boost tourism, particularly in relation to the lighthouse there? Could you also outline to us the process whereby the funding will flow through so that the municipality will have the benefit of the tourism development which this government, apart from all other governments, has committed to? I look forward to that, Minister. When is it going to happen?
5117
20:13:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism
1
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I will firstly deal with the very serious issues raised by the member for Groom, because it is fair to say that the nature of the legislation that he is referring to with respect to geosequestration was work in progress by the previous government. As shadow minister for transport from December 2004 to December 2006, I can say that it was legislation we expected to come forward, but unfortunately it did not see the light of day during the previous parliament.
Having said that, it is very serious business for the current government. In my opinion the department has done a good job over an extended period in seeking to consult with industry to make sure that we get this legislative framework right. There are very serious issues of liability, and we are also trying to work out the proper balance between those who are seeking to sequester carbon and those who have existing rights to extract oil and gas.
The bill has been referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources following proper consultations in trying to work out the views of industry. It will now proceed on the basis of a proper reference. The committee’s chair is the member for Lyons, Dick Adams, and the deputy chair is the member for Hume, Alby Schultz, who absolutely welcomed this opportunity. It is also a statement by the current government that House committees are regarded as being capable of doing serious legislative considerations rather than, as the history of this place has indicated until now, the practice of just referring legislation to the Senate. If we get it right, this is a world first.
All being well, it is intended that the legislation be introduced in the very near future. It will then sit on the table to allow the committee consideration to proceed in the break with a view to finalising the legislation in the spring session. It is to be hoped that, given consideration of this offshore legislation, it also creates a road map to finalise onshore state and territory legislation, because it is important that wherever possible we get the best common approach across offshore and onshore with respect to all these issues.
I also welcome the member’s interest in the question of clean coal technology. There is a clean coal fund of $500 million, part of which was previously allocated. Over and above that, can I also assure the former minister, the member for Groom, that there is an absolute government commitment to maintain our participation in the Asia Pacific partnership. I think that is a very important issue because it goes to global endeavours to try and get clean coal technology right, because carbon capture and storage, so far as I am concerned, are central to Australia’s economic future. Eighty-two per cent of our electricity comes from coal-fired power stations and, whilst renewables will grow, just like the demand for energy will grow, unless we as a nation and a global community get carbon capture and storage right, our economic future is seriously at risk.
As part of that, I will also—following proper consultation—soon announce a clean coal council, which will obviously involve representatives of the mining industry and also state and territory governments, because it is not just government money on the table at a federal level; it is also state money from the states of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. We have to make sure that we get absolute cooperation, including from the scientific community such as the universities and CSIRO. There will also be a task force on the issue of sequestration, to have a look at the issues of pipelines and mapping and all those associated issues. If everything were to go right, then we would be able to put acreage out in 2008. We are not talking about fly-by-nighters who will be interested in sequestration; we are talking about an investment of $50 million to $100 million to consider whether or not sequestration can be commercialised, from the private sector’s point of view.
On the question of Table Cape Lighthouse, I must say, Sid, that I have been to a lot of places in your electorate. I have not been fortunate enough to experience it in more recent times, but I well appreciate the nature of the commitment by the government of $185,000 to upgrade Table Cape Lighthouse, a commitment which was delivered in the budget under the Australian Tourism Development Fund. As you and I appreciate, Waratah-Wynyard Council has been working on this important community project with your support over a very long period, and I was pleased to see the commitment, which was an election commitment, fully delivered in the budget, because that enables this very popular local tourism destination and the project associated with it to go forward now. It is important regionally. (Time expired)
5119
20:18:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
0
Mr CIOBO
—I have questions for the Minister for Tourism. Would the minister please outline the economic impact and the modelling that he has undertaken with respect to the nearly $1 billion of new tourism taxes that the minister and his government have imposed on the tourism industry? Further, would the minister please outline the impact that he expects this nearly $1 billion of new tourism taxes will have on certain segments of the area with regard to, for example, the way in which the passenger movement charge is expected to impact on the tourism industry? Further, would the minister outline the way in which the additional revenue that will flow from the passenger movement charge will be spent and the benefits that that may have or may not have for the tourism industry?
I would also appreciate the minister outlining the impact that the luxury car tax will have on the tourism industry—how much revenue is anticipated to be raised through the introduction of the luxury car tax and what is the expected impact on those operators in the tourism industry that are operating vehicles and that rely on vehicles that will now be captured under the luxury car tax? Further, I would appreciate the Minister for Tourism outlining the way in which Tourism Australia is expected to be resourced in the future, given that it has been announced that 20 positions have been cut from Tourism Australia, and the impact that the loss of those 20 positions is likely to have on Tourism Australia’s ability to market Australia abroad. Further, can the tourism minister enlighten this side of the House as to which positions are likely to be removed from Tourism Australia following this reduction of 20 places from the industry?
I would also be interested in the tourism minister’s thoughts on the way in which that $4 million that has been allocated to the industry is going to be used to assist Queensland. In particular, I am interested to know why that $4 million was such a miserly amount, given the $1 billion of new tourism taxes that the Rudd Labor government has imposed on the industry. Further, I am interested to know whether that $4 million is quarantined specifically for Queensland or can be used more broadly across Australia and also whether any orders were specifically given by the tourism minister in respect of Tourism Australia directing them to spend that money in Queensland only or to use that money across the board.
Further, I would be interested to know the tourism minister’s response to the announced capacity cuts by Qantas airlines and what initiatives, if any, the tourism minister is taking in trying to entice airlines such as Japan based airlines or other airlines from Australia to retake routes from which Qantas and Jetstar have cut capacity service to the Japan-Cairns market. I would also be interested to know, following Qantas’s announcement today that they will be discontinuing their Dash 8 100 service, whether or not the minister will be providing additional funding to New South Wales and to Victoria, given that Mildura will lose its maintenance base following the cuts. Will there also be additional money flowing to assist the Newcastle region? If the minister could address those questions, I would be most grateful.
5119
20:21:00
Owens, Julie, MP
E09
Parramatta
ALP
1
0
Ms OWENS
—My question also relates to investment for tourism development. As the Minister for Tourism would be aware, being quite familiar with the area of Parramatta, we earn less than one per cent of our GDP from tourism, which is well below the Sydney-wide average, yet we have within our borders an extraordinary range of tourism assets. In fact, we have more heritage buildings in Parramatta than we have in The Rocks, and most of those are within walking distance from the river which connects Parramatta to Circular Quay. We are also about 20 minutes from the Olympic site of Homebush and on the way between the Sydney CBD and the quite popular Blue Mountains. So there is extraordinary opportunity to grow local tourism business in Parramatta. Could the minister inform the House and the people of Parramatta how the budget enhances the capacity of the Parramatta region to develop as a tourism portal for Western Sydney?
5120
20:22:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism
1
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—Can I first say that in respect of the passenger movement charge I find it interesting that the opposition would question appropriate consideration of budget measures by government which go to the fight against terrorism. That is what we are talking about in terms of the allocation of some of these financial resources, and people should appreciate that one of the reasons why people actually want to come to Australia is because we are a safe place to have a holiday. Just as the previous government sought to make sure that we had adequate budget resources to put in place proper security measures and also quarantine measures, especially given the recent equine problems, it is more than appropriate that the Treasurer give proper consideration to these issues.
Yes, the passenger movement charge has been increased and so have visa fees, just like they have been in the past. I assume the modelling by Treasury was akin to the modelling conducted by the previous government with all these measures. It is interesting to note, because these are Treasury issues, as the member for Moncrieff appreciates, that the same consideration would have been given by the current government to such budgetary matters as was given by the previous government. I note that, yes, there is an increase in the passenger movement charge of $9. The passenger movement charge has not increased since 1 July 2001. I also note that in a period of 18 months, from 1 January 1999 to 1 July 2001, under the previous government the passenger movement charge increased on two occasions—not one occasion; two occasions—from $27 to $30 on 1 January 1999 and by another $8 on 1 July 2001. This was an amount of $11 over a period of 18 months.
Despite the fact it has not been increased since 1 July 2001, it was increased by an amount of $9, all related to issues going to the cost of processing international passengers at international airports and maritime ports and all the associated issues with visas and visa charges et cetera. So, yes, no-one likes increases in charges. They occur under this government just like they have occurred under previous governments.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The member for Moncrieff has asked his question.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—The $4 million allocated at my meeting in Queensland last Wednesday is allocated to Queensland. There was a serious problem confronting the Queensland tourism industry and that is why there was a very constructive meeting, held in the offices of Tourism Queensland, which involved not only me but also my counterpart, the Queensland Minister for Tourism, Regional Development and Industry, and also Tourism Australia. It is not just a question of the $4 million put on the table for Queensland by the Australian government, part of which could go to actually getting people to sit down and think about a new strategy for Northern Queensland. It is also my intention that some of that go to Tourism Australia for the purposes of facilitating further marketing, especially marketing principally concentrated on Queensland, which goes hand in glove with the endeavours of the Queensland government to think about whether or not they can get other international carriers to come into Cairns—not just Japanese carriers but also other carriers such as Garuda. The money can therefore be allocated for the purposes of trying to piggyback additional marketing capacities for those airlines who might be interested in Cairns to actually get a better bang for the dollar in those markets. As the member for Moncrieff understands, that is how Tourism Australia operates. Do not just look at the advertising budget of Tourism Australia, which was not reduced in the recent budget; also look at the strategic relationships that develop with other players in the market, such as Qantas and all those other international carriers, for the purposes of trying to promote Australia in overseas markets.
I must say that I was pleased to see the new strategic marketing relationship developed with Film Australia and the 20th Century Fox operation in terms of trying to piggyback that operation to assist not only Cairns but the tourism industry generally—which goes to the question of Parramatta.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—Given that the minister has not answered a large number of my—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Moncrieff will resume his seat. I am not allowing interventions during this debate; there is not enough time. I have made a decision on that. Has the minister concluded? He has four seconds, if he is quick.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—Yes.
5121
20:27:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—Prior to coming to this place, I actually spent a lot of time representing people in the renewable and sustainable energy industries. I know how hard it has been for people in those industries to commercialise their technology. I know how hard it is to attract investment dollars into research and development. People work very hard in those industries and they do rely on government encouragement to be able to develop their technologies for the common good. It is in respect of that that I note the government’s position in relation to the 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions based on 2000 levels by the year 2050. That will, as it is achieved, result in substantial energy efficiency in developing cleaner energy technologies in association with the development of an energy trading mechanism. My question to the minister is: what support has the government given the renewable energy sector in the 2008-09 budget, in particular as to funding arrangements for various technologies including geothermal and solar based technologies?
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Before I call the minister: because we do not have a lot of time, will the members for Kalgoorlie or Moncrieff be seeking the call?
84T
Haase, Barry, MP
Mr Haase
—I will be seeking the call.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Can you seek the call then, please?
5121
20:29:00
Haase, Barry, MP
84T
Kalgoorlie
LP
0
0
Mr HAASE
—I do appreciate the opportunity. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do hope you do not live to regret the invitation!
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I might not, but the minister may!
84T
Haase, Barry, MP
Mr HAASE
—Minister, I have a great concern as a Western Australian and as a member that represents one-third of the Australian landmass. I have an affinity with Western Australia, my electorate and the North West Shelf in particular, and I am very concerned about shareholders of Woodside Petroleum right now because, in the last budget that you handed down, you dudded Woodside shareholders. Of course, you know what is going to ensue from this point. The budget handed down demanded that Woodside pay excise on condensate. Many in this place will not understand because they are not concerned, but I am. The Western Australian shareholders in Woodside want to know why this government would, in the dark of night, rob Woodside shareholders of $2.5 billion. Further, Minister, will you please answer whether you were involved, as the minister, in the negotiations that saw Woodside shareholders dudded to the tune of $2.5 billion, or was it something that was dropped on you as a surprise, just as it was dropped on Woodside shareholders?
5122
20:30:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism
1
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—There are a range of issues that have been raised with me as we conclude this session. Firstly, can I say to the member for Parramatta that I am pleased to see that the election commitment of $500,000 to develop a new, innovative approach to promoting tourism in Parramatta was delivered in the budget. That is exceptionally important. I also grew up in the Parramatta district, and I was pleased to see Parramatta give the Wests Tigers an absolute belting last Sunday afternoon. More seriously, I understand that Parramatta is the cradle city of the nation. It is full of history, and this amount of money allows the city of Parramatta to actually get more serious about the issue of tourism.
In terms of renewable energy, can I simply say that there is a fund of $500 million, of which $50 million is allocated for geothermal. Following consultation with the industry, I will be announcing guidelines, which the industry has been involved in, for the development of the industry in the foreseeable future. About $21½ million of that money will be available in 2008-09, which is most welcome. Fifteen million dollars of that money is also available for the purpose of development of second generation biofuels, which will be of interest to the member for Gilmore, given her interest in that industry over an extended period. There is an innovation fund of $150 million for renewables, of which $100 million will be principally related to research and development activities for solar-thermal and solar PV as part of the government’s commitment to renewables. But remember this: the renewable energy industry will get a leg-up through the development of the emissions trading system, which puts a price on carbon, and also through the introduction of the renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020. I simply say to the industry: it is not just a question of grants; it is also the nature of the system that will significantly advantage the renewable energy industry.
With regard to the issues raised by the member of Kalgoorlie, for the life of me I think it is about time some people understood that a point is reached in life where you draw the line. The North West Shelf project is, firstly, a mature project. Secondly, it is a highly profitable project. I would have thought that our responsibility, having only brought on two LNG export opportunities in 20 years, is to actually devote our attention to the development of a modern, 21st century program of incentives to encourage investment in new projects, rather than just continuing to substantially financially assist existing mature and highly profitable projects. I draw your attention to the fact that condensate excise exclusion was first introduced 24 years ago. It has represented a return to the companies of $1.5 billion over the last five years alone, when oil prices were half the current levels. I might also say that this is over and above an unintended windfall gain as a result of a concession introduced in 2001 to reduce the top rate of the crude oil excise. By my calculations, that has delivered to these participating companies another benefit of $1 billion since 2001. It would be interesting to go back and read the second reading speech of the then member for Leichhardt, who had the responsibility for introducing this change in 2001. I point out that this change in the top rate of the crude oil excise is far more generous than was originally intended by the previous government or expected by the companies.
84T
Haase, Barry, MP
Mr Haase
—They were exempt. You cannot talk about the compensation. They were exempt. He has got it wrong.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The member for Kalgoorlie has asked his question.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—So far as I am concerned, we are about making sure that, in the national interest, the Australian community receives a fair share of benefits associated with Australia’s resource development. And, can I say, the North West Shelf partners have received good taxpayer support for 24 years. I am actually turning my attention to new gas projects such as Gorgon, Browse and Sunrise. I might also say that the face of industry is now changing. It is no longer just a Western Australian focus; there is a new section of the industry emerging through coal seam methane gas on the east coast. I would have thought that the Australian government also has to pay significant attention to what is going to develop in seats such as Flynn, with a focus on Gladstone, where there are five companies— (Time expired)
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
5123
20:37:00
Main Committee adjourned at 8.37 pm