2008-06-19
42
1
2
REPS
0
0
2008-06-19
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
5379
Personal Explanations
5379
09:00:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
0
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—Not exactly. What I wish to do, on indulgence, is correct the record.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—Thank you. On Tuesday in question time, I asked a question of the Prime Minister based on an assumption about the date of release of a statement by the member for Robertson which I now know was dated 8 June. Despite my best efforts to locate that statement or a reference to it before 10 June, I was not able to do so. The press gallery—and I thank them for this—has also not been able to locate a copy they would have received on 8 June. There is a reference to it in a newspaper article of 9 June. I apologise for making that assumption. However, the point of my question to the Prime Minister remains—that is, what advice his office gave to the member for Robertson before her statement. That question remains unanswered.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2008-2009
5379
Bills
R2973
Report from Main Committee
5379
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
5379
Mr McCLELLAND
(Barton
—Attorney-General)
09:02:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 2) 2008-2009
5379
Bills
R2974
Report from Main Committee
5379
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
5379
Mr McCLELLAND
(Barton
—Attorney-General)
09:03:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2008-2009
5379
Bills
R2975
Report from Main Committee
5379
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
5379
Mr McCLELLAND
(Barton
—Attorney-General)
09:04:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 5) 2007-2008
5380
Bills
R2976
Report from Main Committee
5380
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
5380
Mr McCLELLAND
(Barton
—Attorney-General)
09:05:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 6) 2007-2008
5380
Bills
R2977
Report from Main Committee
5380
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
5380
Mr McCLELLAND
(Barton
—Attorney-General)
09:06:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
5380
Committees
Treaties Committee
5380
Report
5380
5380
09:07:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
1
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee’s report entitled Report 92—treaty tabled on 4 June 2008.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
UK6
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—by leave—Report 92 contains the recommendation by the committee that binding treaty action be taken in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This convention will promote, protect and ensure the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people with disabilities and promote respect for their inherent dignity. It obligates governments to eliminate discrimination in a range of areas, including marriage, parenthood, education, health, employment and standard of living. The convention also contains provisions specifically relating to the protection of children, ensuring individuals are recognised before law, and providing equal access to facilities and services. The convention reflects and affirms the protections already existing under Australia’s domestic laws and has received widespread support.
The Attorney-General and the parliamentary secretary, who are here in the House, and the Human Rights Commissioner have represented to the committee the advantages that early ratification of this treaty will provide for Australia. Through timely ratification, Australia will have the opportunity to participate in the selection of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This committee will comprise persons with recognised competence and experience in the areas covered by the convention and will monitor and promote its implementation. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is expected to invite nominations no later than 3 July this year in accordance with the convention’s provisions. Australia must be a party to the convention in order to participate in this process.
Australia has a longstanding commitment to upholding and safeguarding the rights of people with disability and played an active role in negotiations for the convention. The committee considers it is important for Australia to continue to take a leading role in promoting the rights of people with disabilities. One way to do this is to ensure that we have the opportunity to participate in the nomination process for the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The committee has taken the somewhat unusual step, therefore, of tabling this short report to allow ratification to proceed as quickly as possible. While the committee has taken evidence from the department, including evidence that the treaty has the strong support of the overwhelming majority of groups representing those with disabilities, and has raised a number of relevant issues with the department, it recognises that this will truncate the opportunity for interested persons to make submissions about the treaty. However, the committee will consider any other issues in the framing of its final report, which it intends to table at a later date. The committee encourages the government to ratify the convention as quickly as possible.
I thank the members of the committee for their work in preparing this report and also the treaties committee secretariat, including our outgoing secretary, Mr James Rees, for their efforts in preparing this report. I commend the report to the House.
DENTAL BENEFITS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
5381
Bills
R2999
FIRST HOME SAVER ACCOUNTS BILL 2008
5381
Bills
R3002
INCOME TAX (FIRST HOME SAVER ACCOUNTS MISUSE TAX) BILL 2008
5381
Bills
R3008
FIRST HOME SAVER ACCOUNTS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
5381
Bills
R3012
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (MEDICARE LEVY AND MEDICARE LEVY SURCHARGE) BILL 2008
5381
Bills
R2991
Returned from the Senate
5381
Messages received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
DENTAL BENEFITS BILL 2008
5381
Bills
R3016
Consideration of Senate Message
5381
Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.
Ordered that the amendment be considered at the next sitting.
MILITARY MEMORIALS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE BILL 2008
5381
Bills
R2969
Second Reading
5381
Debate resumed from 18 June, on motion by Mr Griffin:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Mrs Bronwyn Bishop moved by way of amendment:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to the give the Bill a second reading, the House:
-
notes that the bill creates a new category of memorial—namely a Military Memorial of National Significance;
-
notes that this new category of memorial, unlike ‘National Memorials’ under the National Memorials Ordinance 1928:
-
does not attract ongoing maintenance funding;
-
must not be located in the national capital; and
-
involves a decision of the Minister and the Prime Minister rather than the bi-partisan Canberra National Memorials Committee;
-
acknowledges as correct the stance of the previous Government that National Memorials, pursuant to the 1928 Ordinance, can only be located in the national capital; and
-
condemns the Government for:
-
playing politics with the veteran community;
-
claiming in the Budget Papers that it will declare the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat a national memorial when it has not done so; and
-
misleading the veteran community by claiming to have met an election commitment to declare the Ballarat Memorial a national memorial, when the Government has failed to do so”.
5382
09:12:00
Raguse, Brett, MP
HVQ
Forde
ALP
1
0
Mr RAGUSE
—When I was last talking about the importance of the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008, particularly for my seat of Forde, I was discussing the significance of Camp Cable, which was established during the Second World War. It housed about 20,000 American troops. Camp Cable, as I explained previously, was located between Jimboomba and Logan Village. During the war, from 1942 to 1943, it housed about 20,000 American troops as part of the staging for the Battle of the Coral Sea off North Queensland. My point was about the need to enshrine our memorials. This bill certainly goes a long way towards establishing a process to allow communities across the country to give recognition to that visual history.
I also mentioned my childhood in a family that had a very strong military background. We very quickly lose that verbal history and that living history. My father tragically died 20-odd years ago. I remember the discussions that we had when I was a child about his experiences and the experiences of the region. He was a farm boy from Teviotville, which is just outside the electorate I represent. During the 1940s there was a mobilisation in the township of Beaudesert, which is also a part of my electorate, which established the 2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment. He was a young man of 18. He and his brother were asked to bring their horses along and they mobilised the 2nd/14th. Obviously, the technology of war at that stage meant that the 2nd/14th, or the light horse brigades, were converted into other divisions and it became part of an armoured division. The people of Beaudesert these days probably are not even aware of that history, so it is important that we consider ways of ensuring that we maintain an understanding, and I believe that this bill goes some way towards that.
I was talking briefly about Canungra, which is a major military facility in my electorate as well. It is otherwise known as Kokoda Barracks within the Canungra military area. It was established during World War II and was revived during the 1960s until the end of the Vietnam War. The base provides a substantial permanent resident population as well as an ever-changing transient population due to the extensive ongoing training courses on offer at the base. In fact, the member for Eden-Monaro, the Hon. Dr Mike Kelly, did his initial training there and I believe that in subsequent years he has spent a lot of time at Canungra. It is very much for people who have served in the military. To some degree it has become almost a pilgrimage for them to return to Canungra. It has a significant history for a whole range of reasons, including the land warfare training done during the Vietnam War era and, in subsequent years, for other purposes.
I wanted to make note of this particularly because Canungra is obviously a well-known area now but in years to come, given the change that may occur, we may forget a lot about its history. It is so important, in fact, that it was recognised in a very famous song that many of you would know. It is a song by Redgum called I was only 19. Mr Speaker, I would like to seek your indulgence because I want to talk a little bit about the words in this song, but the only way to do that is to put it to tune. I would like to give you a little bit of an understanding of the importance of this song. It goes something like this:
Mum and dad and Denny saw the passing out parade at Puckapunyal.
It was a long march from cadets.
The sixth Battalion was the next to tour and it was me who drew the card.
We did Canungra and Shoalwater before we left.
I have put it to tune because people know that song very well. Without the reference to Canungra in that song, it could well have been forgotten.
00AMX
Johnson, Michael, MP
Mr Johnson interjecting—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—He did not pick up the tune.
HVQ
Raguse, Brett, MP
Mr RAGUSE
—Oh, he did not? I tried to sing the Redgum version. It is a very famous Redgum song. I can sing it again, but not today.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Maybe at 11 o’clock at night after a few drinks.
HVQ
Raguse, Brett, MP
Mr RAGUSE
—Yes, point taken. I should say that the area has some significance because adjacent to the area of Canungra, Jimboomba and Logan Village is Beenleigh. Beenleigh was also an area of training during the Second World War. On that point, the town of Beenleigh has a school called St Joseph’s Tobruk Memorial School. It celebrated 50 years in 2003. Many are still not aware of its history, and it is rather significant. There was a parish priest, Father Owen Steele, who later became Monsignor Steele, in that diocese and it was from him that the school gained its title, Tobruk Memorial. During the North Africa campaign, Father Owen Steele became one of the famous ‘Rats of Tobruk’. On his return to Australia in 1943, Archbishop Duhig appointed him as parish priest of Beaudesert. St Joseph’s was built in memory of the men who served at Tobruk, and its history is well known today. Some of the remaining ‘Rats of Tobruk’ who are a part of the Beenleigh RSL at Mount Warren Park continue to involve themselves in that particular school and do a lot of fundraising. It is a memorial of significance, but under its current state, unless we are able to bring that into legislation, it may well be a school that will be lost to history in later years.
We understand, of course, that memorials are more than just bricks and mortar or glass and steel. I remember that as a child many of the memorials I saw around our district were made of timber. I presume that a lot of them just no longer exist. It is important, again, that we ensure that we can somehow give significance to these areas. These memorials are important because they are about people, their families and their descendants. Our nation pays tribute to and commemorates these men and women who have served and particularly those who have made the supreme sacrifice. We put a lot of effort into our commemoration of these events and so we should not forget—in fact, we will not forget. I think this bill will take us some way to being able to ensure that.
I also want to pay tribute to the veterans organisations in my electorate and those men and women who give generously of their time in both voluntary and other capacities: the Beenleigh Logan Village and Jimboomba RSL and the VASA organisation based in Jimboomba, who specifically looked after Vietnam veterans but have now widened that service. I have previously mentioned in the House that they do a lot of work to support current veterans and their families. I would also like to mention the current RSL president in Beaudesert and the committee chair, Errol Guilfoyle and Dave Ardrey respectively, who have worked very hard in our community to ensure that the veterans are looked after and that we do not forget the sacrifices made. I also pay tribute to the RSL ‘girl in a million’ from Beaudesert, Jessica Brown, who recently went through a whole range of fundraisers. The funds from the ‘girl in a million’ quest essentially go to supporting veterans and their families.
Adjacent to the area of Canungra, which I spoke about a minute ago, is an area called Camp Tabragalba. It was a very famous area that has somehow been lost in time. It was originally a site for training, including for the ‘Z’ force, who I believe were part of the liberation forces in Singapore in the Second World War. This site has almost been forgotten and until very recently it was listed as a possible site for a water storage facility in that region. Because of that, the site has been left unmaintained and today it is a series of very old, dilapidated—but historically significant—buildings. I am pleased to say that a private investor who has bought an adjoining property, a fellow called Steven Searle, has become a benevolent protector of this military history and has begun establishing on the neighbouring property what I believe will be a world-class air and military collection. This is to preserve our military history, which will include the old Camp Tabragalba. I was talking to the Hon. Mike Kelly about this the other day. He is aware of Camp Tabragalba and its significance and was interested in knowing a little bit more about how we might put some investment into that area. It is conceivable that legislation allowing the national recognition of historic memorial sites will further encourage private investment like that of Steve Searle’s and his aptly named Wirraway property. Further down the road is the Beaudesert township, which, as I said before, saw the major mobilisation of the 2nd/14th in the Second World War. I think it is something we need to give significant recognition to.
Because there is no memorial of this event, it is probably an indication of how history can easily be lost when, as I said before, those World War I veterans and their living history are now no longer with us. While we have captured a lot of that history, the fact is that we no longer have those people in our presence, and they will be followed by the World War II veterans. There are far, far fewer of them. In fact, my mother, as I mentioned previously, was in the WAAAF, the women’s air force. She was a spotter-plotter for the Battle of the Coral Sea in Townsville. In fact, she was there during the bombing. She has her recollection—at 87 years of age she has a very good memory—but while I remember the stories, and we have recorded them to some degree, it is important that we do not forget to record that verbal history. I believe these memorials of significance will mean that we can have a visual history that is maintained. As I said, this is about preserving our military history. Once that history is gone, it is lost forever and future generations will lose that military history. Lest we forget. I commend this bill to the House.
5384
09:23:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
0
0
Mr JOHNSON
—I rise in the parliament today to speak on the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008. Let me say at the outset that, as the son and the grandson of two men who have worn the uniforms of their respective countries in different eras and different theatres, in the execution of my duties as the federal member for Ryan and as a member of the Australian parliament I will always have a special commitment to the interests and welfare of serving and former members of the Australian Defence Force. I want to take the opportunity to thank all those in the Ryan electorate, which I have the great honour of representing in this parliament, who give generously of their time to honour the memory and deeds of all those who have served our country.
This bill provides a mechanism that seeks to permit memorials outside this nation’s Capital Territory to be recognised as military memorials of national significance. This bill specifically has in mind the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat. The memorial, which was completed in 2004, is etched with the names of more than 35,000 Australian prisoners of war, from the Boer War through to the Korean War. Initially, it was the election commitment of Mr Rudd that the memorial in Ballarat be recognised formally as a national memorial. But, despite the character and theme of this memorial, which would otherwise satisfy the current criteria applicable to the ACT, it is not currently recognised as a national memorial. I should say that this bill still does not allow for the memorial to be given national memorial status. So, interestingly, the bill goes against the grain of the Rudd Labor government’s election commitment made last November.
As the Liberal federal member for Ryan, I am certainly not going to let the Rudd Labor government and the Australian Labor Party get away with misrepresenting to the constituents of Ryan the commitments and the great work of the Howard government when it came to the construction and maintenance of our war memorials, and especially the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat. The people of Ryan, and especially the veterans of Ryan and the members of the various RSL sub-branches in Ryan, would expect me to accurately record the Howard government’s policy. The former Howard government and previous Howard government ministers were strong advocates of the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat, and this was demonstrated by that government’s allocation of some half a million dollars to the memorial, which is the largest federal government grant allocated to a memorial outside of Canberra.
As I say, at the last election Mr Rudd promised the people of Ballarat and those interested in this issue that, if elected, he would formally recognise the Ballarat memorial as a national war memorial. Let me quote the words of Mr Rudd. I know that the people of Ryan will certainly be interested in this because they have a great interest in the performance of the Labor government. I am sure that anybody listening to this debate in the Ryan electorate will be particularly keen to know of the clear inconsistency that will be highlighted. Mr Rudd, when he was interviewed on radio 3BA, said:
And I think it’s entirely appropriate that this community—
that is, the Ballarat community—
has put together a memorial for them. If we form the next government, I will move anything necessary to ensure that this is properly recognised as a national war memorial.
In being critical of the Howard government, Mr Rudd stated:
Mr Howard and his Minister think that the only national memorials that can exist for the war have to be in Canberra. Now, if that is true, if that is actually their view, I just don’t agree with it.
Given that this bill does nothing of the kind, it is yet another crystal clear example of the behaviour of the new Prime Minister and his government, who simply cannot keep their promises. They reach for the moon but are unable to deliver. Simply put, it is a broken election promise and another attempt to deceive the wider public and certainly the people of Ryan.
If this bill does not in fact make the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat a national memorial, then one might ask: what does it do? Quite simply, what the government has done in a very cunning way is to introduce an entire new category and label it ‘military memorials of national significance’. This is very different from declaring memorials as national memorials. This is the fundamental point that I wish to raise in this parliament and which I wish to draw to the attention of the constituents of Ryan. The public needs to be made aware of this, because Mr Rudd is clearly being very mischievous. At the election he said one thing and now in government he is clearly doing something else.
The fact is that the National Memorials Ordinance provides that national memorials can only be located within the boundaries of the ACT. Whilst the Labor Party, throughout the time they were in opposition, strongly argued that there was no legal impediment to declaring the Ballarat prisoner of war memorial a national memorial, as brightly as the sun shines in our Australian skies the introduction of this bill now demonstrates that the Rudd Labor government clearly agrees with the previous position of the Howard government—that is, that it is not possible to make memorials outside of the ACT. Just as an election commitment is easily made, so too is it easily broken by this new Prime Minister. But as the member for Ryan I will continue to shine a very bright torch on the Rudd Labor government’s modus operandi. It is clearly unacceptable that a commitment is made at the election for something that is pretty black and white and yet, when it comes to being in government, there is a very different course of action. Indeed, there is a certain pattern of political behaviour starting to creep into this government and to become very clear to the people of the Ryan electorate, which, as I say, I have the great honour of representing here in the national parliament.
In the context of this bill, I would like to draw to the attention of the Speaker, the government, the Prime Minister and particularly the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs the great story of a gentleman by the name of Mick Dennis. I am sure that most if not all of my colleagues in this parliament would be very keen to honour those Australians who have worn the uniform and shown their remarkable spirit of courage and determination in great adversity.
I also want to draw to the attention of the parliament a book called The Guns of Muschu. It was written by Don Dennis, a Vietnam veteran. Don’s son has worn the Australian uniform and has served in Iraq. But of relevance here is that Don Dennis is the nephew of Mick Dennis, an incredible Australian who served in World War II but whose name very few Australians would know. Mick Dennis was part of a special and highly secretive intelligence operation with seven other highly trained commando colleagues in Papua New Guinea that went tragically and horribly wrong. I would like to read into the Hansard from the back cover of this book, The Guns of Muschu. I thank the Parliamentary Library for their wonderful work in making the book available to me. It is not actually available in our library so, with great diligence, they managed to get it to my office on loan from the National Library of Australia. For those of my colleagues, particularly the newer members of this parliament who do not use the services of our Parliamentary Library, let me say that it is a wonderful repository of resources for our work.
I quote from the back cover of The Guns of Muschu:
During the night of 11 April 1945, eight Australian Z Special commandos landed on Japanese-held Muschu Island, off the coast of New Guinea. Their mission was to reconnoitre the island’s defences and confirm the location of two concealed naval guns that commanded the approaches to Wewak Harbour.
But the secret mission went horribly wrong. Unknown to the commandos, their presence had been discovered within hours of their landing. With no means of escape, the island became a killing ground.
Nine days later, on the New Guinea mainland, the only survivor staggered back through the Japanese lines to safety...
This is the remarkable true story of that survivor.
That survivor is Mick Dennis, and his nephew, Don Dennis, wrote this book, The Guns of Muschu. Anyone who is interested in Australian military history must read this book. It is a story of rare courage and fortitude. It is a story of a man’s determination to survive in surroundings that must have been terrifying and which few people would survive.
The story of Mick Dennis came to my attention via my father, who has actually seen the guns of Muschu. I have taken an interest in how we can honour Mick Dennis’s courage and his remarkable survival. The book reports that the guns are still in remarkably good condition. I have taken an interest because I grew up in Wewak in Papua New Guinea. I was never aware of the guns of Muschu but I certainly hope that one day I can see them for myself. My fervent hope is that Mick Dennis, who is now in his 90s, has a chance to see the guns of Muschu in his lifetime. I hope that the man who was sent to confirm their location more than six decades ago—but never saw them and lost his seven commando colleagues in the raid—can one day see them with his own eyes.
In the context of this bill, I want to ask the Rudd government to honour Mick Dennis’s courage in some way. I will be writing to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to see if the federal government can invest in a plaque or something similarly appropriate that honours the courage and commitment of Mick Dennis. We should do this because it is the right thing to do.
I would like the Rudd government to consider discussions with the government of Papua New Guinea to see if we can construct a memorial on Muschu Island. With the guns still there, I am sure the locals would be pleased. It could become a tourist attraction and generate a revenue stream for the locals in much the same way as the Kokoda Trail does for Papua New Guinea. The Kokoda Trail has become something of an iconic place to visit for Australians with a deep interest in Australian military history and a wish to honour those Australians who served in PNG.
Mick Dennis is still alive and I look forward very much to the deep honour of meeting him and also his nephew, Don Dennis, who wrote this book. I want to read a passage from The Guns of Muschu that really gives a flavour of the terror and the feeling that he must have had when he was swimming from Muschu Island to the mainland of New Guinea to survive. It is a remarkable story and I encourage all those who might have a little bit of time to read as much as they can of this book or certainly to read passages from it. I quote from page 158 of the book, which describes the beginning of Mick Dennis’s swim from Muschu Island to the mainland of New Guinea:
Removing his trousers, he stuffed them with his boots, weapon and ammunition, then bound them to the plank with vines. Pushing the plank out into deep water, he crawled onto it and used his arms to paddle out into the lagoon.
Although there was only a partial moon, it was very bright. As he stroked away from shore, he expected any moment to hear the zip of bullets around him. But none came, and he soon reached the reef. There was only a low swell and he crossed it without trouble, then headed out into deep water. Breathing easier now, he checked his course by the moon, set himself into a steady rhythm and began the long paddle towards the mainland.
From page 162:
Dennis was two hours into the crossing when the first shark came. He was paddling through calm water alive with phosphorescence, every stroke leaving a fiery trail that flamed and sparkled with blue-green light. He heard splashing behind him, then the hiss of a fin cutting through the water. The shark swept past his right side, trailing phosphorescence, then arced around and headed back towards him. Dennis stopped paddling, raised his arms out of the water and tried to keep his balance as the shark streaked past his left side like a glowing torpedo. It then slowly circled.
For what seemed an eternity the shark cruised around, approaching close, then suddenly turning about as if taunting him. Finally it lost interest and swam lazily away.
Then from page 163:
Dennis could see down into the black water, where deep below fish—or sharks—were leaving trails like meteors in the sky. In some ways this was even more frightening than coming face to face with a shark ...
After another hour, a rain squall hit lashing the water, driving waves that broke over him and threatened to wash him off his plank ... Dennis resumed paddling, judging direction by the moon and straining to see the mainland. However, he’d lost all sense of time and had no idea where he was.
Still the shapes swam past him, below him, around him. It took every ounce of strength to keep going, making one stroke after another ...
The Guns of Muschu is a book that records the remarkable, rare determination of an Australian to survive in adversity that very few—I suspect none in this parliament—could contemplate. It is the story of an Australian soldier, but very few Australians would know his name. In his 90s now, I think the time has come for the Australian government to recognise and acknowledge him. I regret very much that the former Howard government did not do that. In my case, I had no idea of Mick Dennis’s existence, but now that I do I will write to the Prime Minister. I ask for the support of not only my colleagues in the coalition but also colleagues from the government who have a particular interest in this area.
For those who might be interested, the landings at Wewak that went ahead in May 1945 showed just how skilful, courageous and special our Australians were because, in that battle at Wewak, 451 Australians were killed and 1,163 were wounded while by comparison 7,200 Japanese died in the campaign. That is a remarkable difference in statistics, with over 7,000 Japanese dying compared to 451 Australians in the battle for Wewak.
To end my remarks on this bill, memories have made The Guns of Muschu an important historical document as well as a very human story of courage, sacrifice, resourcefulness, luck, sadness and recovery. I want to place on the record my strong commitment to all those in this country who have worn the uniform. Especially as the member for Ryan I want to place on record the very deep appreciation I have for members of the RSL sub-branches who do all they can to honour the sacrifices of those who have served in theatres throughout the world both in this century and in the past. Australians must be very mindful of the great responsibility that we have in this generation to honour those who have fought in the name of freedom, in the name of democracy, in the name of Australia and under the flag of Australia.
Certainly, in Ryan all the RSL sub-branches work very closely with the community and they receive remarkable support at times like Anzac Day and Remembrance Day when their voluntary deeds come to the fore. In conclusion, I want to thank the sub-branches which this year on Anzac Day organised very special services yet again, and to thank all those from the Ryan communities that went out to the various services, particularly the dawn service in Bellbowrie, which I attended. The Kenmore Moggill sub-branch of the RSL put that together with great skill and great pride. In the parliament, I honour all those who have worn the uniform in Ryan and particularly the families of those who have served our country.
5388
09:42:00
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
1
0
Mr MELHAM
—The Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008 provides the mechanism that will enable a memorial built outside the ACT, and which meets specific criteria, to be recognised as a military memorial of national significance. I commend the minister for this initiative, which allows the recognition of national memorials to be established outside the capital city. At the same time I note the very specific criteria the minister has included in the bill. These criteria are important for future applications for national recognition, not to exclude memorials to our war veterans but to ensure that those which are included are worthy of the honour of the title ‘national’.
The genesis of this legislation was from activity in the city of Ballarat. The Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial was completed and dedicated on 6 February 2004. This memorial has inscribed on it the names of the 34,737 Australian prisoners of war. These are the names of the POWs who served Australia from the Anglo-Boer War, through the two World Wars and up to the Korean War, noting that there were no Australian POWs during the period of the Vietnam War. Also included at the memorial are the names of the 8,600 POWs who died in the various camps from brutality, starvation and disease. There are another 4,000 names of those for whom there are no known graves.
I am advised that the memorial itself consists of a pathway symbolising the journey of the POW. In the Botanical Gardens in Ballarat, a pathway has been created which is long and straight and interspersed with shapes like railway sleepers, symbolising the Thai-Burma Railway. Parallel to the pathway is a polished black granite wall which is 130 metres long. In a reflective pool are basalt obelisks up to 4.5 metres high, with the names of all the prisoner-of-war camps. One of the obelisks is fallen, symbolising those POWs who did not return home. The Ballarat memorial was built because of the dedication of the Ballarat RSL sub-branch, the Ex-Prisoner of War Association and the people of Ballarat. It is a tribute to their perseverance and hard work that the memorial was built, and I congratulate them on their achievement.
Those responsible for building the memorial were careful that this one should not detract from the Changi Chapel in the national capital. They were, however, concerned that there be a memorial to all Australians held captive in wartime, not just those from Ballarat. Dare I say it, Mr Deputy Speaker, but isn’t that what building a memorial is all about? It should not be about every man and his dog thinking that a memorial is a good idea and then jumping on the bandwagon to get government grants, and away you go. No, it must be more than that, as we have clearly seen demonstrated in Ballarat. The project took many people 10 years and an extraordinary community effort to finalise. This memorial stands in Ballarat today not because somebody thought it was a good idea at the time but because the veterans community and the local Ballarat community passionately believed in the need to establish such a memorial. Moreover, the community was prepared to work together over a long period of time to make it happen because they thought it important: a memorial which, apart from other factors, actually contained the names of all those men and women who were prisoners of war, as well as including those from all the conflicts where Australians were taken as prisoners of war.
This government has taken the first important step in allowing for such memorials to be called national memorials. I am sure that the minister and the member for Ballarat must be elated that this has finally come to pass through their representations and decision making. At the same time it is important that we are very clear as to the criteria which will be applied to future such memorials. I think it right that the process not be effortless. If it is easy, it would disrespect the people whom the memorials are built to remember, as well as the people who made it happen.
The explanatory memorandum to the bill details clause 4(3), which specifies the criteria for any memorial to be declared a military memorial of national significance. The memorial must be of a scale, design and standard appropriate for such a memorial; be dignified, in keeping with its purpose and standing as a war memorial; commemorate Australian military involvement in a significant aspect of Australia’s wartime history, and the commemoration of that involvement must be the sole purpose of the memorial; have a major role in community commemorations; observe Commonwealth flag protocols; be owned or managed by a state or Northern Territory authority, and that authority must be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the memorial, including financial responsibility; comply with applicable planning, construction and related requirements; be located on public land within a state or the Northern Territory; be publicly accessible, and entry must be free; be constructed and functioning as a memorial; and not be associated with a commercial function that conflicts with its purpose. These criteria are reasonable and entirely suitable for the purposes that have been determined, and I am confident that most veterans would agree with me.
The minister has made it very clear that any ongoing maintenance or refurbishment is the responsibility of the authority that owns or manages it. A further measure within the legislation provides that the minister is able to revoke a declaration should a memorial cease to meet the legislated requirements. It is not easy to establish a national memorial, nor should it be. When in opposition, the government promised that this step would be taken—that legislation would be introduced to allow for national war memorials outside the ACT. So we continue the process of delivering what we promised.
The issue of war memorials brings to mind a recent visit to an overseas memorial made by one of my constituents. He was part of a representative veterans group present at the dedication of the Park of the Australian Soldier and the unveiling of the Australian Light Horse Memorial in Be’er Sheva, in Israel. This memorial commemorates the famous charge on Beersheba, as it was then known, of Australian Light Horsemen. The units involved were the New South Wales 12th Light Horse Regiment and the 4th Light Horse Regiment from Victoria. The park was funded through a private donation, with contributions by both the Australian and Israeli governments and the local council.
The history of the charge at Beersheba is breathtaking in its audacity. According to the official history, written by HS Gullett:
From the crest of the ridge Beersheba was in full view, four miles away to the north-west. The course of the Australians lay down a long, slight slope broken occasionally by tracks cut by heavy rains, but bare of growth or other cover. Somewhere between them and the town lay a system of enemy trenches.
… … …
At 4.30 the two regiments moved off at the trot, deploying at once until there was a space of five yards between the horsemen. Surprise and speed were their one chance, and almost at once the pace was quickened to a gallop.
… … …
After going nearly two miles, hot machine-gun fire was directed against the leading squadrons …
… … …
Many horses in the leading line were hit and dropped, but there was no check to the charge ... These Australian countrymen had never in all their riding at home ridden a race like this; and all ranks, from the heroic ground scouts galloping in front of the squadron leaders, to the men in the third line, drove in their spurs and charged on Beersheba.
The action, as we know, was successful, and Beersheba, with its critical water wells, was taken. This successful charge is perhaps not so well known as other actions of the First World War, but it is one of the most significant, both in the boldness of the charge itself and in the impact it had on the direction of the war in the Middle East thereafter.
Among the Australians invited to attend the dedication of the park and the unveiling of the memorial were seven former light horsemen from the Second World War. There are no survivors now alive from the First World War. Two of these men had relatives who participated in the charge across the desert on 31 October 1917. The ceremony occurred on 28 April at Be’er Sheva, now in Israel. The park was dedicated by the Governor-General of Australia and the President of Israel in the presence of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Alan Griffin. The members for Mackellar and North Sydney were also present. I understand that the grandfather of the member for North Sydney was appointed by the occupying British force to supervise the rebuilding of Beersheba. Reports of the ceremony indicate that the Israeli President was fulsome in his praise of Australia and Australians. The centrepiece of the memorial park is a memorial sculpture of a light horseman leaping the trenches during the charge on Beersheba held by the Turkish. The fact that Australia now enjoys such warm relations with Turkey is proof, if any were needed, that the lives forfeited on that day on both sides were not in vain.
There are 773 Australian war dead commemorated in Israel: 544 from the First World War and 229 from the Second World War. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission maintains the nearby Beersheba War Cemetery, which contains 1,241 graves of the First World War, of whom 175 are of Australians. I would like to take a moment to consider the issue of the maintenance of war memorials and war graves. The charter of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is to mark and maintain the memorials of the Commonwealth war dead, including Australians. The Office of Australian War Graves, on behalf of the Commonwealth commission, maintains CWGC cemeteries and memorials in Australia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Norfolk Island. Official overseas war memorials are the responsibility of the Office of Australian War Graves. These are maintained on a regular basis, and a program of specific works is drawn up annually to identify projects.
There are many privately constructed memorials to Australians overseas, and maintenance is the responsibility of those who constructed them. In some very specific cases, some government grants are available to assist with their restoration and preservation. Generally these funds apply to those overseas privately constructed war memorials where Australian veterans, military associations or other associations recognising the contribution of Australian service personnel have some involvement. My understanding is that the Australian Light Horse Memorial at Be’er Sheva is covered under the Office of Australian War Graves Overseas Privately Constructed Memorial Restoration Program. This contribution by the Australian government is for the maintenance of the actual monument itself, not the works associated with the Park of the Australian Soldier in which the monument stands.
I commend the Bill to the House. I know that in effect it is supported by all sides of the House. These are issues that rise above politics. We play our political games at times, but not in relation to this. We honour our war dead. These memorials need to be preserved, protected and, when appropriate, erected so that we never forget the sacrifices that have been made that allow us to conduct the democracy that we have today.
5392
09:55:00
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
0
0
Dr STONE
—I rise to also support the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008. This bill is being introduced in order to overcome a problem for the Labor government. The member for Ballarat, in the lead-up to the election, promised that the new Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in that very fine city would be designated a national war memorial, with the expectation of the funds from the Commonwealth which flow from such a designation. Unfortunately, of course, under current legislation the Ballarat POW memorial would not have been listed as promised because the National Memorials Ordinance 1928 quite categorically requires a memorial to be located in the Australian Capital Territory. Therefore, this bill creates a new category of memorial.
There is in fact a national POW memorial in Canberra: the Changi Chapel at the Royal Military College, Duntroon. It is the original chapel from Singapore, and as such is a very poignant and fitting memorial to those extraordinary 22,376 Australian POWs who were captured by the Japanese in the Second World War. While 8,031 of those POWs were worked and starved to death, all of them suffered unimaginable horrors. The RMC Duntroon memorial is a superb and important place for remembering the dead and those who suffered. However, it is not readily accessible to all of the Australian public, so it was a very important thing that the Ballarat veterans community did when it created a memorial which covers all conflicts involving Australian forces, from the Boer War through to the 21st century. It is a very commendable achievement of a group consisting largely of volunteers from the Ballarat veterans community. They were supported, of course, with over half a million dollars in funding from the John Howard led coalition government, and we were very pleased to contribute that funding for such a very worthy and nationally significant cause.
It is therefore a shame that not all of the expectations of these Ballarat veterans have been met through this bill. If the Ballarat POW memorial had been designated a national memorial, as originally promised by the Labor member, it would also have attracted the federal funding for maintenance and the ongoing relevant costs of ensuring that the memorial was there for all time. This legislation creates a new category of memorial, to be called a military memorial of national significance. This might sound to the politically naive like the same thing as a national memorial, but in fact this legislation creates a new class of memorial. Such a memorial needs to be purpose-built or exclusively dedicated to the memory of our veterans and service men and women, and does not necessarily have to be in Canberra. Most significantly, in this bill there is absolutely no funding that will go along with the new designation. This funding must come from another source. It is suggested in the bill that it is most likely that a memorial that receives this new designation will be owned by a state government or a local government authority and they will be responsible for the funding. There is to be absolutely no way that a new memorial so designated by this new bill will be given federal funding. I think that that is sure to be a disappointment to those in Ballarat who hoped—indeed, expected—that their memorial was of sufficient significance that, along with the special designation, there would be maintenance by all Australians through appropriate funding from the Commonwealth government. This is not the purpose of the bill, and this is not going to be the case when this bill is passed.
So I hope that the people of Ballarat who worked so hard to create this POW memorial and to obtain the $500,000 in funding from the John Howard government will not feel let down, because let me assure you it is a magnificent memorial. As a daughter of a POW from the Second World War, I particularly appreciate it, although there were indeed some problems with the way the names were collected to put on that memorial. It was done by very worthy volunteers, and I suppose it was to be expected that there would be some omissions. In the case of my father, he went to look at the memorial not just expecting to see his name as a POW of the Germans, having been shot down over Germany as part of the RAF Bomber Command, but even more hoping to see the names of his fellows in the crew—the Australians—who died as POWs, with the exception of one of the crew members, Jim Coitties, who lives on in Sydney. The rest of his crew were killed after being captured, taken to a German prisoner of war camp and then, a short time later, released to a civilian mob who hacked them to pieces. That led to a war crimes tribunal hearing and, after the war, there was appropriate dealing with those who let those Australian POWs in my father’s crew out of the POW camp and into the hands of a maddened mob where they were, within a short time, killed and buried in the gardens, still in their uniforms and with their identification. Later they were disinterred and reburied in an appropriate place in Germany. My father was devastated to find none of the names of those Australians on the POW memorial; their names had been forgotten. I commend the veterans of Ballarat who shared the concern, not just for people like my father but for many other POWs and mates whose names were accidentally omitted.
So, at the end of the list of names in alphabetical order on the Ballarat memorial, there is another list of the forgotten. Descendants therefore may never find those added names—after all, there are over 35,000 names in total on this memorial. You would presume that the descendants in years to come will go to the alphabetical listings and they will not find their grandparents, great-grandparents or fathers on that list. Let me put on the record that I appreciate that the volunteers who put together this memorial felt very sorry about the omissions when putting down the names of the POWs. I appreciate the incredibly hard task it was to include everybody.
Australians in fact suffered horrific POW numbers in the Second World War, in particular. The First World War was a war where the courage of Australians was established and the reputation of the young nation was forged on the battlefields, beginning in Gallipoli and then on the Western Front, in Belgium and in France. Australians had the most horrific experience, particularly the AIF as they suffered in the trenches. We remember their courage and determination, their comradeship, their creativity and their make-do attitude when they often did not have adequate weaponry and did not even have adequate uniforms. All of those characteristics forged the reputation of this great nation as a people willing to give their all at a time of great disaster.
In the Second World War it was very often the sons and daughters of those First World War diggers or their close family relations who served. They forged a different understanding about the character of Australia. This was very much through the POWs’ absolute tenacity, their love for one another, their caring attitude and their sheer determination to live. There was the most horrific experience of the Japanese POWs in the Second World War. Who will ever forget the death marches of Sandakan, where there were in fact just six survivors of the two death marches. The British and Australians, some 2,500, in 1945 were forced to march to Ranau and only six of those 2,500 survived. I am very pleased that the Howard government established memorials at Sandakan in Malaysia, and of course we now have memorials to the POWs at Hellfire Pass in Thailand. I hope that, as the years go by, young Australians will be as likely to go to Sandakan in Malaysia and Hellfire Pass in Thailand as they are at the moment to go to Gallipoli and honour the dead and those who fought and forged the reputation of this country—a country that values freedom for its own citizenry but is also prepared to fight for the freedom of others. I hope that we continue to see this as being of paramount importance if we are to be regarded as a civil society.
We have never had such POW numbers since the Second World War, but it is right and fitting that we now honour all of them with that memorial in Ballarat, with a special designation. But I do repeat that it is a very great shame that in honouring them with the memorial in a very beautiful place, in Ballarat, in southern Australia, the memorial will not have ongoing federal funding to make sure that as the years go by the gold letters never fade and the gardens do not fall into disrepair, and that there is appropriate interpretation, visitor facilities and maybe publications to come which further describe the importance and meaning of the POWs, with their names listed there row after row.
In supporting this bill I say congratulations to the Ballarat group who struggled for very many years, first with an idea and then in delivering a very significant and superb memorial. I also want to say, regarding memorials to come that may be eligible for this designation, that they should not hesitate to seek the designation—even though they must understand that a very important and focused part of this bill is that they cannot ask for or expect any federal funding support. Let me just say finally, now that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has joined us, that in the same vein the Labor government is nominating a whole list, as we must, of new places for the national register of heritage listed places. I very much support that.
For example, just the other day the Myall Creek massacre site in central New South Wales was listed. If I had known that site was to be listed, I would have made an enormous effort to get there myself to acknowledge its significance. But unfortunately, while we are listing more and more heritage places of great significance to this nation, there is no funding to support that heritage listing—perhaps to help restore a property or a place, to introduce interpretation, to maintain the locality or to make sure there is proper access to and security for that site. I think that is a very serious problem. With the government nursing the coalition created $22 billion surplus, I would very much like the minister to ask caucus to redress this failure of funding for the national memorial at Ballarat, and the new category it will fit into, and for places of national heritage significance right across the country.
5394
10:08:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—The Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008, like just about all the bills that have been introduced into this parliament this year, is fulfilling a promise. This bill gives effect to the 2007 election commitment by the now Labor government to recognise the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat, Victoria, as a memorial of national significance. The bill also provides for other significant memorials that meet specified criteria to be recognised as military memorials of national significance in the future. Along with all members of this House, particularly those who have spoken on this bill, I want to recognise the service of our service men and women. They have given of themselves in the service of this country and unfortunately some lost their lives in the service of Australia. In particular, and in relation to this bill, I want to recognise those ex-prisoners of war who still survive today and those who unfortunately lost their lives. I recognise that and thank them for their service.
Today I would like to speak of a group of service people who I believe do not receive the recognition they are due and who are often ignored—the national servicemen of Australia. Unfortunately, their fight to get recognition took some time. I wish to take the House through some of the history of national service and some of the history of the recognition, or lack of recognition, of national servicemen. I also wish to speak about their memorial, which is to come into reality here in the national capital. It has exciting prospects, and I know that they are very excited about it. First and foremost, it is informative to understand that the National Servicemen’s Association of Australia was auspiced by the late Barry Vicary, in Toowoomba, Queensland, on 28 November 1987 to seek a better deal for Vietnam era national servicemen and a medal recognising national service. When Barry learnt of the earlier and much larger national service scheme, he immediately widened the organisation to include them. The association now has branches Australia-wide and is the second largest ex-service organisation after the RSL. National servicemen added a new word to the Australian language: ‘nashos’. National Service Day, on 14 February, marks the day the last nasho marched out of camp. I am very appreciative to Allen Callaghan, who is the national media officer of the National Servicemen’s Association of Australia, for a lot of this information. I am a patron of the National Servicemen’s Association—and proudly so—of my sub-branches of Mersey and Burnie. As I mentioned earlier, other members in this House are patrons of that mighty association.
I think it is illuminating to look at the story of national service. There were two main periods of national service between 1951 and 1972, and each of these surrounded real and/or perceived threats to our national interest. Between 1951 and 1959, it was in the context of the Cold War, the communist victory in China, the Malay situation of 1948 and the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. It was designed to build up our depleted forces after World War II, to raise a force of partially trained men and—I quote from the time—‘to improve physical fitness and the discipline of young men’. Between 1951 and 1957, about 33,000 young men per annum trained. All but 5,000 of them trained in the Army. In effect, they spent something like three months in training and—people tend to forget this—three years in the Citizens Military Forces. In 1957, the universal obligation was abolished and replaced with a selective training system, which was eventually abolished in 1959. As many in this House will remember, events in South-East Asia in 1965—and of course closer to home, including in New Guinea—saw the reactivation of the previous system, with conscripts being liable for overseas service.
Apart from these strategic considerations, it was a time of full employment, and recruitment figures were allegedly low. Selection for military service was by ballot, variously dubbed ‘Russian roulette’ and ‘the birthday ballot’. I remember being subject to that—and it was a very, very worrisome time. Between 1965 and 1972, over 800,000 registered for national service. Of these, 64,000 were called up; 19,500 served in Vietnam alongside 21,000 regulars; 200 were killed; there were 1,279 non-fatal casualties, alongside 242 regulars killed; and there were 1,500 non-fatal casualties.
National service was abolished on 5 December 1972. Over 287,000 men had their lives interrupted. They spent time and effort to be trained, and were on call to defend their country. Over 200 died in service and over 1,200 were injured. They deserve our thanks. Whatever their views were on national service, I must say that many supported it and enjoyed it, and still speak very fondly of those days. Indeed, I think they would have it that all people should have a stint in national service.
They were conscripted for training in peacetime. Let us not forget that their lives were in the hands of others. They had no choice. They did their job and many found fellowship in each other’s company, especially with the formation of the National Servicemen’s Association, as I just mentioned, in 1987 and, in my home state of Tassie, in 1995. But their compulsory service was not formally recognised by this nation until late 2001, at the onset of—you guessed it—a federal election. In 1998 the Minster for Veterans’ Affairs said, and it was reiterated right up until 2001:
National Service was no more demanding that normal peacetime service and does not, in its own right, warrant the award of a medal
But normal peacetime service is voluntary. National service was compulsory. National servicemen had no choice but serve—and serve they did at the behest of their government and their nation.
I remember on 12 May 1999 rising in this House to try and argue for recognition of national servicemen—particularly recognition more formally through a medal. I remember it received a very short hearing and certainly was not greatly supported by many others. As I said, it took until 2001 and the onset of a federal election to finally have their service recognised. I would just like to comment on that before I go on to speak about their national service memorial.
In 2001 the Australian government recognised the contribution of national servicemen to Australia’s defence preparedness with the award of the Anniversary of National Service 1951 to 1972 Medal. The bronze medal—it is a beautiful-looking medal—is of a double-sided design with the recipient’s service number and name engraved on the rim. The front depicts the triservice badge surmounted by the Federation Star and the words ‘Anniversary of National Service 1951 to 1972’. On the other side is the Southern Cross on a field of radiating lines inside a cogwheel, representing the integral role of the armed services in our community. Both sides are surmounted by the crown. The ribbon uses the colours of the three services during the national service era: Navy white, Army jungle green and RAAF light blue, and Australia’s then national colours of blue and gold. The ochre strip represents our land. In 2006 national servicemen, along with all other servicemen and servicewomen, were awarded the Australian Defence Medal.
If I may, I would like now to share with you the ideas of the National Servicemen’s Association of Australia and their dream—which, hopefully, soon will be a reality—of a memorial. They have been invited by the Australian War Memorial to have a memorial nearby the Australian War Memorial. It is great to know that the memorial plans have been approved by all state branches and all the members. The memorial has a target date for completion and dedication of 2009 or early 2010. We all know how long these things take, but like all good nashos they want this thing to be done properly; it is very important to them. The national service memorial—as you probably know, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz, because you are very well informed—is based around a fountain, but I am told the fountain can stand alone as a monument anyway. They are looking to use the water from the Australian War Memorial for the fountain. But if there is no water because of drought then, with the good nasho common sense, the bowl can stand as it is. It will have a plinth of Wondabyne sandstone from Gosford, on the New South Wales Central Coast, matching that of the Australian War Memorial itself. So here we have, symbolically, this relationship between the War Memorial and the new national service memorial. I think that is lovely. The stone will also be used to pave the surrounds and for the seating.
The highly polished black slab is expected to be of South Australian granite with hollowed-out shapes, and the bowl will be of solid cast bronze, so it will be quite beautiful. Indeed, the granite part reminds me a little bit of our black granite fountain here in Parliament House. The Anniversary of National Service 1951-1972 Medal, which I have just been speaking about, will be reproduced on the corner nearest the Australian War Memorial and the Navy, Army and Air Force badges will be on the other three sides. The memorial will bear the simple inscription:
Dedicated to those who served and in memory of all who died.
A total of 212 national servicemen, as I mentioned earlier, died on active service in Borneo and Vietnam. I have just received a copy of the National Service Honour Roll and it really is poignant and quite moving when you see all these names listed. They served our country through national service and lost their lives. I would like to recognise publicly the seven Tasmanians who lost their lives: David Banfield, Kevin Brewer, Geoffrey Coombs, Guy Godden, Francis Hyland, Albert McCormack and Peter Penneyston.
Two plaques adjoining the seats will name the memorial for visitors and give a brief outline of national service—and I have just given the text, if I can offer my services; although I think Allen Callaghan can do a better job in that regard. The full history will be told inside the Australian War Memorial in the post-1945 gallery. The sandstone plinth represents the Army; the sky reflected in the polished black granite slab represents the Air Force; and the bronze bowl, hopefully with water in it, represents the Navy. The memorial is intended to be non-triumphal and to invite reflection. The intended site for this memorial is beautiful. The view from the seating around the fountain is down Anzac Avenue over the old and new parliament houses to the Brindabella ranges in the distance.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you might be interested to know that the funds include a donation of $150,000 from the federal government, and I acknowledge that and thank the former government; $150,000 from businessman Kerry Stokes; donations from state governments and local authorities around Australia; and contributions from national service and RSL sub-branches and individuals. The estimated cost, including the paved surrounds, seating and box hedges is up to half a million dollars.
The National Servicemen’s Association of Australia undertook the memorial on behalf of all Australian national servicemen. All nashos will be invited to the dedication parade and service and the dinner to follow that night. The memorial’s architect is Mr Richard Johnson, one of our nation’s leading architects, of Johnson Pilton Walker.
I would like to conclude by paying tribute to the National Servicemen’s Association and to all nashos who served this country. Though many of them may not have served overseas, they did indeed prepare to serve this country, and psychologically they were prepared to do so. It took us far too long to recognise that. The story of the Vietnam nashos did us no credit for a long time. Many people’s views—I was one of them—of the war were unfortunately mixed with our attitudes towards those who served us. Since then, I have been very proud of how our nation, particularly in relation to Iraq and other places of conflict, has made it very clear that we respect and honour the service of those who are ordered into these areas of combat to serve this nation. We should have been very proud of them in the past, and now we are. I personally want to put on record that I mixed my politics with a dose of humanity and the politics came out but not the humanity, and I certainly have reflected on that for many years afterwards.
I would particularly like to thank my local branches. They were one of the first groups that schooled me in politics. I am not a political person by nature and I do not have a background in it. They schooled me in politics and certainly reminded me that they wanted some recognition for their service. I want to thank my late friend, Frankie Watts, whom I miss, for all the support he gave me when I first came into parliament. I certainly thank him for the great work he did in getting recognition for the nashos and bringing them together. They are a fine group of people and I know that many members in this House have a lot to do with them. I am really glad we have recognised them and I am looking forward to their memorial being opened. I know they will be inviting all of us to the memorial and that they will be very proud to see it. I certainly commend the bill to the House. I thank the government for honouring their commitment to the ex-POWs from Ballarat, whom I thank very much for their service. I wish to recognise their families, particularly the families of those who lost loved ones in the service of this country.
10000
Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr AJ Schultz)—Before I call the member for Mitchell, I would like to inform the House that the interruption caused by the exhaust system in the parliament had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the member for Braddon commenced his contribution, and the ceasing of the noise created by that glitch had nothing to do with the fact that the member for Braddon finished his contribution!
5398
10:27:00
Hawke, Alex, MP
HWO
Mitchell
LP
0
0
Mr HAWKE
—I rise to support the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008 and the amendment from the member for Mackellar. In doing so let me first pay tribute to all of those who have served in our armed forces—the returned service men and women—and all those who have had the unfortunate distinction of being prisoners of war.
If you go to many of our country towns and the town centres of our suburbs and metropolitan areas, you will find memorials to our brave soldiers who went to war. These memorials were generally funded by the people within those communities as a personal tribute to their soldiers. Indeed, they stand as a tribute to the true self-reliant spirit of this country in looking after each other and recognising those who did so much in our name.
It is a wonderful thing to think that each of these communities voluntarily got together to fund memorials to their soldiers. The rolls of honour will stand at the heart of our communities for evermore. In supporting this legislation I think it is important to recognise that, while there are memorials of national significance, every war memorial is indeed a memorial of national significance.
This bill will provide a mechanism to honour the government’s election commitment to declare the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat to be a national memorial. It has been said this bill has come about from a mistake and a hasty promise, but it is a mistake and a hasty promise that I am happy to support and to embrace as my own.
I note that national memorials are already recognised under the National Memorials Ordinance 1928 and are restricted to memorials within the Australian Capital Territory. This bill will recognise the national significance of the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat and will enable, in the future, other memorials that meet specific criteria to be recognised as a military memorial of national significance. And who indeed could argue with that?
The Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial located in the Ballarat Botanical Gardens records the names of more than 35,000 Australian POWs—8,600 died or were killed when they were prisoners of war and more than 4,000 have no known grave. The lists of names on the memorial are arranged in alphabetical order, grouped by conflict, commencing with the Boer War and going through to the Korean War, etched into the 130-metre black granite wall. Across Australia there has not been any recognition of the pain and suffering endured by prisoners of war in the service of our nation. The motto of these brave prisoners was: ‘When you go home, tell them of us and say that we gave our tomorrow for your today.’
This legislation is a good development for so many of the memorials in our country that deserve the recognition and tribute of our federal government as part of its ongoing commitment to the defence of our nation and the memory of those who served.
I had great pride serving in the Australian Army Reserve in one of my local community’s regiments, the 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers. Indeed, it was some of the former exuberant members of my regiment who jumped their ships to participate in the Boer War. In 1899, before our nation had federated, a squadron of the regiment, which had been training in England, became the first colonial troops to arrive in South Africa for active service against the Boers in the South African War. They jumped their ships to be there—part of that great Australian spirit of having a go and wanting to be involved in the world and its events. I pay tribute to them. With 21 battle honours, the 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers is one of the most highly decorated units in the Australian Army. It was an immense privilege to serve with the fine men and women who make up the regiment today.
This bill specifically will deliver on the promise in relation to Ballarat and other military memorials of national significance, creating a new category. It will bring greater status. It is of more concern, however, that there is an issue with the ongoing Commonwealth funding for memorials. There are many other places in our country that deserve federal government recognition and assistance and I have no concerns in supporting the legislation and its implications.
The importance that war memorials hold in serving as visual reminders of the sacrifice of the brave men and women who served our country was impressed upon me when I trekked the Kokoda Trail back in 2003. So many of our young Australians trek Kokoda today. They attend memorials at Isurava or the dawn service at Gallipoli, where so many of their young counterparts fought many years ago. They attend to pay tribute; they attend to remember. When you go today you see the rusty weapons in the jungle at Kokoda and the depressions where pits were dug by Australian soldiers. You see why the Aussie soldier earned the title ‘digger’. You actually can see, amongst the massive mountains and the valleys, the site of fierce fighting that saved our nation. It is very moving. I was deeply moved and humbled by the experience and the importance of the Kokoda campaign in the history of our country.
To the Howard government’s everlasting credit, they provided the funding for a memorial to be constructed at Isurava on the Kokoda track—a magical place—which has been done so well. A photo of the memorial and some of us who served as young officers in the Army is always on my desk. The incredible ambience of this place and the solemness of the beautiful memorial which overlooks the valley where so much fighting took place stay with me always. There are four words inscribed on the four granite pillars at Isurava, four words that mean so much to many who have served—courage, endurance, mateship and sacrifice. Those words say it all about the service so many Australians gave and that must be remembered.
In 1933 we were warned that Japan would pose a major threat to Australian security. The head of strategic studies at the Australian National University, Professor David Horner, recently wrote:
It is now generally agreed that the Australian defence policy between the wars and until the fall of Singapore was, at the best, naively optimistic, and at the worst, some might say, close to treason.
While many political leaders of that time may have neglected the defence of Australia, the responsibility of the young diggers in answering the call is very inspiring. It is a lesson we must always remember. We must support our defence forces. We must support legislation such of this, which adds so much to the fine military traditions of our great country. Those Australian diggers were young, inexperienced, outnumbered and outgunned. During the ensuing three months, the Australians fought against overwhelming odds. They forced the Japanese to contest every inch of the rugged and treacherous Kokoda Trail as they advanced towards their objective of Port Moresby.
As I speak today, I still starkly remember the overwhelming emotion that I felt standing at the Isurava war memorial built by the Australian government. It was at Isurava where the first Victoria Cross was won on Australian soil. It was awarded to Private Bruce Kingsbury of the 2nd/14th Battalion. It was Kingsbury’s initiative and superb courage that made it possible for the Australians to recapture the battalion’s position and cause heavy casualties among the enemy. His coolness, determination and devotion to duty in the face of great adversity was not only an inspiration to his comrades but, through the establishment of the Isurava memorial, to all Australians who are the future of the country for which he so valiantly fought.
Private Kingsbury was one of the few survivors of a platoon which had been overrun and severely cut down by the enemy. Immediately, he volunteered to join a different platoon which had been ordered to counterattack. He rushed forward, firing the Bren gun from his hip, through terrific machine-gun fire and succeeded in clearing a path through the enemy. Continuing to sweep enemy positions with his fire, he inflicted an extremely high number of casualties on them. Private Kingsbury was then seen to fall to the ground by the side of a large rock, shot dead by a bullet from a sniper hiding in the wood. Private Kingsbury displayed a complete disregard for his own safety at Isurava but thereby saved his friends. When you stand at Isurava you can still see today the rock, the large boulder where Private Bruce Kingsbury was gunned down by a sniper. It is an experience in humility and gratitude that I would recommend to every Australian to stand at the war memorial at Isurava, to see the rock where Private Bruce Kingsbury was gunned down after conducting such a valiant action, which earned him the first Victorian Cross on Australian soil.
Today I am reminded of Kingsbury’s sacrifice each time I drive down along the memorial drive to Canberra. Another great initiative of the Howard government was to rename the road from Sydney to Canberra ‘Remembrance Drive’. At each rest stop, information about a Victoria Cross winner is attached—a wonderful initiative that reminds us of the men who showed such great courage and valour under fire. When Australians stop at these rest stops, they engage in an act of remembrance. Indeed, I make a point of stopping at the Private Bruce Kingsbury rest stop whenever I can on the road from Sydney to Canberra to remember.
The explanatory memorandum of this bill states:
The Bill will provide a mechanism to honour the Government’s election commitment to declare the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat, to be a national memorial.
The bill may have come about from a mistake, it may have come about from a promise that was made during the election campaign, but again I state that it is an error that I am happy to embrace if it leads to legislation that recognises more of our nationally significant war memorials. It is a mistake that I am happy to say I will embrace and be honoured to support here today.
As already stated, the government has delivered funding for maintenance of the memorial for the next four years. However, the bill is silent on the issue of funding thereafter, and I would suggest to those opposite that this is an issue that we do need to consider further and examine in the light of our future commitments to war memorials across Australia that are outside Canberra and considered to be nationally significant. The Register of War Memorials records two memorials in my own electorate of Mitchell: the Arthur Witling Park war memorial and the Dural Memorial Hall. There are two sites outside of my electorate which I often attend as well—they are in Glenorie within the council area of Baulkham Hills Shire—but there are just two war memorials in Mitchell. We are also served by a magnificent RSL club, the Castle Hill RSL club, which is an integral part of our community and also supports these war memorials.
I want to say a few words about the war memorials in my electorate, which will be instructive to the House because, on Anzac Day of this year, I had the privilege of attending the dawn service at the Arthur Witling Park war memorial at the corner of Old Northern Road and McMullen Avenue in Castle Hill. It was a great experience—if anyone had any doubt about patriotism and the belief in the importance of remembering those who have served and paid the ultimate sacrifice—to turn up at a dawn service with 5,000 members of my local community to see teams of young people walking the streets at four o’clock in the morning and to see the entire memorial site jam-packed with people. People were standing on the roads trying to get into this memorial site to attend the service. It is a great tribute, 100 years from the events that took place, to Australians and their capacity to remember those who have paid the ultimate price and given so much for Australia.
The memorial at Arthur Witling Park is large and well kept. The whole memorial is constructed in the shape of the rising sun badge. The centre point of the memorial is a large flagpole and a huge white painted rock with the words ‘Lest we forget’ in black, placed on brown and black marble. There is a shallow pool in the shape of an arch surrounding the centre point. Around the wall of the elevated garden are eight plaques, one each for the following: the RSL, Australian women’s services, the Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Commonwealth military forces and Merchant Navy Australia. The whole memorial has a flagpole, and just off to the right of the memorial is a pine tree grown from an original lone pine of Gallipoli.
My community is well serviced by a strong veteran community, and the acts of remembrance engaged in at Arthur Witling Park are very important to the fabric of my community and our society. The inscriptions on the memorial dedicate the memorial to all those who paid the supreme sacrifice and who served in all wars and conflicts on duty for our country. One inscription reads:
This Memorial is dedicated to the men and women from the Electorate of Mitchell who have served in the Armed Forces of Australia and to those who paid the supreme sacrifice.
I also record my appreciation for the Dural Memorial Hall, which stands to recognise World War I. We do need to ensure that our war memorials overseas are also protected and preserved for future generations to witness. Whilst our well-known overseas war memorials at Isuarava and Gallipoli are well kept, some others are not. I recently became aware of a problem from a member of my electorate, Mr Garry Massie, who has recently returned from visiting the prisoner-of-war memorial, the JEATH War Museum, in Kanchanaburi, Thailand. The JEATH War Museum commemorates the work undertaken on the construction of the Burma rail line by, amongst others, Australia’s POWs during World War II. The JEATH museum bears witness to the suffering of those that fell during its construction. It is an open-air museum. JEATH stands for Japan, England, Australia, Thailand and Holland. It was built in 1977 by a Thai abbot in the style of the huts that were used to imprison prisoners of war. The museum contains bunks and original pictures of the actual soldiers who died alongside the articles and other authentic items on the site. The result is a picture of cramped squalor which gives visitors a genuine insight into the suffering of the soldiers on the Burma rail line. However, I am informed by Mr Massie and others that these artefacts are in some state of disrepair. Many of the pictures are currently held under plastic sheeting and the artefacts are clearly deteriorating. Considering their historical significance to Australia and to our nation’s military history, they are stored in unsuitable conditions. I call on the government to think about sending curators from the Australian War Memorial to visit Kanchanaburi and to undertake a project that could see this collection restored and placed on display in a way that would protect it from damage in the future.
I return to the legislation. It is wonderful to think that so many of our communities voluntarily got together to fund memorials to recognise the soldiers from their communities. Those rolls of honour will stand at the heart of the communities forevermore. They will stand there as a tribute to the spirit not just of the soldiers and the people who went but of those communities who got together to recognise them. One of the primary functions of government is to provide for the defence of our nation, to look after those who have returned from conflicts and to provide for the memory of those who served, who paid the ultimate sacrifice and who were prisoners of war. As a parliament, we must work to ensure Australia always has that self-reliant, caring spirit that sees communities construct memorials—that spirit of duty, service and voluntary sacrifice. I heartily endorse and support the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008, and the second reading amendment moved by the member for Mackellar, and I thank the government for the legislation.
5402
10:44:00
Marles, Richard, MP
HWQ
Corio
ALP
1
0
Mr MARLES
—I rise to speak in support of the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008. I do so with a great deal of pride and a great deal of pleasure. Before I commence my remarks on the bill, I acknowledge the students, seated in the galleries, from the northern Lindfield primary school on my left and from the southern Scots School Albury on my right. I think it is fantastic that they are here in Canberra today and that they will hear this particular debate as it really does go to our nation’s history and to the essence of the Australian character. I certainly welcome them to Canberra, I welcome them to the House and I hope that they have a fantastic and educative time while they are here.
This bill honours an election commitment that was given by the Prime Minister on 27 June last year on a visit to Ballarat. In essence it will recognise the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial, which is located in the Ballarat Botanical Gardens, as a military memorial of national significance. It is a very appropriate, serious and significant act for that memorial to be declared in that way. I want to talk about the memorial and its significance to our country and, indeed, the significance of the experiences of prisoners of war to our country. Before I do, it would perhaps be beneficial to explain the purpose of the bill. This bill builds upon the National Memorials Ordinance 1928, which was enacted under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, which was in turn enacted by the then Fisher Labor government. That administration act remained the constitutional basis for law-making in the Australian Capital Territory right through until 1988, when the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act was enacted by the then Hawke government.
The National Memorials Ordinance establishes the Canberra National Memorials Committee, the chair of which is the Prime Minister. The committee’s role is to consider submissions relating to national memorials and to declare them as military memorials of national significance. Importantly, however, as it currently stands, the committee can only examine proposed memorials on ‘national land’. That obviously means land within the ACT. Memorials in other parts of Australia, as matters stand at present, can only be described as ‘national in character’. It is that condition that will be altered by this bill.
The importance of doing that is borne out by the particular history of the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat. The Ballarat memorial was first announced by the then Liberal member for Ballarat, Michael Ronaldson, who is now a senator, back in 1999. No doubt he will be very gratified by the fact that this memorial will ultimately be declared a military memorial of national significance. At the time of its announcement, Mr Ronaldson said that Ballarat would have an Australian ex-prisoners of war memorial of ‘national status’. The former Assistant Treasurer, Rod Kemp, referred to the memorial as a ‘national memorial’ when announcing that donations for it would be tax deductible. However, there were a number of people in Ballarat, including those who had been working on the memorial, who wanted the memorial to have a greater significance and for it to be declared a military memorial of national significance. However, at the time, the Howard government said that that was not possible as a result of the current framework of the law. Understandably, that was a matter which was a cause of significant frustration for those people who had worked tirelessly in bringing about that memorial. It was frustrating for those people who had raised the funds for the memorial, rallied public support for its construction, supplied goods and worked on its construction and, in fact, now curate the memorial. It was also frustrating for those organisations which had been at the heart of bringing the memorial into existence—namely, the Ballarat RSL and, of course, the Ex-Prisoners of War Welfare Association—and for the people of Ballarat themselves.
This was raised with the then Labor opposition at the time of the visit by the now Prime Minister to Ballarat in June of last year. A commitment was made that if Labor were elected to government then the law would be changed so that this memorial could be deemed to be a military memorial of national significance. In doing this and in presenting this bill, we acknowledge the work of all those who have brought that memorial into being—in particular, Liz Heagney, who was acknowledged in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List for her work in compiling the more than 35,000 names of those Australian service men and women who have been prisoners of war. That was in itself a very significant research task and is a very significant contribution to our national history. It will form a basis for families, seeking to learn about their own family history, who visit the memorial to find out whether or not a particular ancestor of theirs experienced being a prisoner of war.
The memorial and monument takes a special place in the Ballarat community. It is now the focal point of Anzac Day services there. The war memorial is very clearly a part of Ballarat’s social fabric. To understand it better, I consulted the secretary-trustee of the Ballarat memorial, Mr Bill Bahr. He sent me a letter, in response to my request, about what this memorial means to him and what it means to the people of Ballarat and to those who have been prisoners of war. I would like to convey his moving sentiments to the House today:
The Memorial has a place in my heart as it lists the names of relatives and friends of my father on its stark Black Granite walls; it is a quiet place of reflection on the enduring spirit of the Australian people, the ability of Australians to maintain their dignity and courage when all around them they experience horrendous atrocities and appalling hardships.
The significance of the Memorial to the people of Australia is one that can only be measured in the strength and deeds of the 35,000 Australian men and women whose names are listed on the Memorial walls. We as a Nation owe them a debt of gratitude and our enduring thanks for their contribution to the building of our great Nation. Prior to the establishment of this Memorial, no definitive list of names of Australian ex-POWs was available from any official government source. The Memorial has since its opening become a focal point for those doing research on family members and those that are visiting a loved one. The 35,000 Australians listed on the wall continue to educate younger Australians on the human cost and the futility of War.
“Lest We Forget”.
I am sure you will agree with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that they are truly moving words and do convey to the House the significance of this memorial both to the nation and, of course, to Ballarat.
It is wonderful to see how many people who have spoken in this debate. It indicates a significance that I think all of us in Australia find in our own military history and the way in which it speaks to the essence of the Australian character. We are not unusual in looking to our military history to find the elements of our national character—many countries do it. But what we find when we engage in that exercise is extraordinary, and it is different to that of other countries because we do not necessarily celebrate the victories or the military conquests, albeit that that, of course, is the aim of military activity. What we find as Australians when we look to our own military history to see how it speaks to our character is a sense of camaraderie in adversity. We find Australians working together in the most difficult of situations. We see brothers and sisters helping each other through horrendous situations. In a word, what we find is mateship.
The two iconic battles of our Australian history, Kokoda and Gallipoli, are not necessarily about their military outcomes—indeed, they are not about those outcomes at all. What they are about is the experience of those who participated in those campaigns. One of those campaigns, Gallipoli, by any measure was a terrible military failure. Even in Kokoda, which ultimately led to a victory, it was in that grinding retreat along the Kokoda Track that we find the stories which capture the heart of the Australian imagination. These are stories of Australians working together in the most difficult of circumstances, being there for each other and helping each other through. It is a wonderful characteristic, it is uniquely Australian and it is a lesson that we learnt from these conflicts that, I think, in many respects other nations do not learn, or at least not to the same significance.
In that context, it is not surprising that the history of prisoners of war would speak to this particular Australian character, because those who were prisoners of war experienced the most horrendous circumstances and performed great acts of courage in assisting others to get through that terrible experience. More than 35,000 Australians, as I have stated, each of whom’s name is now listed on this memorial in Ballarat, have been prisoners of war. Approximately 200 were in the Boer War, 4,000 in the First World War, 30,000 in the Second World War and 29 in the Korean War. Of those 35,000, nearly 8,600 lost their lives, 8,000 of which lost their lives during the Second World War. So it is not surprising that when we look at the history of prisoners of war in Australia we have a particular focus on the experience of the Second World War.
The Thai-Burma Railway typified the horrendous experience of prisoners of war during that conflict. It was on the Thai-Burma Railway that we saw one of Australia’s greatest war heroes emerge. Again, like Simpson, a medic at Gallipoli, this war hero was not a warrior as such. He was a doctor. He was a person who helped others. He was, of course, Weary Dunlop. Three-hundred and thirty thousand people worked on the Thai-Burma Railway; 250,000 of those were Asian local workers, and their sacrifice should never be forgotten. Nearly 90,000 of their number ultimately lost their lives. In addition, 61,000 were allied prisoners of war, of whom 12,000 were Australians, and it is estimated that 2,700 of those died on that terrible railway line.
It is hard to imagine the horrendous conditions which those prisoners of war experienced or the unfathomable circumstances that Weary Dunlop triumphed over. These prisoners of war experienced terrible malnutrition, which in turn led to beri-beri, a condition which sees the swelling of the stomach. Cholera was endemic and there was the particular scourge of tropical ulcers. These ulcers spread rapidly in the damp tropical conditions. Just a small scratch could give rise to one of these ulcers. They were very difficult to heal and ultimately could become fatal. The kind of medicine used to deal with these ulcers was to sharpen a spoon to scoop out the rotting flesh. On other occasions, these soldiers were told to stand in rivers where there were flesh-eating fish to try and clean the wound. In many cases, there was no remedy for these ulcers but to engage in amputation. When that occurred, more often than not the prisoners of war were in such a condition that they were unable to withstand the shock of that procedure.
Weary Dunlop was at the forefront of all of this, and it needs to be remembered that in the midst of this Weary Dunlop was himself a sick man, suffering from exactly those same tropical ulcers. But, with his hat on its particularly odd angle and with his determination, he put his own life on the line. He stood up to those who were administering the camps and he became an inspiration for all of those who were suffering in these conditions. Arch Flanagan, a prisoner of war, said this in relation to Weary Dunlop:
Colonel Dunlop kept devotedly to his rounds. His legs bandaged for ulcers, his face etched with responsibility and sleeplessness, his cap as ever defiantly askew, he was our symbol of hope. More than ever now we thought, ‘If Weary goes we all go’.
Donald Stuart, another ex-prisoner of war, said:
When death and despair reached for us he stood fast, his only thought our well-being. Faced with guards who had the power of life or death, ignoble tyrants who hated us, he was the lighthouse of sanity in a universe of suffering and madness.
These are incredibly moving words and they do speak to the amazing difficulty of that situation, but they also speak to the inspiration and the triumph that was Weary Dunlop and the Australian spirit in those circumstances.
The Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in the Ballarat Botanical Gardens is a wonderful testament to the sacrifice and experience of all Australian prisoners of war. It was designed by a local sculptor, Peter Blizzard. It resides at the intersection of Wendouree Parade and Carlton Streets in Ballarat, near Lake Wendouree. Its size and scale are very large in design. It consists of six basalt obelisks that name all of the countries in which Australians were prisoners of war. The polished 130-metre black granite wall, which cost $1.8 million to build, names all of the prisoners of war in our history in historical order. A large reflective pool feeds into other overflows and waterfalls throughout the memorial, and in the memorial the presence of flowing water is described as ‘symbolising spirituality, healing, cleansing, birth and rebirth’.
This debate, this bill and the monument in Ballarat are, I think, indicative of a search that all Australians are finding for our own character through a renewed interest in our military history, and we really see it in the intense interest which is now shown in Anzac Day ceremonies around Australia. This is not just in the major capitals of Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney but in a range of regional centres as well—for example, the 2,000 people who attended Broome’s Bedford Park this year and the same number who went to Albany’s Desert Mounted Corps Memorial on Mount Clarence. Over 1,000 people went to the Wollongong Cenotaph and 2,000 were in Burleigh Heads. In my electorate of Corio, which, of course, includes part of the city of Geelong, 7,500 people attended the mid-morning service in Johnstone Park, which was the focus of ceremonies on Anzac Day.
Johnstone Park is overlooked by the most significant military memorial in Geelong itself, which is the Geelong and District Peace Memorial. This memorial has long been a focal point of Geelong’s military history and memorial services. The foundation stone for this memorial, built at a cost of £13,106 and opened by Governor Lord Somers in 1925, was laid in 1922. It is a very significant memorial. On the east and west walls lie the names of those who have fought in the First World War and on the south wall have later been added the names of those who fought in World War II. The Geelong Advertiser on 1 November 1926 said, in relation to the peace memorial in Geelong: ‘The permanency with which these tablets are framed in bronze leaves no doubt that the roll of honour will outlast many generations who will be constantly reminded of the sacrifices made by those who fought in defence of their country.’
I mentioned the memorial in Geelong because an important aspect of this bill is that it does now raise the possibility for other memorials around Australia to be deemed military memorials of national significance. In saying that, it is important to understand that there are now strict guidelines around that so that the deeming of a memorial in those terms is, in a sense, not devalued. It is important that these memorials are of an appropriate scale and design. It is important that they are the focal point for lots of community commemorations. It is important that they serve a national character. A wonderful outcome of this process and of this bill is that we have the possibility now of commemorating many more aspects of Australia’s military history through deeming more memorials as military memorials of national significance.
This is a very fitting acknowledgement of all the Australian service personnel who have experienced time as prisoners of war. This is a wonderful debate to have been a part of. I would like to finish by commending to the House the work of the current member for Ballarat, Cathy King, in ensuring that this honour is bestowed upon this memorial. It is also again worth mentioning Michael Ronaldson for his work in initiating the memorial, along with the Ballarat RSL, the Ex-Prisoners of War Association of Australia and all of those in Ballarat.
5407
11:04:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
0
0
Mr SLIPPER
—At the outset I indicate my support for the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008 and for the motion moved by my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar. It is important that a grateful nation thanks veterans who risked everything to ensure that, as Australians, we enjoy the freedom, the stability and the way of life that we have as a nation and which has made us the envy of people around the world. As the previous speaker indicated, it is certainly healthy that on both sides of the parliament—and indeed right throughout the nation—there is a sense of collective gratitude to those people who helped to make sure that Australians today have the sort of society that we do. It is also important that, regardless of whether individuals support a sphere of conflict in which Australian service men and women have participated or not, the service given by those service men and women to the nation be respected and honoured. That also is something which is now, I think, guaranteed for the future. I trust that we will never see again the shameful treatment that Vietnam veterans received from some sections of the Australian community when they returned from service abroad. It took far too long for these Australians to be properly recognised. As a nation we have moved on, and as a nation we now recognise the service of those people who risked everything so that Australians can be part of the most wonderful nation in the world.
I support the principles contained in this bill. I do note the provisions of the amendment to the motion and that, prior to the election, the Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, promised to declare the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat a national memorial. Technically that election promise is being breached because, as the then government said, it is only possible to have national memorials in the Australian Capital Territory. The government has sought to give what it deems to be an appropriate level of recognition to the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat by creating a new category of military memorial, namely the military memorials of national significance.
While this bill will allow the Ballarat memorial to be recognised or for its recognition to be elevated, it is also possible for other memorials around the country to be similarly recognised as military memorials of national significance. There will be guidelines and it is very important that we do not water down the significance of military memorials of national significance.
It is widely recognised that the Ballarat memorial has enjoyed the support of both sides of politics. In fact, the former Howard government provided a grant of half a million dollars towards the memorial, which is the largest federal government grant allocated to a memorial outside of Canberra. The honourable member for Corio in his contribution appropriately recognised the role carried out by the former member for Ballarat, the Hon. Michael Ronaldson, who is now a senator, in relation to supporting the memorial and also he mentioned the work done by the current honourable member for Ballarat.
It is important that, as a nation, we always thank those people who have been responsible for ensuring that we are protected. I want to say that the veterans in our community are role models for all of us; we should put them on a pedestal. Veterans, in particular ex-prisoners of war, have continued to serve their communities many years after their war service or their overseas service has finished. My great uncle was a prisoner of the Japanese in Changi. My grandfather’s brother, John Slipper, was a prisoner of Changi for a considerable period and when liberated weighed only four stone. He went on to live a fulfilling life, but his health was never the same and I suspect that members around the chamber would be able to relate similar situations where family members or friends also suffered as prisoners of war.
The fact that the memorial at Ballarat highlights the role carried out by ex-prisoners of war is important. I want to see more memorials in regional areas right around the country. I must say that over the years I have been privileged to visit numbers of war cemeteries. At my own expense, as a young person backpacking around, I went to Lone Pine at Gallipoli and I was shocked by how young many of those were who fell in the service of their nation. I also went to Kranji in Singapore and to El Alamein and I have to say again that those people who lost their lives to make sure that as Australians we live in a safe country ought to be lauded and respected. Our memory of them must be upheld. That is why the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat is really important.
Right around our country on Anzac Day and on other days of commemoration of military matters we seem to have an increasing level of support from all sections of the community, particularly young Australians. Like other honourable members I go to large numbers of Anzac Day services, in particular dawn services. I am actually able to get to two or three dawn services held at different times—for instance at 4.28, 5.28 and 6.28. I suppose it is a minor climatic miracle that dawn seems to break a whole hour or two hours later over the space of 20 or 30 kilometres. But, whenever I go, I am heartened by the fact that so many young people, even babes in arms, come along with their families to help remember those people who risked everything and in some cases lost all to ensure that Australians can enjoy the freedom that we do. Many of our schools increasingly and quite appropriately are having Anzac Day celebrations. I have been to large numbers of Anzac Day celebrations at schools in the electorate of Fisher where those schools actually recognise the service given to this nation by family members of the children at the school.
I applaud the fact that the government has introduced this bill. I suppose this bill is a recognition of what the former government said prior to the election—namely, that national memorials could only be located in Canberra. But the fact that we have this new category of military memorials of national significance does not, in my view, reduce the significance of the other memorials of national significance. It is not really important what we call them; what is important is how we regard them. What is important is that, as Australians in 2008, we give thanks to those people who have served their country—those people who lost their lives, were prisoners of war or were prepared to lose everything so that we might thrive and survive as one of the most prosperous nations in the world today. So I do applaud the government for, I suppose, partially meeting its election promise. The government said that the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat would be a national memorial. The government is not delivering on that promise but instead is creating a new form of memorial—namely, the military memorial of national significance.
Whatever you call it, it means that this government, like its predecessor, is highlighting the importance of the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat. The former government helped to fund it, and this government is indeed recognising it as a military memorial of national significance, even if the introduction of this bill is necessary for that to occur. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar and I hope that the government will accept that amendment; but even if the government does not accept that amendment, I support the bill and laud the sentiments behind it.
5409
11:15:00
Shorten, Bill, MP
00ATG
Maribyrnong
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services
1
0
Mr SHORTEN
—I am happy to speak today in support of this bill, the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008. Last year, the now Prime Minister visited Ballarat and committed to recognising the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial as a national war memorial. This legislation puts in place the mechanism to allow this to happen, and I am very glad of that.
War memorials repay the sacrifice of citizens through honour. I should acknowledge that, in the words I am about to use to talk about this, I have been heavily influenced by the American historian James Mayo, who shaped a lot of my thinking about the contribution of war memorials and indeed provided some of the inspiration for my views on this current piece of legislation. War memorials can be identified from even the classical Greek and Roman eras. The predominant themes through the ages have been religious expression and the proclamation of victory, but mourning and the re-creation of the human spirit are also present. From the Parthenon to the Roman memorial columns and into the mediaeval ages, the funerary architecture of the tombs of knights and princes in churches were memorials. In the 19th century, memorials tended to reflect the strand of nationalism, from the Arc de Triomphe to Trafalgar Square and indeed the Brandenburg Gate. Our American friends emerged from their first century, following the American Revolution, the Civil War and the Spanish-American War, a wealthy and proud nation who in fact innovated commemoration and new developments which went beyond the classical approaches to war memorials.
To describe our own Australian history of memorials, I shall paraphrase the work of Australian historian Ken Inglis, who has written extensively about the history of memorials in Australia, from the colonial monuments through the wars of the 20th century to the extraordinary 1995 campaign commemorating World War II, Australia Remembers, sponsored by Prime Minister Keating’s energetic Minister for Veterans’ Affairs Con Sciacca. Mr Inglis has shown how the fashion in Australia has changed from heroic statues of leaders, such as the one in Melbourne to General Gordon of Khartoum, to the familiar obelisks and diggers of the Great War through to the halls and swimming pools that followed the Second World War.
The brief history of memorials, I think, reveals the relationship between politics and design. War memorials affect people’s emotions at a deep level. In fact, the decision about how a war and its participants are memorialised can be emotional. War, with its human cost, is the most drastic political act that a nation can make. Therefore, I believe that Australians understand that these memorials, these sacred memorials, are unassailable investments from which no economic return is expected. Can there any doubt that the service and sacrifice of our prisoners of war deserves national recognition and honour? Can there be any doubt that those 35,000 brave men and women suffered untold horrors in the course of protecting this nation? Of course there is no doubt—no doubt at all.
The Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat was dedicated in February 2004. It lists the names of each of those 35,000 prisoners of war. It is a magnificent memorial. Yet, despite repeated requests, the ex-POW memorial was constantly refused recognition as a national memorial. I congratulate the member for Ballarat, Catherine King, who has been a tireless advocate for both the memorial and the ex-prisoner of war community in general. This legislation before us has been a long time coming. As Lachlan Grant outlines in his paper What makes a ‘national’ war memorial?, when asked whether the government would reconsider recognising it as a national memorial, the member for Higgins replied:
… the Government has just recognised it with a contribution of $300,000 … let’s not get hung up with syntax …
Syntax is important. What stopped the previous government from recognising this magnificent memorial to every Australian prisoner of war? Unthinking behaviour, it seems to me.
The current law requires all national monuments to be located in the ACT. Heaven forfend that a national government would actually amend a law to recognise such a worthy project! It might come as a surprise to those on the opposite benches, although not all, that not everything of national significance is enclosed within the bounds of the Australian Capital Territory.
The former government also said that we already had a national memorial to prisoners of war, the Changi Chapel at the Royal Military College, Duntroon. That is indeed a poignant and evocative memorial, but it is my understanding that it is directed solely at POWs interned by the Japanese—and, unfortunately, I do not believe it is fully accessible to the public. The Ballarat memorial, on the other hand, is the first memorial in the country to recognise all Australian prisoners of war, from conflicts from the Boer to the Korean wars. The names on that memorial are from every corner of this nation, just as the roll of honour at the Australian War Memorial lists the individual names of the 102,000 Australians who have paid the ultimate price for their country. I believe it is truly a national memorial and I am happy that this government has introduced new legislation setting up new criteria under which memorials outside of Canberra can be recognised.
In fact, Ballarat already holds a number of our national memories. For a small regional town, it certainly punches well above its weight. It is the home of the Eureka Stockade, our only civil uprising, born out of that intensely Australian yearning for a fair go for all. It is also, in fact, the birthplace of my former union, the Australian Workers Union, which sprang to life in the Ballarat district more than 120 years ago—32 years after the Eureka uprising and equally born out of the desire for a fair go. There is even, in Ballarat, the Prime Ministers Avenue, featuring bronze busts of each of our prime ministers.
Let us not forget, either, that Ballarat has long commemorated the service and sacrifice of our military through its Avenue of Honour, the longest in the world, and the Arch of Victory. It is entirely fitting that they should also honour those who often have not received their due—our ex-prisoners of war. As the member for Ballarat has said in this debate:
It is proper that we make it possible for our national remembrance to be undertaken outside Canberra. Australians remember their fallen all around the world. They remember them in Gallipoli in record numbers. They remember them as they walk the Kokoda Track.
Speaking of Kokoda, I am looking forward with some trepidation to walking the track next month with colleagues of mine—Earl Setches, from the Plumbing Trades Employees Union of Australia, and Luke Donnellan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier in Victoria. I will be doing it not just to try and understand the courage of the diggers but also to do something for a local school in my area. Through sponsorship, I will be seeking to raise funds and understanding of the Kokoda Track for the Western Autistic School, which has a 25-year history of delivering highly successful education programs to students who have an autism spectrum disorder.
I think that all of the political background noise that has been going on for the last decade must not be allowed to obscure the fact that our ex-prisoners of war deserve our full respect and recognition. The far-sighted people of Ballarat knew this, and they have created a memorial where these ex-prisoners of war, their families and their comrades can come to remember and honour them. As committee member Tom Roberts said in an opinion piece in the Ballarat Courier:
Should the Federal Government have wished to erect such a memorial, it has had 100 years to do so, and a site available since the establishment of Canberra. Ballarat acted because no one else has done so.
I am glad they did. I am glad that the now Prime Minister was so impressed with the memorial last year that he said he would ‘move anything necessary to ensure that this is properly recognised as a national war memorial’. Unlike some of his recent predecessors, the Prime Minister is not bound by the way things have always been done. Although a decades-old act states that national military memorials must be in the ACT, the Prime Minister knows that modern leaders change with the times.
My Lithuanian uncle, Tony Sungaila, married to my mother’s sister, fought in the Second World War. He lived in Lithuania and, in 1939, three of his brothers and sisters disappeared in the occupation following the Russian invasion. When the Germans invaded, in 1941, he joined them. Indeed, he won an Iron Cross for his actions on the Eastern Front. Yet in 1945 the Germans interned my uncle and the rest of his Lithuanian regiment because they were no longer trusted. Consequently, my uncle led a break-out from the camp and took his regiment to join the Americans. I like to think that the bravery and stoicism of this man is commemorated somewhere in the world for his time of internment. His name, and the names of all of the prisoners of war throughout the world, should never be forgotten. The calm defiance of prisoners of war, their determination to survive in the face of desperate conditions and often fearsome treatment, their pride in their country and their refusal to bow down and give in are things that we, in this age of luxury, plasma screens and alcopops, need to remember, honour and learn from.
This war memorial in Ballarat, like all our war memorials, is distinguished because it bestows honour—in this case, on our ex-prisoners of war. Honour cannot be bought or collected; honour can only be bestowed. Honour is bestowed on our ex-prisoners of war because of their suffering. The brutal fact of the Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial is that our families, friends and neighbours fought, suffered and often died. This memorial captures our genuine feeling of sorrow, loss and the need to remember them. This war memorial, like all our war memorials, is part of Australia’s political history. How our past is commemorated through our nation’s military memorials mirrors what we want to remember, and lack of attention often reflects what we wish to forget. The memory of our ex-prisoners of war enhances our national image; neglect defames it. To quote JB Jackson:
A landscape without political history is a landscape without memory or forethought.
The Ballarat memorial ensures our memory of the landscape of sacrifice in war. Defeat in war cannot be forgotten, and our POWs were defeated. Australia must find ways to respect and never to forget those who were captured and those who died for our country to help make that defeat honourable. This memorial honours the individuals who fought for the lost causes in particular battles. Remembering our ex-prisoners of war raises questions about how we make sure that people returning from war are respected and their memory commemorated. With our troops coming out of Iraq and still serving bravely in Afghanistan, we must never forget the danger they are in. Memorials like the one in Ballarat show us that all our military face more than physical harm when they volunteer to serve our country.
In conclusion, I believe that it is worthy and notable that, in the last 20 years, participation by Australians in commemorating sacrifice in war has risen steadily. I regard this legislation as another step to the reawakening of our memory of the sacrifice of those who have gone before us. I commend this bill to the House.
5412
11:27:00
Simpkins, Luke, MP
HWE
Cowan
LP
0
0
Mr SIMPKINS
—As a former major in the Australian Regular Army and a member of my local RSL, the Wanneroo-Joondalup RSL, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008 and also to make some comments with regard to that very fine Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat. I say at the outset that it has been many years since I have been to Ballarat. Having been involved in the sport of rowing competitively at a reasonably high level, I used to make a few journeys to Ballarat and compete on Lake Wendouree. I am not sure whether that is still possible with the amount of water in the lake, but there are some other highlights within that town. It has a rich history, and probably no greater history than this magnificent memorial to the ex-POWs. I have seen pictures of the memorial in the Ballarat Botanical Gardens, and I hope to visit it one day. It is a magnificent structure and, as others have said, a memorial which provides ex-prisoners of war, their descendants, visitors and future generations with a place where they can pay their respects to those who endured so much as prisoners of war.
But there can be no denying that this memorial has a political history. Funds had been granted by the previous government—half a million dollars of the $1.9 million that was put into the memorial from all sources. It is not my intention to go back over which side of politics helped the local community to construct the memorial. But I will take my comments back to mid-2007 to put this matter in its true context. I understand that it was on 27 June last year that the then Leader of the Opposition visited Ballarat and promised that he would:
… move anything necessary to ensure that this is properly recognised as a national war memorial.
What does the talk of recognition and a national war memorial actually mean? Definitions are very important because under the National Memorials Ordinance 1928 the central issue is that recognition of a national memorial, or to call something a national memorial, can only occur for a memorial located in the ACT. Of course, that does not mean that there are not a great many very important memorials around the rest of the country. They are very important to people in the little towns and suburbs of this great country. We have to remember that, with regard to this specific memorial, the former government said that it could not be recognised as a national war memorial because the law required all national monuments to be located in the ACT. With $500,000 granted over a couple of periods by the former government, there was no doubt that there was a huge commitment by the former government. But, I repeat again, a national memorial had to be in the ACT. A national memorial would also attract maintenance funding, and I will come to that very soon. The previous government said it was clear that it could not be done. The ordinance was clear on the point that a national memorial had to be in the ACT, and if it was not, no maintenance funding could be allocated.
The Labor MP for Ballarat apparently got legal advice last year. She said that national monuments could be located outside Canberra, and no doubt a lot of people were very pleased with that information. The member for Ballarat had legal advice and the leader of the then opposition said he would move anything necessary to ensure that this was properly recognised as a national war memorial. So two significant people had promised the people of Ballarat, the veterans and the former POWs that their memorial would be recognised as a national war memorial, which, according to the 1928 ordinance, attracts funding for maintenance. That was in June 2007. So, game over, all done, vote for Labor and it would be so. Not quite, it would seem.
Earlier this year the new Minister for Veterans’ Affairs was in Ballarat where he announced that the federal government would introduce legislation allowing memorials outside Canberra to get national recognition. He also announced a $160,000 funding package over four years to help with the memorial’s upkeep. The reality therefore is that the former government was right—it could not be done—and the legal advice of the member for Ballarat was wrong. Fortunately, plenty of money was put up to get her and the new PM out of the mess. There was, of course, plenty of money due to the previous government’s sound economic management, which saw $96 billion of debt from the last government paid off. So Labor did not actually need that 1928 ordinance any more; they did not need that law because that law could not be applied. All they needed was a new law and a grant of $160,000. You basically ticked all the boxes for what the ordinance did in any case. So they created this bill and put up $160,000. And what did the minister say? He said, ‘It was part of our stated policy.’ So now we have history being rewritten—a new law is created, money is put up and it is all done and dusted again.
Fortunately, though, this memorial is a great memorial, as I said before, which the City of Ballarat and the local people are justifiably proud of. Even though this is not a national memorial, it will be recognised by this bill and it has been given a higher profile as a result. Maybe it has even encouraged more people to visit the memorial, and I think that is a great thing. I understand that over 1,000 people a week visit the memorial already. Ballarat is a very pretty city, there is a lot to see there, and this is another great addition to that great city. I do not know the specific words used in Ballarat by the Prime Minister when he was there last year. I do know that the Age newspaper reported that he promised that the memorial would be recognised as a national memorial if Labor won government. If those were the specific terms that he used, he was either misinformed or possibly deceived, or he either misinformed or deceived the people of Ballarat and the veterans’ community about the absolute status. Perhaps it is better to not concentrate on the motive or political manoeuvrings by the then opposition, because the people got what they wanted in the end, even if it is not strictly speaking a national memorial.
However, this has created a precedent for other memorials around the country to also achieve recognition of national significance and payments for maintenance. That brings me to the very fine electorate of Cowan over in Western Australia—
E0J
Keenan, Michael, MP
Mr Keenan
—Hear, hear!
HWE
Simpkins, Luke, MP
Mr SIMPKINS
—Thank you. In my electorate we have two very fine war memorials. Of course, I am speaking about the Ballajura War Memorial and Peace Park and the Wanneroo War Memorial. I would like to spend a few minutes speaking about the Ballajura War Memorial because it was a very special project for the local community. Ballajura itself is arguably the second most popular suburb in Perth. It has four primary schools and a secondary school, which is the Ballajura Community College. On 3 May 2004, a decision was made by local individuals and organisations to undertake the development of the Ballajura War Memorial and Peace Park. The park itself is now located on the grounds of the Ballajura Community College. It was created using grants totalling $155,000 from the former federal government, the Howard government, and a $150,000 grant from the state government, as well as a significant donation by Mr Mark Creasy.
A number of individuals apart from Mr Creasy also need to be acknowledged for their part in the great project. I make mention of my predecessor Graham Edwards; Senator Chris Ellison; John D’Orazio MLA; Mayor Charlie Gregorini; deputy mayor and great local advocate for Ballajura Mr Mel Congerton; Mr Mike Foley, the CEO of the City of Swan; Dr Steffan Silcox, the highly regarded principal of Ballajura Community College; and not least, of course, the representatives of the Ballajura RSL sub-branch—guys like Scotty Alcorn and Roy Daniels—and the WA branch of the RSL. They and their staff worked very hard to see this project through to a great conclusion, with the official dedication of the memorial and park on 3 May 2006, two years after the original concept was created.
1 also mention that $125,000 of the Commonwealth’s contribution was via the Regional Partnerships program. The history of that grant was somewhat rocky, and in my ultimately successful attempt to persuade DOTARS and the Perth ACC that this was a good project I was supported with letters from local principals: Dr Silcox, Rob Stewart of Illawarra Primary School, Peter Smith of South Ballajura Primary School, Josh Jahari of Ballajura PrimarySchool and James Danaher of the Mary McKillop Catholic Community Primary School, along with several religious and other community leaders. They were there when the grant hung precariously in the balance and, together with their letters of support, we got it over the finish line.
The memorial and peace park is a magnificent example of design and decoration, commemorating and serving as a perpetual reminder of the service and sacrifice of Australians who have given their lives in war. Stepped grassed terraces, low limestone walls and rammed earth blocks are all set off by a one-tonne granite sphere turned by a spring of water. This is a magnificent structure, but it is the way the community came together and realised the vision that really underlies the true strength of the memorial, the park and ultimately the Ballajura community. The area has its fair share of problems like most suburbs in Australia but, despite the park not being fenced, it has never been vandalised: there is no graffiti at all. This is in sharp contrast to the remainder of the suburb which, unfortunately, in many ways is pretty typical of suburbs around the country. Given the way the park was created and built and the way it is held in the highest regard and with great respect by all members of the community, this is a very special place. I therefore feel that this is a memorial that could be considered of great significance.
I also speak of the Wanneroo War Memorial, just off Civic Drive in the town centre. Each year on Anzac Day the service draws more than 2,000 local people. The memorial is significant for local people not only on Anzac Day but also as a place for reflection throughout the year. I have previously made mention of the good work undertaken by the custodian of the memorial, Mr Doug Valerian. He raises the flags each day and ensures that the memorial is maintained.
Finally, I mention the Republic of Vietnam-Australia War Memorial in Kings Park in Perth. I recently attended the commemorative service for the anniversary of the fall of Saigon. It was clear to me that that memorial is of great significance to Australians of Vietnamese origin. These are the people that still feel the effects of the fall of Saigon and the demise of the Republic of Vietnam, also known as South Vietnam. With the fall of Saigon, the hopes of these residents of South Vietnam for a positive and democratic future were dashed and their hopes for political and religious freedoms were undone. The memorial therefore represents a focal point for a significant, long-term and persistent feeling for the loss of a democratic dream. The Vietnamese community in Western Australia has added great value to our state following the migrations of the 1970s and 1980s, and I thank the president of the community, Mr Nam Nguyen, for the work that Vietnamese Australians have done and will do in the future for our state. I have now mentioned two war memorials in Cowan and one in the Curtin electorate. It is my view that these memorials in Cowan and Curtin represent important and meaningful commemorative focal points for the community.
Having spoken on the important memorials to the people and communities of Cowan, I close by returning to the bill and the legislation before this House. On 19 March this year, the federal Minister for Veterans’ Affairs made an announcement regarding the matter. The media release said:
The Australian Government will soon be able to deliver on its election commitment to recognise the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat as a memorial of national significance
… … …
Legislation was today introduced into the House of Representatives to enable the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, with the written approval of the Prime Minister, to declare military memorials of national significance outside of the Australian Capital Territory.
When referring to the efforts of the local people in building the memorial, and failing to mention the significant grants provided by the previous government, the minister makes this astounding comment:
… the previous government refused to recognise the Ballarat memorial as a national memorial. We have … done this.
This is not true. This is in fact a charade consistent with the usual smoke and mirrors job that defines this government. The term ‘national memorial’ has a meaning within the 1928 ordinance: it means a memorial in the Australian Capital Territory. I know that it is convenient to attempt to pass this deception off in amongst many other paragraphs of this media release, but it is just not true. Further down the media release he gets back to the real term that this bill provides for the memorial in Ballarat, but even here there is another rewriting of history. He says:
I acknowledge the tireless efforts of Catherine King, the Member for Ballarat, to have the memorial recognised nationally as a memorial of significance.
I say that is wrong again. The Age article of 28 June 2007 states that Kevin Rudd promised to recognise the Ballarat prisoner-of-war memorial as a national memorial. I say again that the member for Ballarat was reported as saying that she had legal advice saying that a national memorial could be located outside Canberra. The key words are ‘national memorial’, which has a different meaning altogether than a ‘military memorial of national significance’. So this bill does not do as the minister says it will. Luckily, he rewrites history again by saying that the member for Ballarat called for the memorial to be a ‘military memorial of national significance’. This is not a matter of semantics; this is a salient and crucial issue regarding the facts. I say again that I have no problem with the magnificent and important memorial in Ballarat, but the government should just say that they were wrong about it being a national memorial. They should say that the previous government was right on this matter and apologise for being so misleading about the issue. The minister should come into the House and be accurate. He should say that they were wrong. He should say that the now Prime Minister was wrong when he said he would:
… move anything … to ensure that this is properly recognised as a national war memorial.
The minister should come in here and say that the member for Ballarat and her legal advisers were wrong. Perhaps they should all come in here and apologise to the member for Dunkley for saying that he was wrong last year. Alternatively, they can just rewrite history, try to play games with words and muddy the waters with legislative terms just to allow the Prime Minister and the member for Ballarat to save face. That is in fact what has taken place.
However, there is just one problem that this bill does not cover, and that is the maintenance issue. The problem is that national memorials, as defined under the National Memorials Ordinance 1928, are maintained by the Commonwealth. To cover that little gap in the whole cover-up job, what did the government do? It allocated $160,000 for maintenance—and thus, to them, the job was complete. What is this all about? Is this bill about looking after an important memorial, which the Ballarat war memorial certainly is? It is a national memorial of significance and it is very important to a lot of people in this country. There is no doubt about that. This bill is about covering up the reckless and uneducated talk by the now Prime Minister and the member for Ballarat. Instead of saying that it was not possible to make the memorial a national memorial, they just took the political advantage and said yes to that. Some may say that the then Leader of the Opposition did not know that national memorial can only be located in the ACT. But I do not think that is right because it is my understanding that the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives is in fact a member of the Canberra National Memorials Committee.
This is really all about a government that will create new laws and allocate funding every time they cannot make their political plans fit within the existing laws. The next big examples of this sort of practice are probably the super slush funds and the 50 per cent increase in the issue of government bonds, which will generate another $25 billion. These are more funds that can be allocated by the committee set up by this government—and maybe they will not even create a new law next time. I finish on this note: the memorial in Ballarat is very important. It is impressive and no-one will speak against it. But the points I have made today are about the lengths to which this government will go to cover up their mistakes. With the precedent of these sorts of laws, our country has a scary future.
5417
23:47:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—I found the contribution of the member for Cowan quite interesting. He argued against the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008 but then he very quickly put up his hand for three more memorials to be made memorials of national significance—two in his electorate and one in the electorate of Curtin. His contribution demonstrates to me the differences between a national memorial such as the one in Ballarat and the two local memorials within his electorate. These memorials have a lot of community support and they sound like fantastic memorials, but they are local memorials, as opposed to the national memorial that will be established at Ballarat under this legislation.
This bill gives effect to a commitment given by the Rudd Labor government prior to the 2007 election to recognise the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat in Victoria—and I emphasise ‘Australian’—as a memorial of national significance. In the future, this bill will also enable other significant memorials that meet specific criteria to be recognised as military memorials of national significance. I say to the member for Cowan that these memorials must be of national significance. A little later in my speech to the House, I will be putting up for consideration a memorial that I think is of national significance. I congratulate the member for Ballarat, Catherine King, who has worked tirelessly to see this legislation brought to the parliament. In her contribution to the parliament before she went on maternity leave, she pointed out that this memorial should be recognised as a national memorial, not because of the people in her electorate, not because of the enormous community support, but because it pays tribute to Australian ex-prisoners of war. It is not just for Australian ex-prisoners of war from her community but for all Australian ex-prisoners of war. Their names are recorded on this memorial, and that makes it very special.
I am disappointed that the previous government did not take the steps that the Rudd Labor government have taken today in introducing this or similar legislation. They had the opportunity, but not the will, to do so. I find that disappointing. Australian ex-prisoners of war made an enormous contribution to Australia’s war efforts. Once they returned to Australia, many of them were never the same again. The contributions that I have heard in this House today reinforce that point. This bill has very narrow criteria under which memorials can be recognised. I suggest once again that the member for Cowan have a look at those criteria, because he would then understand that a memorial of national significance really must have a national focus. Once again, I congratulate the member for Ballarat. She knows how important this is to Australian veterans, to our veteran community, to our community and for our recorded history.
The Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008 will provide a mechanism to honour our election commitment. It will provide a head of power to enable existing memorials to be granted the status of military memorials of national significance. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs may, subject to the agreement of the Prime Minister, declare a memorial to be a military memorial of national significance by publishing a notice in the gazette.
Memorials must meet a number of very strict criteria, and I suggest that the member for Cowan have a look at those. The memorial must be of an appropriate scale, design and standard in keeping with its nationally significant status. The memorial must be appropriately dignified and symbolic in keeping with its purpose and standing as a war memorial. I know that members of this House have a number of war memorials within their electorates. At this point I would like to pay tribute to all the RSLs and all those people in my community who have worked hard to have their memorials built and upgraded. I know the dedication that they have to preserving those memorials and keeping them in outstanding condition.
Further criteria include that the memorial’s sole purpose must be the commemoration of Australia’s military involvement in significant aspects of Australia’s wartime history. The memorial must have a major role in community commemoration. The memorial must observe Commonwealth flag protocols. The memorial must be owned or managed by a state or Northern Territory authority. That state or Northern Territory authority must be responsible, including financially—and this goes to the point raised by the member for Cowan—for the ongoing maintenance of the memorial and its refurbishments. The memorial must comply with all applicable planning, construction and related requirements. The memorial must be located on public land within a state or territory. The memorial must be publicly accessible and entry must be free. The memorial must be a complete and functioning memorial. The memorial must not be linked to a commercial function that conflicts with the commemorative purpose and spirit of the memorial. The Ballarat memorial meets all those criteria, and I would like to put to the House another memorial that I think would meet those criteria.
Quite often we tend to forget the contribution that merchant mariners made to Australia’s war effort. Under the Hawke government recognition was given to merchant mariners and the contribution they made. The House may not be aware that many ships were sunk off the coast of Australia and that many merchant mariners lost their lives during the Second World War in particular. Australia is now learning about the vital role performed by merchant mariners.
The sinking of the MV Nimbin eight miles off Norah Head on 5 December 1940 was the first sinking of a ship off the coast of Australia. It was not the first Australian ship to sink; I will tell the House a bit about that later. The Nimbin and the Iron Chieftain were two of the 54 merchant ships attacked in Australian waters during World War II, of which 38 were sunk. I think some 26 ships were sunk off the eastern coast of New South Wales. About 14,000 Australian merchant mariners served during the Second World War. Every year on the first Saturday in December at Norah Head there is a memorial service at a memorial on the cliffs overlooking the ocean where those merchant mariners who lost their lives are remembered.
The Nimbin was attacked by the German raider the Pinguin. Seven mariners, including the master, William Bysantson, loss their lives and 13 other crewmen were dragged from the sea. The Nimbin became the first Australian ship to be sunk by German action off the east coast. That is a significant part of our military history and it is something of national significance, recognising the contribution that merchant mariners made to our war effort.
Almost 18 months later, some 35 miles south-east of Norah Head, at about 9 pm on 3 June, the Japanese submarine I-24 opened fire on Howard Smith’s steamer the Age. The Age escaped to the safety of the port of Newcastle. Ninety minutes later the I-24 torpedoed BHP’s Iron Chieftain. Thirteen mariners, including the master, Captain L Haddelsey, went down with the ship. Twelve survivors in two rafts were rescued and the remaining 25 survivors came ashore in a lifeboat.
This is very significant to our Australian military history and fits within the guidelines, and it does not require enormous contributions from government to recognise this as a national memorial. Just as the Ballarat memorial—which has been recognised in this legislation today due to the fine work of the member for Ballarat, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Prime Minister—has now been given the national status it deserves because of our ability to realise that you can have national memorials that are not situated within Canberra, just as that has been facilitated by this legislation, I would put to the House that the Merchant Mariners Memorial at Norah Head is a memorial that should be considered in the future. I have great pleasure in supporting this legislation, as I know do all members on this side of the House.
5419
12:01:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
0
Mr CIOBO
—I am pleased to speak to the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008, and I do so having the great fortune of being the representative for the seat of Moncrieff based on the Gold Coast, a city that has one of the highest concentrations of veteran communities in Australia. This bill is important because it effectively seeks to establish a new classification of Australian military memorial—that is, the Military Memorial of National Significance. As is already on the record, the coalition support this bill, subject to the amendment moved by the member for Mackellar, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs.
The components of the amendment that we seek to have incorporated into the bill deal with some of our concerns about the government’s attempts to play party politics with the veterans’ community, and the fact that in the budget papers the Rudd Labor government have said they have declared the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat a national memorial when they have not done so. The fact is that there has been a misleading, in our view, of the veterans’ community by the Rudd Labor government, who claim to have met an election commitment to declare the Ballarat memorial a national memorial when in fact they have failed to do so. Effectively, this bill allows for special recognition of military memorials outside of Canberra, subject to the approval of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Prime Minister. The bill does not, however, allow for the Ballarat prisoner of war memorial to be established as a national memorial, as was promised by the Prime Minister in June 2007. So, in that respect, we believe this bill to be deficient.
But, speaking from a local perspective, speaking as a representative of one of the largest veteran communities in Australia, I am pleased that we are now paving the way for national recognition of national memorials outside the Canberra area. I have worked with a number of local community groups on key memorials that have been developed on the Gold Coast. In particular, I would mention the development of the Kokoda memorial. We know that the 39th Battalion played a fundamental and crucial role in the defence of our nation with respect to an offensive by the Japanese in Papua New Guinea. The Kokoda Track, as it is now known—some refer to it as the Kokoda Trail, but I have always preferred the Australian vernacular, the ‘Kokoda Track’—really became, in many respects, a renewal of the Anzac spirit. The 39th Battalion, fighting against the Japanese in Papua New Guinea along the Kokoda Track, faced some of the most hostile conditions imaginable.
I was certainly very pleased to work with George Friend OAM, especially. He, together with his local Rotary Club and others on the Gold Coast, worked for many years to develop this new memorial. I am not suggesting that this memorial should become a national memorial. Perhaps it will; perhaps it will not—we will see with the passage of time. But what is important is that Australia takes the time, as it does in many respects, to truly honour those in the veterans’ community and those who have passed away, and this bill goes to doing exactly that. The Kokoda memorial that is being developed currently on the Gold Coast has been, in many respects, a very effective way of recognising and honouring those men from the 39th Battalion. Bill Bellairs, a local Gold Coaster whom I have met with on many occasions specifically with respect to the Kokoda memorial, and one of the men who served with the 39th Battalion, was especially pleased to see the Kokoda memorial developed. It has really been a partnership between the Gold Coast City Council, the Queensland state government, the former Howard government and the local community. By bringing together all these groups, driven as it was by George Friend and as it continues to be driven by George Friend, the local community is truly creating something you can be proud of: a memorial for the local community to visit and to reflect on and consider the tremendous personal sacrifice that was made by the 39th Battalion in defending our nation of Australia.
Those gentlemen who are honoured by this memorial truly have made a remarkable difference and they deserve to be adequately recognised by this Kokoda memorial. But across the board there are many other examples in my electorate of significant military memorials, and these memorials do not glorify war. These memorials do not in any way condone some of the excesses that take place during wartimes. What they do is to provide an opportunity for the local community to come together and reflect on the contribution that has been made by veterans. They should be honoured.
I note as well that, in many respects, this bill also addresses the significant sacrifices that were made by those Australian troops who were engaged by the enemy and ultimately became prisoners of war. Between the Boer War, which for Australian troops commenced in November 1899, and the Korean War, where a ceasefire took place in July 1953, there were some 34,737 Australians who were captured by the enemy as prisoners of war. The previous coalition government gave special recognition to prisoners of war, with some 2,200 veterans who were held as POWs in Europe receiving a $10,000 ex gratia payment in last year’s budget at a cost to taxpayers of some $57.2 million. It was a contribution that the coalition felt very strongly about; a contribution that the coalition thought was appropriate for those who were held as prisoners of war, often in the most degrading and extraordinary circumstances—circumstances that many Australians would simply fail to comprehend.
Previously the coalition government also funded ex gratia payments for POWs of the Japanese and Korean theatres of war. In its first seven months the Rudd Labor government has failed to continue this same standard of recognition, falsely claiming to deliver the Ballarat POW memorial as a national memorial when it is not. I take this opportunity to reassert to the Rudd government that now is the time to stand true to that pre-election commitment and to acknowledge that this memorial should in fact be a national memorial. If there is one group of Australians who especially deserve and require due recognition, it is our POWs. The fact that some 35,000 Australians were captured and held by enemy forces throughout the various theatres of war in Australia’s history truly is worthy of recognition. Those who endured through those especially difficult times certainly require due recognition from the community, and this memorial is one way that we can go about doing that.
I would especially like to mention the Gold Coast and District Ex-Prisoner of War Association. I have enjoyed the strong relationship I have had with Allan Mahoney and others, especially Norm Anderton and Rhonda Apps, who are involved with the Gold Coast and District Ex-Prisoner of War Association and all of whom have played a key role in servicing the needs of that community on the Gold Coast. I find it particularly interesting that their motto is, ‘We honour our dead by caring for our living.’ This in many respects really goes to the core of this recognition of the contribution and sacrifice made by this community.
I convene on a semi-regular basis a veterans kitchen cabinet in my electorate office. It is a chance for veterans and ESOs to come together and sit around the table with me to discuss those issues important to the veteran community. This is not always confined to memorials. It is not always confined to the deliverance of payments, the Gold Card or other such issues. But what is clear—and I notice this especially on the Gold Coast—is that if there is one key yearning that comes from the veteran community I could sum it up in the simple word ‘recognition’. They yearn for recognition of the contribution they made, for recognition of the sacrifice they made and for recognition of what they did when their nation called upon them. There is a very genuine need to recognise these very brave Australians for what they did, not only by the men who served but also by the women who supported them and the family structures around them, as well in more recent times those of them who actually served. In that respect, I certainly subscribe to the motto of the Gold Coast and District Ex-Prisoner of War Association when they say, ‘We honour our dead by caring for our living.’
This bill before the House goes some way to doing that. I guess it is more of a commemorative recognition but nonetheless it is still a crucial part. Other members of the Gold Coast and District Ex-Prisoner of War Association such as Merv Cox, Marial Day, Norm Hutley and Noel Jensen are all active in the local community, and I look forward to when, in just a matter of a month or so, we will be holding another veterans kitchen cabinet in my office with Bronwyn Bishop, the shadow minister, coming up to talk about these and other such matters. I certainly look forward to this bill’s passage, I look forward—I hope—to the amendment being accepted by the government and I look forward in due course to seeing those worthy memorials being duly recognised as being national memorials of significance that are accessible to the community and that extend beyond the city of Canberra.
We can recognise veterans in other ways. Under the former coalition government I was pleased to see—and I trust this will continue under the new government—continuing ongoing recognition of our veterans through other avenues. On 5 March I was pleased to attend the sod turning of the new veterans centre at Nerang with Mal Wheat, who is state president of the Vietnam Veterans Federation. This initiative, due for completion in early 2009, was partly funded by the previous coalition government to an amount of around $52,000. But it was supported by the veteran community, showing that the pride of our veterans is a source of national inspiration. We must recognise that in a number of respects there have been veterans who have not been well served upon their return.
One of the key and most fundamental aspects that I look forward to recognising as part of the VVF’s work through the veterans centre at Nerang is that there will be veterans support for the veteran community. Those who served in a theatre of conflict, those who served in a time of war and those who fought in some of the most fierce battles in Vietnam find that when they return they have difficulty coping. In that respect, a hand that reaches out from the local veteran community in a non-threatening environment such as a veterans centre can often in some respects be the difference between veterans getting their lives back on track or, unfortunately from time to time, letting go because they cannot cope with the various pressures that they face. In that respect, both the government and the opposition need to be mindful of the fact that right at this moment we have our Defence Force serving in a variety of theatres around the world. Whether it is troops in Afghanistan or Iraq or, on a regional level, those involved in the RAMSI mission, we know that these men and women will be looking for support when they return. They will be looking for recognition as well, and to some extent this bill goes to that. But they will also be looking for support, and veterans centres, for example, are such a key part of that recognition.
I certainly support this bill. I hope that the amendment is accepted by the government. I look forward to ensuring that memorials such as the Kokoda memorial on the Gold Coast and others associated with the Nerang RSL, Surfers Paradise RSL and the Southport RSL can play their role as a rallying point for the community to collective join and honour the contribution and sacrifice made by those brave Australians who answered the call when their nation called upon them to help serve our interests abroad.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Before calling the honourable member for Makin, I remind all honourable members that they ought to, under the standing orders, refer to other honourable members only by the name of their electorates.
5422
12:15:00
Zappia, Tony, MP
HWB
Makin
ALP
1
0
Mr ZAPPIA
—I too rise to speak in support of the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008. At the outset I congratulate the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs on introducing this bill, particularly because this bill establishes the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat as a memorial of national significance. I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of the member for Ballarat, Cathy King.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—I remind the honourable member of what I just said; namely, that honourable members ought to be referred to only by the name of their electorate.
HWB
Zappia, Tony, MP
Mr ZAPPIA
—I acknowledge the work of the member for Ballarat in her tireless campaign for having the Ballarat memorial recognised in this way. In doing so, she has supported not only her local community but the veterans from all over Australia, including those that are currently serving in the defence forces.
Other speakers have spoken at length about the importance of military memorials right across Australia, and rightly so. It is interesting to hear speakers from both sides of this House acknowledge the significance that they have within their local communities. In communities all around Australia—be it in your own community or wherever you might travel—it is most likely that you will find a war memorial of one kind or another. When I am travelling through a town that is new to me and have the time, I will stop and have a look at the memorials and read the names that are inevitably inscribed on a plaque or on the memorial somewhere. Not only does this give me some insight into the service the people from that locality gave for this country but it tells me a lot about the local community itself. That memorial represents something to the family members, the friends and the locals. While sometimes it is only a relatively small memorial when you compare it with others, the reality is that for the local community that memorial is most significant. It is cared for and treated with the utmost reverence and respect which it deserves, because it is a permanent reminder of the ultimate commitment made for Australia by the men and women for whom that memorial was erected.
Over the years I have had occasion to work alongside and be associated with a number of veteran organisations in my local community. I refer specifically to the Tea Tree Gully and the Salisbury RSL branches, the Para district servicemen’s association and in particular the Para district sub-branch of the National Servicemen’s Association, the northern branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association, the Peter Badcoe Ex-military Rehabilitation Centre and the historical military vehicles museum group. All of these associations have over the years established one form of memorial or another in honour of the people they represent. In most cases I have been able to provide some assistance to them in doing that. Therefore, I understand the importance of these memorials to the local organisations. When you work with an organisation to have a memorial established you not only go through that painstaking process to get it established but understand the passion behind the efforts of those who ultimately are responsible for it being established.
Today I want to speak briefly about two of the organisations that I have had a longstanding relationship with and which I was able to assist along the way in the establishment of their memorials. I refer to the Para District National Servicemen’s Association of South Australia. Earlier the member for Braddon spoke at length about the National Servicemen’s Association and the need for a memorial to be established for them here in Canberra or someplace in Australia—I understand that it will be here in Canberra. I am also aware that our own local community made a contribution towards the establishment of that memorial.
The Para District National Servicemen’s Association was established some 10 years ago in the northern parts of Adelaide. On 13 September this year I hope to attend their 10th anniversary charter dinner, as I have attended their annual dinners almost every year since the establishment of the organisation. Several years ago they contacted me when I was the Mayor of Salisbury seeking my assistance in having a local memorial established to honour the national service men and women veterans in the northern suburbs of Adelaide. I was able to assist them and a memorial was established in Pitman Park in Salisbury. Each year a memorial service is held at that location. It is usually held in the first week of February. Again, I have been able to attend all of the services held there since the memorial was established. When you attend that service—and I have to say that it could be classed as a relatively low-key service—you understand the important meaning that the memorial has for the veterans associated with that memorial. I am not only pleased that I have been associated with these people; I am pleased that we have been able to establish a memorial for them, because many of them felt somewhat left out of other recognitions that have been provided to veterans in this country.
The second example I want to speak about is the Vietnam veterans memorial established in Montague Farm, which is a residential estate in the suburb of Pooraka. Montague Farm was a joint project between the state government and private enterprise and was established in the late eighties and early nineties. At the time of its establishment, Fred Pritchard, who was working for the state government, was the project manager. Fred Pritchard was also a Vietnam veteran. He came up with the idea of having all of the streets in the new estate named after Vietnam soldiers who were from or were based in South Australia and who went to Vietnam and lost their lives. With my assistance and that of the council, that idea was embraced, and all of the streets in that community are now named after those Vietnam veterans. More specifically, each street sign has a notation about the soldier it is named after. That gives visitors to the community some understanding of who the person was and why the street was named after them.
In addition to that there is in a reserve within the residential estate known as Henderson Square a specific memorial. A plaque on a stone has the names of all of the South Australians who served and were killed in Vietnam. In addition, last year there was a sculpture done to commemorate the Vietnam veterans of South Australia. The sculpture is referred to as the ‘Seeds of Attainment’. There are some seeds and there is a plant germinating from the seeds. It symbolises rising from the ground after fire. That very much goes hand in hand with the participation of our Vietnam vets in Vietnam. Each year we commemorate the Battle of Long Tan, where 18 Australians were killed and 21 were wounded. It is one of the most notable battles of the Vietnam War. An annual memorial service is held on this site. It is attended by people from all over South Australia and Australia because the memorial specifically remembers and honours those soldiers who served in Vietnam. Last year’s service was attended by a former member of this place, Mr Graham Edwards. It was also attended by Keith Payne, a Victoria Cross winner and I believe the most highly decorated Vietnam veteran in this country. Keith Payne originates from Queensland, but he attended the service last year at that memorial site. Further to that, the garden of a community facility in close proximity is also dedicated to the memory of the Vietnam veterans from South Australia.
I use those examples simply to highlight how each memorial is of the utmost significance to the families and the communities associated with those the memorial commemorates. This bill enables people from all around Australia to apply to have memorials classified as memorials of national significance. Like the previous speaker, I do not suggest that they all will or should be classified. It will depend on whether the local communities wish to submit an application and there are clear guidelines, but there will be an opportunity to have those memorials nationally recognised. That is so important. This bill effectively elevates the significance of memorials throughout our communities—and rightly so.
Through my association with the organisations I mentioned earlier, I have come to know, respect and value the service men and women of this country. I have spoken with them at length about their service to this country. I have also seen the impact that that service has had on them and, at times, their families. I understand how important it is for them to be recognised through the establishment of a memorial—a permanent reminder for future generations of the people who have served this country. That is extremely important. It is not a big ask, but it is a measure that communities can take. I believe it goes a long way to saying to those people, ‘We very much value, we very much appreciate and we thank you for the service you gave to this country.’ Through the memorials we are able to do that. This bill provides an opportunity for communities right around Australia to do that. Many communities have memorials that are very significant for one reason or another, and they can have those memorials nationally recognised. As a society, I believe the memorials enable us to collectively express our gratitude to, our acknowledgment of and our support for the men and women who served and serve our country. The bill makes it clear that there are guidelines to assess any application for the classification of a memorial as a memorial of national significance. It ensures that the Ballarat memorial—which was perhaps the one that precipitated this bill—can be recognised as a memorial of national significance. More importantly, the bill tells the Australian community at large that we value the efforts and the commitments of the men and women who have served this country in the past, who serve it today and who will serve it in the future.
5425
12:30:00
Snowdon, Warren, MP
IJ4
Lingiari
ALP
Minister for Defence Science and Personnel
1
0
Mr SNOWDON
—I thank the member for Makin for his contribution to the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008. It has been great to see the number of people who have spoken in this debate because of its importance. Of course, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill as it acknowledges the significance of the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat. The member for Makin, I think, gave us ample reason why we should be supporting the legislation, but it does more than that of course: it creates an opportunity to give recognition to other significant memorials throughout the country and, as members would know, the bill delivers on another government election promise.
During a visit to Ballarat on 27 June last year, the Prime Minister committed to the recognition of the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial as a national war memorial. This memorial was dedicated, as we know, in February 2004 and it recognises the bravery and sacrifice of more than 35,000 Australian prisoners of war held during the Boer War, World War I, World War II and the Korean War. Despite repeated requests, the previous government refused to recognise the Ballarat memorial as a national memorial. The current Prime Minister promised that, if Labor were elected, we would remedy this and ensure that the Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat would be declared a national memorial. This commitment was reaffirmed on the fourth anniversary of the memorial on 3 February this year by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, who set a date of midyear to achieve this outcome. So it is with this bill that we are seeking to achieve this goal and thereby fulfil the election commitment made by the Prime Minister in 2007. The bill also provides a stable, consistent and transparent vehicle for the future declaration of other deserving memorials which meet the criteria set out. Under this bill, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs will be able to deal with this and other memorials in a different way.
Australia has a very rich tradition of memorialising those who have served in wars. I think it is fair to say that Australians probably have more memorials to those who have fallen in serving their country per head of population than perhaps any other country. As Professor Ken Inglis acknowledges in his book Sacred Places, war memorials have long been a feature of the civilised world. Professor Inglis cites all the monuments and triumphal arches of Europe in particular which litter the landscape and which remain as historic reminders of past victories and triumphs. They are in fact monuments to power and glory, in many cases vested in an individual but with mighty nationalistic overtones. Importantly, this is not what war memorials represent here in Australia. War memorials here in Australia are about loss—loss of life, life wasted, lives to be remembered. While it is true they may be dedicated by a politician with some small moment of glory, they nevertheless reflect a common respect for those who died in battle. Whether it was the Boer War, World War I, the Second World War, the Korean War, Vietnam or any of the peacekeeping operations, these memorials all perform the same purpose. As well as recognising loss, bravery and commitment to the defence of our nation or our national interest, they symbolise a collective bond between the people who served.
So memorials in Australia are not about the glory of war and victory. They are about people. They are also about community. There are very few towns in this country which do not have war memorials with the names of the local community members whose lives have been lost in one or other of the many wars that we have fought in over the period since Federation. Mr Deputy Speaker, when you look at the list of names on these war memorials, most evidently when you look at the First World War memorials, you know that in a community where people joined up together they lost their lives together. Families can be seen to have had two or three sons—perhaps even more on some occasions—or cousins who died as a result of conflict and who are commemorated in the memorials in their local community. It is a sign of the need for the community to understand and recognise the sacrifice while at the same time giving those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice the honour that they properly deserve.
If you look at Anzac Parade here in Canberra, you will see that the memorials are about people. Here there are memorials to campaigns, but there are also memorials to the people—to the Air Force, for example, or to the nurses. The difficulty, however, is that throughout our history there has been a mix of local commemoration and national commemoration, which features as a major tension in this piece of legislation. As I said earlier, around Australia every community of any size after the First World War in 1918 erected a monument at a prime site which became the focal point on Anzac Day and remains so.
In addition, local shrines were erected in larger cities by the local community and remain jealously guarded by those communities—as they should be. They paid for their erection and they continue to pay for their maintenance. That responsibility is reinforced in this bill. It should be understood, however, that this is not some kind of power struggle. It is simply a fact that many local communities continue to jealously defend their local commemorative contribution. And we realise that an increasing number of local communities, especially in rural areas, have shrinking populations and find it extremely difficult to, or can no longer, honour that commitment which they once made.
Sadly, the demise of RSL communities in many areas has seen that support eroded. Nevertheless, commemoration remains a community based phenomenon—and governments have been keen in recent years to assist that for the benefit of their own profiles—and a respected and necessary tradition. The ex-POW memorial in Ballarat is an excellent case in point. There can be no doubt about the origins of this project. It came from the ex-POWs themselves. They properly consider themselves a national homogenous group of people, all of whom suffered at the hands of their captors. Sadly, there are none left from World War I, although there are some remaining from World War II and a small number from Korea. They decided to commemorate their joint identity with this memorial, reflecting in part the community spirit of the city of Ballarat, which we all know has prided itself for almost 100 years on its Memorial Drive leading into the city in honour of all the local lives lost.
Such avenues exist elsewhere as well. Kings Park in Perth is an outstanding example. Indeed, when I am in Perth I make a point of visiting the memorials in Kings Park, in particular the memorials to the 2nd/2nd Commandos from the Second World War whose lives were lost in Timor and New Guinea. I do that because it was the unit in which my father fought. In the context of the ex-POW memorial, it was a very ambitious project. The design, though magnificent, was expensive and, even though the local council recognised the attractive power it offered the local economy, they found it financially difficult to support. Thereafter, we witnessed an unseemly political bidding war, in election terms, about how to provide Commonwealth funding, not just in one-off grants but in perpetuity. Hence we have this bill which seeks to settle the issue that the Commonwealth has responsibility for funding memorials which are community based. Let me make it very clear that the community effort in building memorials is a valuable contribution and, quite frankly, it would be most improper if government sought to usurp this motivation. We must also remember that, in days past, military units were locally based and, as I pointed out earlier, local boys joined up together, fought together and died together.
The battle of Fromelles, which I have acquainted the House with over the last couple of weeks, is a good example. The Friends of the 15th Brigade are Victorian based. The four battalions in that brigade were recruited from Melbourne and rural Victoria. They were almost completely wiped out on the night of 19 October 1916 on the Sugar Loaf Salient. Every year, on that date, a service is held at the shrine, with the local French community, to remember the awful loss, with a bugler playing the last post at each of the four plaques under those beautiful oak trees. As I mentioned yesterday, on 19 July this year there will be an unveiling of a replica of the ‘Cobbers’ statue in the gardens nearby. The point here is that this statue was funded by public subscription, so it becomes the responsibility of the shrine. It represents local loss and grief, but clearly with national ramifications. Frankly, I think it is of enormous benefit and a wonderful thing that this tradition continues at the grassroots level—and it should remain so for any other local group and indeed unit associations.
Of course there is separation between a financial contribution and ongoing responsibility but, in short, I think we have the balance right—though from time to time there will be a unique set of circumstances in which we will need to be flexible. I know we would all want to commend the motivation of the ex-POW associations, just as we would commend the Friends of the 15th Brigade. This is about Australians remembering their own. It is not about fanfare and the cutting of ribbons in a one-off photo opportunity. There is an ongoing Commonwealth responsibility, and that is clear. Anzac Parade in Canberra is a key example and so are the monuments overseas—on the Western Front, in North Africa, in London and wherever we were involved as a nation and our heroes are buried. I know that my colleague opposite has an interest in this subject.
I want to speak about two memorials which I have been fortunate enough to attend since becoming Minister for Defence Science and Personnel—the commemorations for Sydney in April of this year, and the Dare Memorial in Timor-Leste, which is perhaps outside the scope of the legislation but still relevant as a military memorial of national significance. I will turn first to the Sydney.
As we all know, the wreck of the Sydney was found on the 16 March 2008, a few days after the Kormoran on 12 March 2008. The discovery of the Sydney’s final resting place means an enormous amount to not just the families of those 645 men who lost their lives but also the Australians for whom their lives were given. This loss of life, like all those lives lost in war, was a tragedy. Every one of the lost men of the Sydney left behind family—children they never saw grow up, mothers who outlived their sons. Two services were held to mark this tragic loss of life, services which were befitting its importance to Australia.
On 16 April 2008, a small service was held at sea on board HMAS Anzac. This included the laying of wreaths and a 4.5 inch brass shell, inscribed with the names of all 645 men lost, over the wreck site. Then, on the eve of Anzac Day on 24 April, an open service was held at St Andrew’s Cathedral in Sydney. It was a solemn and moving affair. St Andrew’s Cathedral was where the commemorative service was held during the Second World War after it became known that the Sydney had been lost. More than 770 relatives of the HMAS Sydney II—from all over Australia—attended the service. For them, it was a chance to say goodbye. The church was at full capacity and more people were able to watch the service via a large screen in Sydney Square. A further service is planned for later in the year, in November, to ensure that these brave Australians are properly remembered. This will involve both another commemoration at sea and a land commemoration.
The loss of life on the Sydney is commemorated in the Sydney memorial in Geraldton. It is beautiful and poignant, situated on Mount Scott, overlooking the town. It is a fantastic memorial. It was designed by Joan Walsh-Smith and Charles Smith. The Smiths have designed a number of other Australian memorials, including the Australian Army memorial on Anzac Parade leading to the Australian War Memorial. When it was officially opened in 2001, more than 3,000 people attended, including German survivors from the Kormoran.
The memorial consists of an impressive silver dome—the Dome of Souls—in the form of 645 seagulls in flight, to represent each of the lost Sydney sailors. An anchor is suspended from the middle of the dome and the structure rests on white pillars. To the north of the dome, a bronze statue of a woman gazes desperately out to sea as she awaits news of the ill-fated Sydney. Nearby is the stele—a single, dramatic shape representing the bow of the ship. The combination of these elements results in an extremely moving and fitting memorial. This bill provides the perfect avenue to recognise the Sydney memorial as it should be recognised. Geraldton is perfect as a site for a memorial of national significance.
On Anzac Day, I was fortunate enough to be in Dare, 10 kilometres south of Dili. The Dare war memorial was built by members of the 2nd/2nd Independent Company, later to become the 2nd/2nd Commandos in 1969. During World War II, members of this company, plus remnants of the Tasmanian 2nd/40th Battalion and reinforced later by the 2nd/4th Independent Company, later Commandos, served as a guerrilla force against advancing Japanese forces across Timor. Their success was only made possible by the support they received from the local Timorese—the ‘criados’. The Anzac Day service was an extremely moving affair. In attendance were a member of the 2nd/2nd Battalion and a mate of my father’s, Paddy Keneally, and the last Timorese World War II veteran Rufino Alvez, who planted a figtree to act as a living memorial.
I want to affirm how important these memorials are and the privilege I have had, in my current role in this government, in observing the diligence with which members of the Defence Force and indeed the wider community have undertaken the role of reinforcing our obligations to the fallen—it is not to be underestimated. I am really appreciative of it. I commend the bill to the House.
5429
12:50:00
Bidgood, James, MP
HVM
Dawson
ALP
1
0
Mr BIDGOOD
—I stand in support of the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008. I note that it provides a stable, consistent and transparent vehicle for the future declaration of other deserving memorials, as well as the memorial in Ballarat in Victoria. As a reminder of what is important about a memorial, the following criteria are required for it to be declared a military memorial of national significance. Firstly, the memorial must be of an appropriate scale, design and standard, in keeping with the nationally significant status. The memorial must be appropriately dignified and symbolic, in keeping with its purposes and standing as a memorial. The memorial’s sole purpose must be the commemoration of Australia’s military involvement in a significant aspect of Australia’s wartime history. The memorial must have a major role in community commemorations. The memorial must observe Commonwealth flag protocols. The memorial must be owned or managed by a state or Northern Territory authority. The state or Northern Territory authority must be responsible, including financially, for the ongoing maintenance of the memorial and for any refurbishments. The memorial must comply with all applicable planning, construction and related requirements. The memorial must be located on public land within a state or the Northern Territory. The memorial must be publicly accessible and entry must be free. The memorial must be a completed and functioning memorial. And the memorial must not be linked to a commercial function that conflicts with the commemorative purpose and spirit of the memorial.
It has been a wonderful experience being the federal member of parliament for Dawson. When I was going around the electorate on Anzac Day it was good to see children remembering the history of the nation and the sacrifice of lives in standing up for what this nation believes in—its freedoms, rights and liberties, which have often been fought for overseas. It is good for our children to remember that history and that they seek to learn from past experiences so that we progress and, hopefully, do things better in the future.
I bring to the attention of the House something that is happening in my electorate of Dawson. Mackay North State High School is having a 2008 Anzac Gallipoli tour. I went to the opening of a memorial, along with the Mackay regional mayor, Mr Col Meng, and the state member for Mackay, Mr Tim Mulherin. It is wonderful to see schoolchildren actively engage in creating and constructing memorials where they can remember our military history. I give credit to the teachers who helped to organise this—Mr Mike Goodwin, Bob Shaw, Principal Linda Boyle, Cheryl Johns, Tracey Cameron and Sherry Savage—and the 30 students making the tour to visit Australian military memorials at Gallipoli, the Western Front, Thailand and Singapore this year. They will also be visiting parliament in a couple of weeks time, and I look forward to receiving them and showing them around this place. At this wonderful memorial that has been built they have created a special eating area where the children and the students can go and eat their lunch or have a smoko. Some railway track has been built to remember the Thai railway and there is also some bamboo. Some artefacts have also been put there. At the very moving opening ceremony, a descendant was introduced to us—he was one of the prisoners of war—and we were able to say, ‘We remember and we won’t forget.’ That was very important. Mackay North State High School has done a great thing. The teachers and the principal there deserve recognition and credit for their initiative. I am pleased to say that on Sunday, 29 June the Prime Minister and the federal cabinet will be at that school. It will give me great pleasure to show them this place where the students remember Australian military history and the sacrifices that were made in defending our beliefs, rights and freedoms and the causes that have been fought for by Australians.
I also bring attention to other war memorials in the seat of Dawson. One that is of particular interest and perhaps slightly unique is the Mackay City Council Memorial Swimming Pool in the heart of Mackay. It was built after the Second World War and there is a beautiful mosaic of all the servicepeople returning from the Second World War. The citizens of Mackay rallied around with passion and feeling and raised the money to build this memorial. It stands there today and it truly is a war memorial. Every time someone goes in for a swim you have to pass this mosaic that is most beautiful.
Another memorial we have in Mackay is in Queens Park. It is a more recent memorial and it is dedicated to the Rats of Tobruk. Again, ceremonies take place there when we remember the sacrifices that were made. Another more recently constructed war memorial is one dedicated to the Vietnam veterans, which is in the Mackay City Council precinct known as Jubilee Park. That is where we meet on Anzac Day at 5 am. That is where we remember those who have fallen in defence of the beliefs of this country. It was an honour to be at that 5 am service and to be there with the old diggers and, obviously, to go to the local RSL afterwards and have a bit of brekkie and to mix with people there and to ask them how they got their medals and to hear some of their stories and to hear about the comradeship. We as members of parliament should never, ever underestimate how much the old diggers appreciate our showing recognition of and appreciation for what they have done for this country. We should never forget that. That morning I went from Mackay up to the Whitsundays. Over 500 people gathered on beautiful Airlie Beach and we remembered those who had fallen. After speaking there, some Vietnam veterans came up to me and said, ‘Thank you for coming, thank you for taking the time, thank you for remembering us but, most of all, thank you for being proud of what we did for this country.’ It is important that we show recognition and appreciation.
I went from Proserpine up to Bowen in the afternoon and I spoke at the RSL dinner. There were over 100 people there. I said very clearly to everyone gathered—and I feel very strongly about this—that we must remember the fallen and we must look after those who remain but, most of all, we should pray for all those in active service now. Whether they be in a conflict zone, in support roles or on peacekeeping missions, they are serving this country. We are proud of our men and women in uniform, whatever their role. They are serving this nation and there is no greater honour than to serve this nation.
It has also been a great honour to represent the people of Dawson and those in uniform who come from the electorate of Dawson. Recently I was given the honour on Anzac Sunday of representing the Minister for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, in Townsville to receive home troops from East Timor. It was the first time I had done something like that. Brigadier John Caligari gave me a word of advice. He said: ‘You’ve not done this before. These troops that are coming back had only been out of training for six months when they went overseas and performed with absolute excellence. The average age of these troops is around 19, so you might be a little bit surprised by their youthfulness.’ He may have said that because he was looking at me! I shook hands with every single one who came through. I looked into their eyes and said: ‘Welcome home. We are proud of you.’ I said that to over 100 troops. It was a pleasure and an honour to say on behalf of this government and this nation, for all people: ‘Welcome home. We are proud of you.’ We must never again have a welcome home like that which befell those who came back from Vietnam. Never again must that happen. Whatever the reasons for people going into a conflict situation, we must show recognition and appreciation that these men and women in uniform serve our country. They do so in the most professional manner and with integrity. We should always give them the honour and respect that they deserve. More recently, I received troops home on Monday. The Army Aviation Corps came back and, again, it was an honour and pleasure to shake every single hand and say on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence: ‘We are proud of you. Welcome home. You have served your country well.’
With those thoughts in mind, the role of memorials in remembering the past is very important. They are important for teaching future generations of our children that we must learn lessons from the past if we are to progress as a society and the way that we do business overseas in defence of the principles, beliefs and territories of this nation. We should also take on board that memorials are not just for those who have fallen. There are people left standing, and some who cannot stand, and we must look after those who remain. We must show them dignity for their sacrifice. Some of them are suffering appalling injuries. We must look after them. They must not live in poverty. They must not suffer due to lack of health care. We owe these men and women in uniform every respect in the provision of their needs, whatever the political colour of the government may be. We must never forget to pray for the protection of those in active service now. With those thoughts, I conclude, and I commend this bill to the House.
5431
13:04:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
1
0
Mr DREYFUS
—I rise today to support the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008. This bill serves two purposes: it enables the recognition of the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat as a memorial of national significance and it provides us with a mechanism for recognising other memorials as nationally significant. This bill, as other speakers have commented, is the fulfilment of an election commitment to the Australian ex-prisoners of war community. During a visit to Ballarat on 27 June 2007 the Prime Minister, the then opposition leader, committed to the recognition of the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial as a nationally significant war memorial.
As the House has heard from other members, the memorial in Ballarat was dedicated in February 2004. It is a memorial to recognise the bravery and sacrifice of more than 35,000 Australian prisoners of war held during the Boer War, the two world wars and the Korean War. The question of the level of recognition to be given to this memorial in Ballarat has regrettably been the subject of considerable discussion for several years. There were repeated requests made of the former government for the Ballarat memorial to be recognised as a national memorial, but, as the minister said in introducing this bill, that was something which did not occur.
Labor promised that, if elected, we would remedy the omission and ensure that the Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat was in fact declared to be a national memorial. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs confirmed this commitment at the fourth anniversary of the memorial on 3 February 2008 and set a date of mid year to achieve this outcome. With the passage of this bill, it will be possible to meet that more recent commitment.
All memorials to war and to loss are in some way significant. Memorials can be important to local communities. They can be important to the nation. Memorials like the Hiroshima Peace Memorial—recently visited by our Prime Minister, as the first Western leader to visit the memorial—or perhaps, as another example, the Yad Vashem memorial in Jerusalem, the memorial to Jews who perished in the Holocaust, are of significance to the world community. Certainly all Australians would be conscious of memorials in all shapes and sizes because, since the 19th century, communities have erected memorials to those who served in the many wars that have been fought since the 19th century, starting with the conflict in South Africa.
As someone who grew up in Melbourne, I was very conscious of the Shrine of Remembrance, because it occupies a very special place in a physical sense in the city of Melbourne, located as it is at the end of what is known as the shrine vista, looking down the length of Swanson Street and into St Kilda Road to where the shrine stands. I first visited the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne as a primary school student and to me, as someone then aged seven or eight, it was an awe-inspiring and mysterious place, using as it does Athenian classical architecture and occupying the huge space that it does. Even to a very young person, it is apparent that it is a special place, a place with a message.
The mystery of the place was perhaps acknowledged by those who built it, because carved into its grey granite walls are these words: ‘Let all men know that this is holy ground. This shrine, established in the hearts of men as on the solid earth, commemorates a people’s fortitude and sacrifice. Ye that come after give remembrance.’ Perhaps the builders of the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne felt it necessary, recognising that the shrine was going to be there for hundreds of years to come—certainly that was their intention—to ensure that, even after all those who have been associated with the conflict for which the shrine was built to remember had passed, the message was there inscribed on the wall to remind all who saw the shrine what its purpose was.
We see very large monuments of a scale similar to that shrine in all Australian capital cities, but as well we see, perhaps more significantly, local memorials in every Australian town and in every Australian suburb that existed at the time of the First World War and, going forward, in the 1920s and 1930s. It is significant indeed that some of the local memorials that still stand across Australia were built as early as before the end of the First World War, in something of a rush to erect this kind of memorial. The large memorials that we see in the capital cities were often built a great deal later, the Shrine of Remembrance not being completed until well over a decade after the First World War had ended.
In his very fine book Sacred Places: War Memorials in the Australian Landscape, Ken Inglis details what he describes as ‘the war memorial movement’, which saw the erection of these memorials across the country, starting, as I said, during the First World War and continuing through the 1920s and into the 1930s. He makes the point in his book that the term ‘war memorial’ was itself a novel one. In the monuments that were erected for the South African war, the constructions tended to be referred to as ‘fallen soldiers monuments’ or ‘soldiers monuments’, but after 1918 the term ‘war memorial’ became the common one. In Ken Inglis’s words, the memorials were ‘created to stand as a community’s statement of bereavement, pride and thanksgiving’. In those multiple purposes one can see the acknowledgement that memorials do indeed serve different purposes. Their function as a statement of bereavement is one which passes, perhaps, in time as those who are bereaved pass with the passing of time, but certainly the other purposes of pride and thanksgiving remain, as does the larger purpose of remembering for national purposes the sacrifices of those who are remembered.
The memorials across Australia, large and small, take many different forms. There are columns, obelisks, arches, statues of standing soldiers—the digger on the pedestal is a familiar form—and sometimes female figures. They use different materials: sometimes they are made of local stone; sometimes they use imported marble—like the little white soldier on the banks of the Patterson River in Carrum in my electorate. In every community these memorials are a focus for Anzac Day ceremonies. Certainly in the communities in my electorate of Isaacs we have a number of memorials that are significant to those local communities: at Carrum—the little white soldier I mentioned—at Edithvale, Cheltenham, Dandenong, Noble Park, Mordialloc and Mentone. This frequency of memorials in my electorate is one that is replicated right across Australia. Indeed we have heard reference from very many members during the debate on this bill to war memorials erected in their electorates and to the significance that those memorials bear.
Those memorials were often erected by local communities, very frequently to remember the members of those local communities who perished or who served in the wars that they commemorate. Just as we remember as communities, so as a nation we also remember. That is the purpose of memorials. We remember the sons and brothers, fathers and uncles, sisters, daughters, mothers and aunts who served our country. We remember for many reasons. We remember them for their actions, for their bravery, for their sacrifices and for their suffering. Remembering also helps us to understand where we have come from as a nation and how we arrived at the place where we now are, and part of remembering also is mourning—mourning the lives lost and the potential unfulfilled.
As the House has heard from other speakers on this bill, the memorial at Ballarat to Australian prisoners of war is a unique memorial. It is a memorial which serves a very special purpose in commemorating the service of Australian prisoners of war who served in the conflicts during the Boer War, the two world wars and the Korean War. As has been noted, between those wars—from the Boer War at the turn of the 20th century to the Korean War in the 1950s—some 35,000 Australian service men and women were incarcerated in prisoner of war camps. Many suffered atrocious and inhumane treatment at the hands of their captors. The Ballarat memorial is dedicated to these Australians in recognition of the pain and suffering that they endured in the service of our nation.
The memorial is in the botanical gardens in Ballarat. It is a monument that was designed by the well-known sculptor Peter Blizzard, and it is intended to provide ex-prisoners of war, their descendants and all other visitors in future generations with what has been described as a reflective experience, where they can pay homage to those who endured as did the prisoners of war. The design of the monument—and I would encourage anyone who can to visit it—uses the basic idea of a journey and an experience of time and place. The pathway is long and straight, heading off into the shape of railway sleepers—which is a reference to the Burma railway—and running parallel to the pathway is a polished black granite wall, 130 metres long, etched with the 35,000 names of all the Australian prisoners of war. Standing in a reflective pool are some huge basalt obelisks, up to 4.5 metres high, on which are the names of the prisoner of war camps. The columns are out of reach and across the water—which symbolises that all of the prisoner of war camps were away from Australian shores. Further on there is another wall with the words ‘Lest we forget’ engraved, allowing for an area of contemplation and reflection after the symbolic journey that the monument is designed to represent.
There is a particular reason why we should remember the experiences of prisoners of war. The experience of prisoners of war, of the men and women serving this country who were captured by our enemies in these various wars, was in almost all cases an experience of great privation, suffering and pain. The generation of Australians who were imprisoned by the Japanese during the Second World War is now passing, but the memory of their experiences has been passed to subsequent generations of Australians, including me. I had the good fortune to be taught English by Gordon Owen, who shared with me and the other members of our English class during the last three years of my secondary education his experiences as a prisoner of war of the Japanese in Changi and later in the war in Japan itself—some prisoners who had been captured at the fall of Singapore spent part of the war as prisoners in Changi and then were later moved to Japan. His descriptions of his experience as a prisoner of war, an experience that he shared with many thousands of Australian service men and women, were horrific. They were descriptions of starvation, of torture, of beatings, of the cruellest possible treatment that it is possible to imagine a human being can hand out to another human being. His descriptions of that wartime experience have stayed with me always.
When I hear people speak of war, the descriptions that he gave are a wonderful antidote to any notion of the glory of war or any notion other than that war is a dreadful experience. This bill, in enabling the recognition of the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat as a memorial of national significance and enabling, within narrow criteria, the possible recognition of other nationally significant memorials, is a very worthwhile piece of legislation. I commend the bill to the House.
5434
13:25:00
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
8T4
Reid
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services
1
0
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON
—I have genuine pleasure in speaking on the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008. That renowned national publication Laurie Ferguson’s Reid report rarely moves beyond the parochial, but the front page of its last edition concerned the Ballarat memorial. That is possibly because of a few connections with the genesis of this memorial.
As people might be aware, my predecessor, Tom Uren, was a prisoner on the Burma railway and has recounted his comradeship with Sir John Carrick, Weary Dunlop and others. For him that experience of the Second World War was also instrumental in forming his political beliefs and life. Many times he compared the experience of the British with that of the Australians, with regard to the death rates, the onset of cholera and dysentery and so on. He attributed the Australian survival rate not only to the leadership of Dunlop but also to the sense of common purpose and the degree of egalitarianism that characterised the way the Australians operated as opposed to the British, where it was very much about hierarchical structures—those at the top had no interest in those below. That is one connection.
The reason I mentioned this in my last newsletter is that there is another local connection. When Tom Uren’s brother-in-law, Bill Palmer, along with Bill Dircks discovered the Japanese surrender in Changi three days after the event, they constructed an Australian flag out of Japanese mosquito netting, pieces of canvas from an old army kit bag, hessian et cetera and hoisted it after reveille that day. That memorial flag is now in the Australian War Memorial. It was indicative of the perseverance and ingenuity of Australians who were captured during that period. I will refer again later to Uren in relation to another memorial in my electorate.
My wife’s uncle, Noel Keith Walsh, of Indigenous background, was another person who experienced Japanese incarceration during the Second World War. As for so many other Australians, this was an enduring hardship for the rest of his life, undermining his employability and basically destroying a lot of his future life experience. So I am pleased for those more personal reasons to speak on this bill.
As other speakers have indicated, the bill provides a mechanism that will enable a memorial located outside the Australian Capital Territory which meets specified criteria to be recognised as a military memorial of national significance. Other speakers have referred to the National Memorials Ordinance 1928, which says that, whilst they might be deemed national in character, memorials outside of national land could not be designated national war memorials.
There has been much quibbling; there has been much utilisation of semantics here in this debate to basically belittle what has been accomplished by this process. As other speakers, and the member for Shortland in particular, have mentioned, it is interesting to note people complaining, quibbling and undermining this initiative but at the same time hoping that the monuments in their electorates could be included. They are all coming forward proffering the joys of this particular monument—the colours, the stone et cetera—and indicating a desire for the legislation to be extended to memorials in their areas. At the same time they spend their whole time undermining what the Prime Minister and the government have accomplished.
So we have this new monument in Ballarat Botanical Gardens. Others have mentioned initiatives by Senator Ronaldson and the current member for Ballarat along the road to getting here and the devotion of $160,000 towards the project and its upkeep. So I say that it is no mean accomplishment that we have found a way to increase and enhance the importance of a number of memorials beyond the normal, localised monuments in so many country towns and suburbs of this nation.
Returning to my electorate, one of our important local sites is the war memorial at the Guildford School of Arts. Last night, I googled that building—and I am on its management board, as is the former state member for Granville Kim Yeadon, although he has moved many hundreds of kilometres from the electorate—and it is interesting that one of the references was to an interview, a very extensive, seminal interview, in January 1996 with Tom Uren about his life experiences, conducted by Robin Hughes. In the interview, Tom Uren says:
… her grandfather—
that is, his wife’s—
had been a person of some eminence in the district, he was the man that laid the foundation stone of the school of arts many years before …
And he went on to say that his wife’s family was on the conservative side of politics. So he was talking there about the establishment of the memorial school of arts back in the 1920s. The school is a local institution which has sufficed as the suburb’s war memorial following the demise of the RSL a decade or two ago. It is a venue which is utilised by a large number of local organisations, particularly groups that cannot afford the plusher halls in our electorate. It is also the site of a permanent booking by the Scottish heritage association.
The school commemorates the numbers of soldiers from the suburb of Guildford who fought in both world wars. There is also a separate monument for the people who went down in the Centaur when that was bombed by the Japanese. I mentioned the continued role of the Palmer family—as I said earlier, Tom Uren’s brother-in-law Bill was on the management committee of this organisation for many years and, indeed, Bill’s grandfather, Mr Milligan, had been instrumental in raising the money through tennis games, fetes et cetera over many years to dedicate this hall in 1933. That is one of a diverse range of monuments in our electorate.
Some speakers have alluded to the treatment of Vietnam veterans on their return to Australia. Our area could not be accused of being unwelcoming to Vietnam veterans—despite the fact that the electorate of Reid and its Labor Party organisation were amongst the strongest opponents of the war, led of course by Tom Uren throughout that period—because, for all the people who talk of shame, the Merrylands RSL Club probably led the country with regard to the inclusion of Vietnam veterans in the organisation. I went there last Saturday night, to their 50th anniversary, and there is a very significant presence of people from the Vietnam War on the management of that club. That is connected, of course, to the presence of the Vietnam Veterans Association about 150 metres from my electoral office—people like Tim McCoomb and of course John Haines, the former mayor of Parramatta. John Haines, having served in Vietnam, played a major role in establishing a sister-city relationship between Parramatta and a region of Vietnam. He is constantly endeavouring to increase understanding between Vietnam and Australia and never ceases to take initiatives to provide equipment and help to that Vietnamese area. So it is no wonder that Merrylands RSL perhaps led the nation in the inclusion of Vietnam veterans and the provision of a home for them, with the presence so nearby, in Granville, of the national headquarters of the association.
Also in my electorate, in Blaxcell Street, Granville, behind the Granville Youth Club, there is a monument with two artillery shells, a large rock and a memorial plaque to Vietnam War veterans. There is another monument nearby at the Granville RSL Club dedicated to Phil Thompson, former National President of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, who passed away in November 1986. These memorials throughout my electorate are all very different but they do all have the theme of remembering suffering, remembering endurance—making sure that we recall that suffering but also the continuing experiences of the families involved.
St Stephen’s Anglican Church in Lidcombe has been the site for many years of an annual service in remembrance of war. I have always been intrigued by the now very old plaques along the wall of that church, referring to individual soldiers who perished overseas in what would have then been very exotic sites—for example, Sierra Leone during the Second World War; someone obviously died of disease on the way to or from Europe. All of those people are incorporated around the walls in what is again, like the Guildford School of Arts, a war memorial site. Obviously, with the passing of time, it has been very difficult to retain that service, but the church itself still serves as a very concrete reminder of the sacrifices made, and I hope that financial pressures over the next few decades do not in any way lead to attempts to change the nature of that church.
In the suburb of Merrylands, we have had very strong contributions by the Holroyd City Council over many, many decades to making sure the community did keep remembrance of these times past at the forefront. Amongst the sites in Merrylands is a war memorial in Arcadia Street, where the council chambers were once located. That is quite historic; it has always been there. It is the site of a ceremony each year. There is a street of trees with individual plaques adjacent to the new council chambers, and another wall was constructed in recent years. I commend not only the RSL but also the council for its leadership on these matters.
It is also worth noting that, with the demise of local halls and the increasing concentration of resources, many of the plaques that graced suburbs of the Holroyd municipality have now been collected in the council chambers themselves. So there is quite a bit of history. You can see plaques that were formerly at Westmead, Wentworthville and other suburbs. These plaques are from buildings that were utilised by groups which, with the changes in society, no longer have the numbers to stay alive.
You run across these things so often. My local party organisation in Guildford meets in the Uniting Church. The month before last there was another group utilising one of the halls, so we moved into an even older hall of that church, which had been relocated. It was so interesting to find, inside that old church hall from the First World War, indications from the Uniting Church—then the Methodist Church—of people in their parish who had died or fought in the First World War. This is the kind of thing we see. There are public memorials that have been erected not only by society in general but also by churches and other organisations to commemorate people. It is quite historic, and I have referred those various plaques to the Granville Historical Society.
Speaking of the Granville Historical Society, I am pleased that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs has funded a project of that organisation, which includes people like June Bullivant and Colin Humphreys. Former New South Wales Minister for Education Rod Cavalier, a person with no mean reputation for historical work, has commented that the Granville Historical Society is amongst the best four or five in the country—and that has been shown by their wide production of books over the years. The society has been funded more recently to do individual histories of all of the people who fought in the First World War. It has been interesting in recent months to read about those people in the Granville Guardian—what street they lived in, what their parents did, where their parents were located at the time they enlisted et cetera. The society is really doing a monumental work in bringing those people back to life with regard to which people were related to each other, where they lived, what occupations they were undertaking when they enlisted, their age et cetera. I really congratulate that organisation for its continued work. It really will be a monumental work when accomplished.
When I was up at Rose Hill Public School for a function some years ago, I saw an interesting booklet which I have never seen anywhere else—they might have been produced in other districts of Australia during the First World War—with individual photographs of all of the people who had enlisted locally. That area, at the time of the First World War, was still semirural. I am talking about what was then referred to as the southern districts of Sydney, stretching from Guildford out to Liverpool. In this day and age, you would not believe that, back then, it still had the occasional pig farm, poultry farms and very significant stretches of wooded areas. Basically, there was very little communication between those suburbs. But there it was—a First World War booklet with photographs of all the people, from about 15 to 20 suburbs in Sydney, who had enlisted.
I have referred in passing to a significant number of memorials of very different types in my electorate. I testify to the efforts of the local RSL clubs and sub-branches, who continue to ensure each year that the important days are marked and that the monuments are maintained and renovated. One of those RSL groups that is probably facing some difficulties because of ageing is the Lidcombe RSL club. Recently I was told that they might be looking at amalgamation with another club. They are a group that, in recent years, accomplished the renaming of the local park in Lidcombe to Remembrance Park. I do not generally like repudiating history and renaming things that have historical purpose, but in this case it was probably, on balance, desirable that they replaced the former name of the park, which from recollection was named after one of the British monarchs or princes.
In summary, as I said, we have had some quibbling, whinging and complaining from the opposition about where we are today on this bill—that basically the monuments are not, in a sense, national monuments. This is a major step forward. There will be attempts by many of those opposite to accomplish the same thing for monuments in their electorates as has been engineered through this bill with regard to the memorial in Ballarat for ex-prisoners of war. I commend the legislation. I again commend the member for Ballarat, Senator Ronaldson and also the minister for bringing this legislation forward.
5438
13:42:00
Kelly, Mike, MP
HRI
Eden-Monaro
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support
1
0
Dr KELLY
—I am very pleased to speak in support of the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008, for many personal and policy reasons, which I will come to. I think it is worth while to reflect that this legislation’s immediate impact will be to enable us to designate the wonderful Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat as a national memorial.
It is worth while to reflect briefly on what is involved with this memorial, which was designed by local sculptor Peter Blizzard. What particularly impresses me is what is behind this memorial. The Ballarat RSL, assisted by volunteers, worked for over 10 years to compile the names to form the first national database of Australian prisoners of war. That is one of the most significant and commendable things about this memorial. That involved tracking down the names of over 35,000 prisoners of war. Particularly poignant for me is that one of those names is that of my grandfather. His prisoner of war experience was based upon his time as a prisoner of the Japanese on the Burma-Thailand railway. The design of the memorial is significant in that it pays particular tribute to that experience as being one of the most intense prisoner of war experiences Australians have ever endured. The memorial is approximately 170 metres long and it features a long pathway of light grey basalt pavers cut to resemble the railway sleepers used on the Burma-Thailand railway. On the southern side are two canted black polished granite walls with the names of all known Australian prisoners of war. It is very significant that it commemorates that experience and those names.
I was a bit disappointed by the member for Mackellar’s proposed amendment in relation to this legislation. I have been fortunate to share participation in events with the member for Mackellar and I have no reason to doubt that she is very sincere and supportive of a lot of veterans issues. The issue in her amendment about politicising veterans affairs is a risk she runs with this proposed amendment. I ask her to reflect on that amendment and the possibility of perhaps withdrawing it. Before I come to that, I would also like to reflect a little bit on the personal history that I mentioned earlier. My involvement with veterans did not begin with my Army service or service in Iraq. It goes back to the experience of my grandfathers. My grandfather on my mother’s side suffered in the Second World War fighting in New Guinea and was severely injured. I remember very much his struggling through life on crutches afterwards. I will also reflect on my other grandfather, who was a prisoner of the Japanese.
Before I speak about his experiences I would like to reflect on my own experiences of working directly with veterans. I was in the Lady Davidson Hospital, which is a veterans hospital in Sydney, as a cleaner and support staff member. I was working there as a young man while going to university. It was a very poignant experience. When you clean the toilets in a rehabilitation ward and see the actual practical effects of being a disabled veteran, it has a profound impact on you. When a veteran would pass away during the course of the evening, it fell to me to help clean him up and take him to the morgue. Removing those people from amongst their friends and colleagues was a profound experience for me and it was also a very emotional experience for them. They shared their experiences and stories with me, and those important memories have been with me ever since. When I joined the Army I benefited greatly from the training of some wonderful Vietnam veterans—Rockie, Tracker, Peeps and Cowboy—who gave me the combat skills that helped me survive four deployments. The person who recruited me to the Defence Force, Brigadier Billie Rolfe, who now plays a significant role in veterans affairs, was always an inspiration to me. He lost both his legs in Vietnam but he did not let that hold him back. He has been a model to people who wish to get on with life and make something of themselves, so I salute Brigadier Billie Rolfe here today.
Last year during the election campaign I got heavily involved with a lot of veterans who saw me as an opportunity to bring veterans issues to the attention of the parliament and to deal with their issues. At one particular point I got the sense that there was a great dissatisfaction amongst the veteran community. It was starting to get quite vitriolic—as anybody who experiences the email chain in the veterans community would know. Of course, being veterans and having been through many emotional experiences, some of their correspondence can be quite vigorous. They started, unfortunately, using terms like ‘Howard’s Anzac haters’ et cetera, which I think was certainly exaggerated and over the top. It is of concern to me because we all want veterans issues to be completely bipartisan and for there not to be a wafer of paper between each side of this House in relation to veterans issues. But they certainly rallied around me, which I greatly appreciated, during an incident in the election campaign in which the chief of staff of my predecessor, Gary Nairn, assailed me as a ‘war criminal’, ‘Nazi’ and ‘murderer’ in relation to my service in Somalia and Iraq. For the Vietnam veterans, this brought back reminiscences of how they were treated on their return from Vietnam. They wrote some very powerful and emotive pieces of correspondence to me and to others, such as the RSL. I found this event extremely unfortunate, and it shows how much care we have to take in maintaining a common bipartisan position in relation to veterans affairs.
The next significant experience for me, in my immersion in the veteran community following my departure from the regular Army, was on Anzac Day this year in Bega. It was a very significant event for me as I have many family names on the memorial in Bega. It was also a great experience to march that day next to a bloke named Ron Stanton, who was a survivor of the Burma-Thai railway. If we reflect on that for a moment, it is significant in itself. This man has survived the Burma-Thai experience and, in his 80s, he is able to march on Anzac Day and show his pride. He is a very special man too, which illustrates the heart of some of these prisoners of war. He regaled me with a story about his release from imprisonment by the Japanese. He was asked to take guard of some of the Japanese who were ex-guards of his. During his experiences as a prisoner he had watched brutal treatment of his comrades and he had often said to himself that if he ever got the chance he was going to do those chaps in. So there he was, with a rifle and ammunition, in charge of unarmed Japanese whom he had to supervise digging a hole—and often during that time the Japanese would get prisoners to dig their own graves. That was a situation of great moment for this gentleman, Ron Stanton, but, instead of taking his opportunity for revenge on these guards, he actually gave them his cigarettes during a smoko. He had decided at that moment that he would move on and put things behind him. He had decided that he was not going to be like his guards and that he would make this the beginning of his healing experience from the Burma-Thai railway. It just shows what great-hearted men were those who served on the railway.
As I said, my grandfather, who was a member of the 2nd/3rd Machine Gun Battalion, served on the railway as well and he had been in the Middle East with the battalion before arriving in Batavia along with Weary Dunlop on the Orcades. They formed an impromptu battle group which was put under the command of Arthur Blackburn VC, a famous war hero from the First World War. Unfortunately, they were ill equipped. Their heavy machine gun equipment had returned to Australia and they were effectively abandoned on Batavia, but they battled on as best they could with scrappy elements of British and American troops until they were finally cornered, out of ammunition and food, and forced to surrender to the Japanese. They went straight from Batavia to the Burma-Thai railway. An interesting aspect of the service record of my grandfather—and I have a copy of it here—concerns his wife, who was left at home. If you look at the recordings in that statement of service, you see, firstly, on 28 April 1942, he was simply listed as missing, so his wife really had no idea what had happened to him at that point; and, secondly, on 2 November 1942, he was recorded as ‘Missing, believed prisoner of Japanese’. It was not until 18 September 1943 that it was confirmed that he was a prisoner of war. So through this whole period from April 1942 until September 1943 his wife would have had no idea what had happened to him. He was eventually found alive on 12 September 1945 and recovered from the Japanese in what was then called Siam, and he was evacuated to Australia in October. He was sent to Heidelberg hospital to recover and was eventually able to resume life with his family in April 1946.
The experience of the families and those veterans did not end there, of course. Many years of suffering lay ahead in coming to grips with that experience. It was a really tragic situation for us to bury Thelma Waters, a constituent of mine, a few weeks ago. She was one of those widows who suffered through 20 years of having to live with the outcome and the psychological problems of a prisoner of war veteran. For these veterans, and for me, this memorial is incredibly significant. It is a place of reflection, a place for us to pay tribute to that suffering and experience. It does not really matter to me, as someone who is the grandson of a person listed on that memorial, that it is in Ballarat; I am just comforted by the fact that it is there. National memorials should not just be confined to Canberra. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I was fortunate enough to open the National Timber Workers Memorial in Eden, which commemorates a number of timber workers who lost their lives in the industry, and $50,000 of Commonwealth money went towards that memorial. I am happy to say that my predecessor, Gary Nairn, who helped obtain that money from the Commonwealth, also attended that ceremony.
It is entirely appropriate that we have national memorials outside Canberra, and I pay tribute to the previous government for their contribution to the creation of this wonderful ex-prisoners of war memorial. Far from politicising veterans affairs, the Rudd Labor government has been actively delivering on all of the measures that have made and are making the lives of veterans greatly relieved and improved. I note that the member for Mackellar did acknowledge that. We have now moved on to resolve a lot of the legacy issues for those veterans who want peace of mind. It was a great pleasure of mine to assist the members of the second D&E Platoon in finally resolving acknowledgement of their service and what they endured in Vietnam. We are also proceeding to assist Korean armistice veterans and the Long Tan veterans. This is about peace of mind; it is about healing, sharing, alleviating pain and grief and remembering so that the stories of these prisoners of war—these veterans—are honoured and that future generations know the price of freedom. The veterans know they have a friend in this government. We have a lot to deliver on and a lot of expectations to meet, but I believe they will also find that they have the best Minister for Veterans’ Affairs this country has ever seen. They are certainly already reflecting to me their appreciation of his directness, his truthfulness and his efforts on their behalf. In that respect, I would invite the member for Mackellar to withdraw her amendment which, I must warn her, is not being well received among the ex-prisoners of war. I encourage all in this House to refocus on what should be unqualified bipartisan support for this legislation.
5441
13:57:00
Griffin, Alan, MP
VU5
Bruce
ALP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs
1
0
Mr GRIFFIN
—It is a great pleasure to be here and I would really like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support for finishing early! I thank him, and I want to assure him that my tailor will thank him when I get the sauce out of this suit at a later stage. I am commencing my summing up of the Military Memorials of National Significance Bill 2008. This bill provides an opportunity to realise the wish—and deservedly the wish—of the community of Ballarat with respect to the Ballarat POW memorial and its capacity to be recognised formally and officially as a national memorial and, in this case, using the term a ‘military memorial of national significance’. The amendment moved by the member for Mackellar and a number of opposition speakers have addressed aspects of this issue in suggesting—and in fact claiming—that the government has breached an election promise. Nothing could be further from the truth. I assure members that when I do get the opportunity to finalise the consideration of this bill—possibly later today but probably more likely early next week—I will make it clear in detail as to why that is the case. This memorial is a very significant and special memorial, and that is something which speakers on all sides have addressed. As we approach question time, I acknowledge the member for Ballarat and her very detailed and long-term commitment to ensuring that this memorial is properly recognised as a national memorial. There is no doubt that Catherine King, the member for Ballarat, has made this an important objective for the local community. It has been on the basis of that local community and the prisoner of war community nationwide that this matter was brought to our attention, and I am more than pleased to be in the situation where we can take action on her behalf.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the minister will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
5442
14:00:00
Questions Without Notice
Fuel Prices
5442
14:00:00
5442
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Dr NELSON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. With petrol at $1.70 a litre, why is the Prime Minister wanting to take a blowtorch to the oil-producing countries but not to his own petrol excise?
5442
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—If we are seeking to deal responsibly with the greatest oil shock that the world has seen in 30 years, we need to do it comprehensively. That means looking at global supply, it means looking at global demand, it means dealing with a responsible alternative fuel strategy, it means dealing with a responsible approach to fuel efficient vehicles and it also means an appropriate national investment in public transport. These form the structure of a responsible long-term response. Of course there are other responses which go to the nearer to medium term, and that is why we have matters currently being considered by the Henry commission of inquiry. And of course there are those which go immediately to the heart of competition policy, and that is why we put forward proposals such as those which have been advanced by the Assistant Treasurer concerning Fuelwatch.
The Leader of the Opposition asks why we are seeking to work with the international community on the global supply of oil. It is for a couple of specific reasons, and I am surprised that this is one of the further measures which the opposition opposes. The opposition opposes the government’s actions on Fuelwatch. The opposition opposes the government’s plan to work with Toyota to have an Australian manufactured hybrid car.
Opposition members interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—It is interesting that there is a level of ridicule about the future of manufacturing in Australia on the part of those opposite. Those on this side of the House stand for the future of Australian motor vehicle manufacturing; those opposite would simply like to kiss it goodbye. And then we have opposition from those opposite to the government’s plan to act internationally in partnership with the G8 and with other oil-consuming countries, including at the conference which is being convened this coming weekend by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Minister for Resources and Energy will be representing the Australian government at the Jeddah energy meeting. On the matters to be addressed at that meeting, these will go to the question of addressing foreign investment restrictions; working with OPEC countries and encouraging investment in additional spare production capacity; improving oil market data transparency; considering refining and other options for increasing middle distillate output in diesel, jet fuel and kerosene; and working with developing countries and the International Energy Agency to address the difficult issue of fuel subsidies and associated budget, balance of trade and inflation pressures. These are responsible matters to be considered in the context of responsible policy.
Given their 12 years in office, when many of the problems currently being experienced by motorists in this country were well and truly emerging—remember, oil and petrol prices were up by one-third last year—those opposite rather than being in permanent negative mode should instead adopt a more positive approach. Our argument is that what we need to do on the question of oil and petrol prices is have a range of short-, medium- and long-term measures. That is the responsible, long-term approach. I commend the forthcoming participation by the energy minister in that conference. We look forward to it, together with other international measures, assisting with the overall challenges which the global economy—every economy in the world—now faces with pressures on the global price of oil. When UK motorists today are paying something like $2.35 a litre, those in France are paying $2.95 a litre, we have protests and riots across Europe and we have protests also across our own East Asian hemisphere, this underlines the global dimensions of the problem. This government is fully participating in global responses to the problem and at the same time participating in national responses consistent with the overall challenge of dealing with the long-term price of oil and its impact on working families.
Fuel Prices
5443
5443
14:04:00
Symon, Mike, MP
HW8
Deakin
ALP
1
Mr SYMON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House the impact of rising petrol prices, and the government’s response?
5443
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I think it is important to look at the range of measures which we can deploy responsibly as a government in dealing with what is a global problem. Let us again put it into context: we have the greatest global oil shock the world has faced in 30 years. Therefore, a range of measures—short, medium and long term—are necessary to deal with it. I mentioned before, in my response to the question asked of me by the Leader of the Opposition, about additional global measures. One of those deals with the supply-side measures which will be addressed in part at the upcoming Jeddah conference, which the Minister for Resources and Energy will be attending. Others, on the global demand side, go to measures currently embraced by the International Energy Agency and the G8 to enhance energy efficiency measures in developing countries. When you have this huge surge in demand from China and India and the suck-in of oil from those two burgeoning economies, representing something more than 50 per cent of the overall increase in global demand for oil, it follows logically that that also is having an impact on what is occurring in the overall balance of supply and demand in the global oil market.
There is a further factor, though, which I would draw honourable members’ attention to, and that goes to increasing concerns across the international community about speculation—that is, excessive speculation within the oil industry itself and increasing evidence that some financial institutions may be trading in oil as an investment like shares and currencies. When we look at international action on these matters we have the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC, imposing position limits on West Texas Intermediate oil contracts on the London based ICE Futures Europe exchange. The new regulations are an attempt to limit excessive speculation on the price of oil, limiting individual positions in West Texas Intermediate oil contracts on the ICE Futures Europe, which holds up to 30 per cent of total trades. European authorities will also share trading data with their US counterparts to improve transparency.
The IMF is also acting in this respect in response to a particular request from the G8. In response to a call from G8 finance ministers, the IMF is currently analysing the real and other financial factors behind the recent surge in oil and commodity prices, their volatility and the effects on the global economy, including the role of speculators. This is an important consideration, because when we look at the overall global analysis of what is a problem for all economies at the moment, whether it is the US Treasury Secretary or the G8 finance ministers, all have expressed deep concerns about this, as does the government of Australia. I quote here the US Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, who said most recently:
All the evidence points to ... supply and ... demand as the main cause—
of the surge in oil prices. He continues:
“I think there’s a danger that if people say ‘all this is speculators’ then we won’t do what we need to do. We don’t want to misdiagnose the problem.”
In other words, it is a complex set of problems on the supply side and the demand side, but there is also an important consideration when it comes to speculation. Therefore, this government, in partnership with foreign governments, will be doing what we can through the councils of the international community to act consistently on the question of the impact of speculation on global oil markets and any artificial manipulation of the global oil price which may occur as a result. That is on the global action front.
When it comes to local action, could I simply say this: I still remain puzzled as to why those opposite remain so ideologically opposed to Fuelwatch. The price of petrol in some Sydney service stations yesterday reached $1.70. We understand that yesterday in Sydney there was a difference of about 20c a litre between the lowest and highest petrol price. With those opposite, it depends on who you believe: the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Wentworth, who does not support the Leader of the Opposition’s position on this, or the member for Aston, the campaign manager for the member for Higgins, who suggested a third new option when it comes to petrol policy—not 5c but 10c, depending on where you actually stand on this. It is always interesting to identify policy coherence on the part of those opposite.
I go to the specifics of what is happening in Sydney at the moment, and I think it is very important that honourable members reflect on this. In South Strathfield yesterday you had a Vartex petrol station charging 164.9c per litre at 1.16 pm while at the nearby Coles Express, along the Hume Highway at South Strathfield, 155.9c per litre was being charged at 1.20 pm. That is a 9c a litre difference. That is in and around Strathfield.
In Eastwood yesterday you had an Autodoc petrol station charging 164.9c per litre at 3 pm while the nearby 7-Eleven at Carlingford was charging 155.9c per litre at 12.16 pm. That is also a 9c a litre difference. Then we go to what is occurring in Mosman. In Mosman yesterday there was a BP petrol station charging 171.9c a litre at 1.46 pm, and the nearby 7-Eleven on the corner of Spit Road and Mitchell Road was charging 155.9c a litre at 1.40 pm. That is a 16c a litre difference. Therefore, simply in the space of yesterday in Sydney—given that we have had petrol prices go above 170c today in Sydney—we had in the single suburban areas that I have just referred to price differences of between 9c and 16c a litre. Across the whole metro area, that is some 20c a litre.
We on this side of the chamber have this remarkably radical approach that we think consumers should have access to that information! That is our radical approach—we think that consumers should have access to that information. Those opposite are of the view that this should remain the unique property of the oil and petrol companies. Our approach therefore is that a competition policy approach is a very important addition to what is an overall big challenge in terms of families trying to balance the family budget at the moment. Having available data about where you can get the cheapest fuel on a particular day in your locality—that is what Fuelwatch is all about. Those opposite have once again sided with big oil and the big petrol companies and decided that that information should remain uniquely in their possession. We on this side of the House have a different approach, and that is that that information should be provided in a time-real manner to consumers so that they can make the best choices for themselves.
When it comes to the difficult question of oil and petrol worldwide, we have a range of measures we will be pursuing as a government: those which apply at the global level concerning supply, demand and speculation; those which also are being considered by the Henry commission; and those which deal in the here and now with the impact of competition policy. These are responsible courses of action given the difficulty which consumers are facing at present in this important area. I contrast that again not just with the overwhelming avalanche of negativity on the part of those opposite but with an overall approach where they will say anything and do anything on the question of oil prices in order to achieve a cheap headline. That is what is governing policy on the part of those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition has one policy concerning 5c a litre. The alternative Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, says that he will not implement it. The campaign manager for the member for Higgins says that he would like to double the amount. What is the position of the opposition on this matter? Our approach is clear cut. The approach of those opposite is characterised not just by negativity but by absolute populism.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
5445
Distinguished Visitors
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Witner K. Mutale Nalumango, Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly of Zambia. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
5445
Questions Without Notice
Fuel Prices
5445
5445
14:13:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
0
Mr TRUSS
—My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer agree with Darren McCubbin, the Labor candidate for Gippsland, who said yesterday that reducing the price of petrol is ridiculous?
5445
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for his question. I am not aware of any comments yesterday to that effect. I would make a couple of points. I make the points that the Prime Minister made before. The fact is that we are in the middle of a third global oil shock and this is having a tremendous impact on working families and seniors who are trying to pay the bills and fill up the car.
We understand the cost pressures on Australian families. That is why we have put additional assistance in our budget for seniors via the increased utilities allowance and it is why we are delivering the tax cuts from 1 July. We understand the pressures on working families. The opposition are terminally out of touch. We had a classic example in the House the other day where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was turning her nose up at people who shop for specials. We are going to do everything within our power to assist families hit by the increased cost of living. It was central to our program at the last election and that is what we are delivering responsibly in our budget—a budget for which those in the Senate are irresponsibly trying to reduce the surplus. We will have responsible measures to assist Australian families and others who are hit by cost-of-living pressures and we will do it within a responsible budget. There is a very sharp contrast between those on this side of the House and those on the other side.
Oil Conference
5446
5446
14:15:00
Thomson, Craig, MP
HVZ
Dobell
ALP
1
Mr CRAIG THOMSON
5446
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism
1
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I welcome the opportunity to address the very serious issues raised by the member for Dobell. Like many on this side of the House, he understands the complexities of this debate not only from the domestic point of view but also from a global point of view. On that note, I say not only to Australia but to the global community that the Jeddah energy meeting this Sunday is an opportunity for producing and consuming nations, in association with industry, to work towards finding a way forward to express our concern about the uncertainty and volatility of the global petroleum market at the moment. It also enables us to concentrate on the complexities of the debate and the serious issues which confront not only Australia but also the world at large. The facts are rather stark.
The oil burden, as a share of global GDP, is fast approaching the level of the 1970s oil crisis, as are real oil prices. As we all know—and as I have expressed to the Prime Minister—there are no simple solutions and, more importantly, no one nation can shoulder the burden of record oil prices. There are five areas that I intend to raise on behalf of the Australian community to seek cooperation of like-minded nations at a Jeddah meeting. These include a need for the global community to urgently address the key issue of foreign investment restrictions. We all know in Australia how important foreign investment has been in the history of our development. We are a welcoming nation to foreign investment and I will rigorously pursue these issues at the Jeddah conference.
Secondly, we will work with OPEC countries and encourage investment in additional spare production capacity—it speaks for itself. Thirdly, we will work to improve oil market data transparency. Transparency is the key to a freely operating market system. Fourthly, we will consider refining and other options for increasing middle distillate output, diesel, jet fuel and kerosene, which are exceptionally important to ongoing economic growth in the global community. Fifthly, we will work with developing countries and the International Energy Agency to address the difficult issue of fuel subsidies and associated budget, balance of trade and inflation pressures.
While international oil companies are investing as fast as they can, the reality is that unfortunately there are many places in the world where oil is easier and cheaper to produce but access is limited. The important role for national governments such as our own is to work to allow the market to properly perform and remove regulatory impediments to investment and trade—something that Australia prides itself on.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey
—This is a statement!
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—Unfortunately it is something the member for O’Connor does not understand. We operate in a global market driven community. In the meantime, we need to work with the international oil companies and OPEC countries, to encourage them to invest as much as possible in additional production capacity. There is also a need to improve the quality of data available about reserves in OPEC countries and demand in the rapidly growing economies such as China. The non-OECD countries where economic growth is highest are also the most energy intensive. The fuels that are the key to economic growth are the middle distillates—diesel, jet fuel and kerosene. Demand for these fuels is growing much faster than for other refinery products. Refineries around the world have no spare capacity at the moment to increase their output of diesel and jet fuel.
Also, these refineries have to cope with changes going to the availability of crude oil, changes which mean there is less potential at the moment for middle distillate production without more hydrotreating and coking. Middle distillates are also the fuels produced in gas to liquids and coal to liquids processes, something the government has spoken about over a considerable period and something the previous government unfortunately neglected as a serious debate.
We as a nation will encourage producing nations and the international oil companies to accelerate the development of next generation gas-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids technologies that could reduce cost and, in the case of coal to liquids, improve its environmental credentials. That is why, just as in relation to coal fired power generation, the development of carbon capture and storage technology is important. I am pleased to advise the House that earlier this week the government introduced the carbon capture and storage legislation going to offshore storage of CO2.
In conclusion, an international effort is required to address these important issues. I hope the Jeddah energy meeting will be a step in the right direction. Let us ensure that the global community does not waste this opportunity.
Economy
5447
5447
14:22:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer agree with the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that the government’s inflation forecast for next year is 3.75 per cent?
5447
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for his question. The problem we have here is that the opposition do not think that there is an inflation problem in this country at all. They have delivered inflation at 16-year highs on the back of capacity constraints that they were warned about by the Reserve Bank over years and which they ignored. There is 16-year-high inflation because of their reckless spending. It has fallen to this government to put up its hand to identify the problem and to tackle the problem. What is happening? In the Senate they are trying to sabotage the surplus. Their delay will knock $284 million off that surplus, and that can only do one thing—put upward pressure on interest rates and upward pressure on inflation. They are completely and utterly irresponsible.
Budget
5447
5447
14:24:00
Marles, Richard, MP
HWQ
Corio
ALP
1
Mr MARLES
—My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the reasons why the government’s policy to reduce the withholding tax is being unnecessarily delayed? What is being done to inform Australians about important budget measures to come into effect on 1 July?
5448
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for his question. Our budget does strike the right balance between delivering for families and investing in the future. That is in stark contrast with what the opposition is up to in the Senate, where it is putting up its hands to vote for higher inflation and higher interest rates. Of course, there is a new development. It has decided to delay the introduction of the withholding tax. This is a real problem—and this has been identified by IFSA—because it may mean that this measure cannot be put in place in the next financial year. So this dramatic cut in the withholding tax, which will bring investment to this country, may not be able to be implemented for a year. This is another example of its economic vandalism. It simply beggars belief that the opposition wants to play politics with a measure as important as this.
As I said before, our budget is a responsible budget that delivers for working families because it has lots of benefits for working families. There are those out there who think it is a good budget. In fact, this morning I found on a website some support for our budget. It described the budget as:
… a responsible budget that delivers for working families and invests in the future by (1) funding the substantial $55 billion Working Families Support Package, beginning a new era of responsible long-term investment to strengthen our economy to fight inflation and to meet future challenges.
That is a glowing endorsement by any means. Whose website could this have been? It is a website that got a very substantial airing in a recent focus group. It is fantastic to see the glowing endorsement of our budget on the member for Wentworth’s website. He is promoting our budget on his website. If our budget is good enough for his website, surely it is good enough to pass the Senate. The member for Wentworth is two clicks away from responsible economic management. He ought to walk up to the Senate and get his colleagues to support our budget.
Economy
5448
5448
14:27:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer to his answer to my previous question and to the first page of the first chapter of Budget Paper No. 1, which states that the government’s forecast for inflation next year is 3.25 per cent. Has the government revised its inflation forecast up to 3.75 per cent, in line with the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday?
5448
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I have a copy of the budget papers as well. Isn’t he a clever boy?
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The question has been asked.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—We know that inflation at the moment is 4.2 per cent—the headline rate and the underlying rate. The underlying rate is the highest in 16 years—the legacy of those opposite. They will not put up their hands and accept any responsibility for creating this problem. As I said in the House yesterday, they expect the Australian people to believe that somehow inflationary pressures only began at 9 am on 26 November last year. They did not. They left a legacy of high inflation for this government to tackle. We are out there tackling it and they are trying to sabotage it.
Economy
5448
5448
14:28:00
Collins, Julie, MP
HWM
Franklin
ALP
1
Ms COLLINS
—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Is the minister aware of any threats to the government’s policy of putting downward pressure on inflation and interest rates?
5448
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
1
Mr TANNER
—The government has handed down a tight budget with a $22 billion surplus with the primary objective of putting downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. Inflation is running at 4.2 per cent—the highest in 16 years—and interest rates have risen 10 times in the last few years. It is true that the government’s strategy is threatened—it is threatened in the Senate by the opposition. The opposition’s response to the government’s budget has been completely incoherent. The opposition have been entirely happy to complain about the effects of individual rising prices—whether of petrol, groceries or other things—but they refuse absolutely to engage in the debate about what the fiscal settings in this nation should be. They are content to express concern about the specifics of inflation but they refuse to say a single thing about the wider problem and they are endeavouring to nobble the government’s attempts to come to terms with the inflation problem in the Australian economy.
We have heard during the course of this year a variety of views expressed about the inflation problem by the opposition. First, we heard from the member for Wentworth that it was a ‘fairytale’ and then we heard that it was a ‘charade’ from the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the National Party at least was prepared to concede that there was an inflation problem, but, in true National Party style, his solution was to spend more money. At least he was honest! Then in more recent times the architect of these problems in the 2007 budget, the member for Higgins, said, ‘Don’t respond in an excessive way fiscally to the inflation problem.’ And, of course, Senator Minchin, the former Leader of the Government in the Senate and my predecessor as finance minister, suggested that blocking budget measures in the Senate would not have an impact on the surplus.
I have said in the chamber several times over the last few weeks that these activities by the opposition threaten to put upward pressure on inflation and interest rates, but it is important to underline the fact that there is another dimension to this issue. There is not just a short-term element to the wrecking activities of the opposition in the Senate on this because what they are doing also threatens to undermine the rebuilding of the nation’s infrastructure into the long term. They clearly do not understand the short-term impact of eroding the budget surplus on inflation and interest rates, but they also clearly do not realise where the budget surplus is to be invested.
You may recall, Mr Speaker, that the government announced in the budget that it would establish three separate infrastructure investments funds—the Building Australia Fund, the Education Investment Fund and the Health and Hospitals Fund—for the purpose of rebuilding the infrastructure of this nation, to boost the productivity of the Australian economy and to elevate our economic capacity into the longer term. The primary reason we have taken this step is that the Reserve Bank over the last few years on no fewer than 20 occasions warned the former government that capacity constraints on the Australian economy were contributing to pressures on inflation and interest rates. Australia needs to expand its economic capacity and productivity to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates into the future as well and, incidentally, to reduce the urban congestion which is exacerbating the impact of high petrol prices on commuters in our major cities.
Money taken from the surplus by the activities of the opposition in the Senate is money that will not end up in these funds. It is money that will not be available to be invested in the nation’s universities, hospitals, roads, public transport and ports. These funds are headed towards long-term investment in the nation’s infrastructure and the erosion of the surplus by the opposition in the Senate will reduce those funds accordingly. Those people in the community who may be inclined to support the approach that the opposition is taking in the Senate should perhaps bear this in mind: the money that is being knocked off the surplus by the opposition’s activities in the Senate is money that could otherwise go to financing a major investment in public transport infrastructure in their area, an upgrade of a public hospital in their region or a new science wing at a university in their area. I urge the opposition to rethink their wrecking tactics in the Senate, to reconsider their refusal to engage in the wider economic debate in this country and to commit, along with the government, to investing in the future of this nation for the long-term prosperity of all Australians.
Economy
5450
5450
14:34:00
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
0
Dr NELSON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you confirm your statement yesterday that the government’s inflation forecast for the next financial year is 3.75 per cent?
5450
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—As I said yesterday, we have inflation currently running at about 4.2 per cent, which is actually right. I think the key question, as touched on by the Treasurer before, is whether you think inflation is a problem or not. That is actually what is being debated here, and that is what is at stake. There is one side of politics which accepts that there is an inflation problem and there is another side of politics which says that it is a charade and a fairytale. The contrast is absolutely clear-cut. We are acting on the inflation challenge; those opposite are ignoring it.
Australian-American Leadership Dialogue
5450
5450
14:34:00
Rea, Kerry, MP
HVR
Bonner
ALP
1
Ms REA
—My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House about the importance of next week’s Australian-American Leadership Dialogue? Will the minister also detail the significant opportunities for policy discussion and knowledge interchange in relation to her portfolio responsibilities?
5450
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
Ms GILLARD
—In news that may distress or delight, I will not be in parliament next week. It is happy news for some, but, hopefully, Mr Speaker, you will miss me. I will be attending the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue in Washington. It is the 16th dialogue. People would be aware that the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue has served an important role over many years now in building and reinforcing the people-to-people links across our two nations. The Australian-American Leadership Dialogue has always enjoyed strong support from both sides of politics and has always been attended by members from both sides of politics.
The dialogue this year will be focusing on a number of contemporary challenges that face both of our nations. Those contemporary challenges include the international economic circumstances. They also include energy, security, international defence cooperation and the major challenge of climate change. I am aware that the dialogue staff working with the US State Department and members of the Bush administration have, in particular, been working hard on bringing the program together, and I thank them for that. The Australian-American alliance has been an enduring feature of this nation’s foreign policy. It is supported by both sides of parliament, and our defence relationship with America is very important to us.
But beyond our defence relationship, our economic ties, our cultural ties and, most importantly of all, our people-to-people ties bring our nations close together. The Australian-American Leadership Dialogue has played a strong and continuing role in those people-to-people ties. As members of the House may be aware, the dialogue does not just encompass politicians; it has always encompassed leading businesspeople, academics, social commentators and people who work in public policy. Once again, the dialogue in Washington next week will bring together a broad range of Australians meeting with a broad range of our American counterparts.
I note that I will be attending the dialogue. I will be accompanied by the Minister for Resources and Energy, the member for Batman, who will also be attending with me. I will be accompanied in terms of the opposition, as I understand it, by the current shadow minister for foreign affairs, the member for Goldstein, and by one of my counterparts, the shadow minister for education, the member for Casey. I understand my immediate predecessor as Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Lyne, will be attending. I understand that the last Minister for Foreign Affairs, the member for Mayo, will be attending, and I understand that the former Treasurer, the member for Higgins, will also be attending.
Mr Speaker, should you decide at any point that my absence is distressing you, can I reassure you that in my absence the Prime Minister will be acting as the Minister for Education and will be continuing the implementation of the government’s education revolution, and the Minister for Employment Participation will be acting as Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. So should it become necessary to update the House on the location of Work Choices propaganda, or indeed on manifestations of industrial relations extremism by the Liberal Party, the member for Gorton will be available for that purpose.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable gentleman—I am not sure what electorate he is from—for days has been holding up cards and things. It is unparliamentary behaviour.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The House will come to order! If the member involved were overdoing it, it would be disorderly, but I think that we can let those things ride at this stage. I tried to give an impartial—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I gave an impartial, respectful response to the Deputy Prime Minister’s initial question to me about whether I would miss her. When she outlined the touring party, then the impartiality was leaving me, because from Batman through to Mayo it is a good group and I wish them all the best.
Economy
5451
5451
14:41:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Given the central importance of inflation and inflationary expectations in the management of our economy, will the Prime Minister—
Government members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Those on my right are delaying proceedings. The member for Wentworth has the call.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr TURNBULL
—Will the Prime Minister confirm that the budget papers’ forecast for inflation in 2008-09 remains at 3¼ per cent, or has it been revised upwards to the level stated by him in parliament yesterday?
5451
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—Well, well, well! What have those focus groups been up to on inflation? We have a sudden change in position. Correct me if I have got it wrong. Not so long ago it was a charade. Then it was a fairytale. But did I just hear that inflation now is ‘of central importance’? What power does the Crosby Textor focus group machine have? I would suggest to those opposite that it is really important to have a consistent policy. We welcome the fact that they now recognise that 16-year record high inflation is important, and the honourable member should—
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr Nelson
—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the question is critical to the stability of this nation’s economic interests.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Pensions and Benefits
5452
5452
14:43:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
Ms SAFFIN
—My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister update the House on government support for carers and pensioners and on the response to these measures?
5452
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
Ms MACKLIN
—I thank the member for Page for her question and for her very real concern for her pensioners and carers. She certainly understands, as the government does, that pensioners and carers are under significant financial pressure. Whether it is the bills they have to pay, whether it is the cost of petrol or groceries, we certainly understand that whether you are a pensioner or a carer it is hard to make ends meet. While we do understand that there is more that needs to be done in this area, the government is certainly making a start.
From today bonus payments to carers and pensioners are starting to be paid. Four-hundred and thirty thousand carers and 2.7 million senior Australians will receive more than $1.8 billion in bonuses from the Australian government. Pensioners will receive a $500 bonus; recipients of carer payment and certain veteran carer pensions will receive $1,000. Carer allowance recipients will also be paid $600 for every eligible care receiver, and where possible these cash deposits will be made directly into bank accounts. Bonus recipients can be reassured that they will not have to pay tax on these bonuses and that the bonuses do not count as income for social security purposes.
There is further good news this week for all those eligible seniors and carers who are going to be receiving the June quarter utilities allowance payment. They will be getting $125, their second instalment in the utilities allowance which, under this government, has gone up to $500 per year—a permanent increase. This is the first year that carers will be receiving the utilities allowance. This was an election commitment that we made and which we are now delivering on. The former government excluded carers from the utilities allowance. We do know that this is just the start and that more needs to be done. We also know that to get this job done properly we need to look at it comprehensively. That is why we have announced that the whole area of retirement income and support for carers will be part of the review of the tax and welfare system.
I am also asked about other responses to these issues, and I have to say I am still trying to get a handle on the opposition’s response to this issue. They do still seem to be all over the shop on the issue of pensions. We know, of course, that as far as the opposition leader is concerned he said not a word in his budget reply about pension levels. However, the day after this budget reply we had the shadow minister for ageing, the member for McPherson, out and about on the post-budget hustings telling anyone who would listen that the opposition would, in fact, be increasing the pension. On that same day we had the shadow Treasurer for the Liberal-National coalition intervening and stating very, very clearly that the opposition had a policy not to increase the pension. The shadow Treasurer, the member for Wentworth, actually said on Steve Price’s show on 16 May: ‘We have not got a policy to raise the base rate of the pension.’ So you would have to say that that was pretty crystal clear—not much wriggle room.
So I was very surprised to read in the Age today under the headline ‘Nats in pension controversy’:
The coalition is again mired in conflict over the age pension, with the Nationals candidate in the Gippsland by-election defying his Coalition leaders.
Darren Chester called for a $30 increase in the age pension at a candidates’ debate yesterday.
Yesterday he called for that when he knew full well that the shadow Treasurer for the Liberal and National coalition has said they have no policy whatsoever to increase the base rate of the pension. This really is taking this opposition leader’s well-known policy flexibility to a higher level of excess. They have a policy, according to the member for McPherson. They do not have a policy, according to the shadow Treasurer. They do have a policy, according to the National Party candidate down in Gippsland. But, of course, once again we know that the shadow Treasurer is overriding all of that. It really is just getting beyond the pale with the Nationals’ candidate playing very, very fast and loose with the truth, trying to say he has got a policy when he knows that he cannot deliver it. Unlike the opposition, this government is serious. We are delivering on the bonus payments. We are delivering the increase in the utilities allowance because we know how hard it is for seniors and carers to make ends meet.
Economy
5453
5453
14:49:00
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
0
Dr NELSON
—My question is again to the Prime Minister: will the Prime Minister confirm his government’s budget forecasts for inflation?
5453
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—As I said yesterday, inflation is running at 4.2 per cent and I think what is pretty interesting in this debate is exactly—
An opposition member——What about your forecast!
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Of course the government stands by its forecast. What I think is really interesting is that it is not just the three positions we referred to before. If we go through the evolution of those opposite’s position on inflation, the member for Higgins said last year: ‘We have got inflation just where we want it.’ That was in the middle of last year. That is when they went to those opposite and then said inflation was a fairytale. Then we moved to—
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr Nelson
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance and the budget forecasts. This goes to the stability of this nation’s economy. The Prime Minister needs to say yes—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member will resume his seat.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Then we had this remarkable statement by the shadow Treasurer and prospective leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Wentworth, who said, on 17 March 2008, ‘mission accomplished’ on inflation—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is about the stability of the economy; about whether the budget forecasts have been changed.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I will listen carefully to the Prime Minister’s answer.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Then we had the member for Wentworth say that it was ‘mission accomplished’ as far as inflation was concerned—until we got to position number 5. And this number 5 today is that it is now of ‘central importance’. That is where we have got to: charade, fairytale, central importance. What is pretty interesting, though, on the economic policy stakes is this—from the quite extraordinary website which the Treasurer referred to before—from the alternative leader of the Liberal Party, which advertises the budget of the Australian government.
DYN
Jensen, Dennis, MP
Dr Jensen
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does standing order 104 apply to the Prime Minister answering his own questions or other people’s questions?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Tangney will resume his seat.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—We have this extraordinary website by the alternative leader of the Liberal Party which advertises the Australian government budget. It has on its front page, of course, the member for Wentworth’s address on the budget at the National Press Club, but I do not see any reference to the actual budget reply by the Leader of the Opposition anywhere on the front page of this website—nowhere. There is a dog blog there but no reference to—
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr Andrews
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister’s remarks now are no longer relevant. He was asked a simple question, can he confirm—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Menzies will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will bring his answer to a conclusion.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The core debate here is: do you believe that inflation is a real problem and therefore what should government policy be doing about it? We on our side of the House have a clear-cut strategy; those on that side of the House do not have any such strategy. If those opposite in the middle of their interjections had heard what I said before, of course we stand by the budget forecasts.
Same-Sex Relationships
5454
5454
14:53:00
Turnour, Jim, MP
HVV
Leichhardt
ALP
1
Mr TURNOUR
—My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General update the House on progress to remove discrimination against Australians in same-sex relationships and their children from Commonwealth superannuation laws?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I will give the Attorney-General the call on the assumption that he was able to hear the question over the interjections on my left.
5454
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
Mr McCLELLAND
—I thank the honourable member for Leichhardt for his question. I recognise his principled stand on these issues and, indeed, I am sure he would not mind me mentioning and recognising the principled stand that his immediate predecessor also took on these issues. As I noted earlier this week, some three weeks ago I introduced the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008 When I introduced that legislation I made clear why the government had intended an implementation date of 1 July. Just to underline the significance of that intention to members, I refer to an email that I received on 15 May this year from Mr John Challis of the ComSuper Action Committee and a long-time campaigner for these reforms. He said:
I’m very pleased that the entitlements for ComSuper death benefits will apply from July 1st, 2008. I only have to stay alive until then for my partner to be provided for; a great relief for an 80-year-old!
I think that underlines the significance of the urgency in passing this legislation with that succinctly made point. Unfortunately, members would be disappointed to hear that the coalition followed through on its threat to delay the passage of this legislation by referring it to a Senate committee.
I note, however, in today’s media, that in a Sydney Morning Herald article titled ‘Nelson’s left flank goes to war over same-sex bill’, it is reported that there was at least a partial backdown in an endeavour to dissuade Senator Sue Boyce from crossing the floor. If that is the case, I would congratulate Senator Boyce and I would also commend the member for Sturt and the member for Kooyong for also taking a principled position in this place by arguing for a 1 July commencement date.
Many opposition members with all the best will in the world have supported backdating the legislation. I previously outlined the legal complications with that and the injustice of causing a hiatus in income, but it appears that even there the opposition is not consistent in its position because earlier this month the shadow Attorney-General was asked whether the opposition would agree to backdating and he said, ‘I am not in a position to give that commitment because no such decision has been made by the coalition.’ Again, the coalition on these simple, straightforward matters of principle—removing discrimination—is at sixes and sevens. I would again encourage those opposite to support the expeditious passage of this legislation. I would also commend those opposite who have taken a principled stand. I would encourage them to continue it; the struggle is not over.
Budget
5455
5455
14:57:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
0
Mr KEENAN
—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government’s comments in the Daily Telegraph on 12 June where he criticised the coalition for scrutinising the government’s budget tax increases by saying:
The Government has a clear mandate to deliver our promises.
Can the Treasurer advise the House which tax increases he promised at the last election?
5455
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I welcome the question. What we promised to be was responsible, disciplined economic managers and we have been. We have been responsible, we have been disciplined and we have been cleaning up the mess left by those over there, most particularly the member for Higgins and all of those that sat around the cabinet table, who went on an irresponsible spending spree. It has fallen to us on this side of the House to put some responsibility back into the budget. It is one that is recognised by the business community; it is one that is recognised by the Australian people. It is not recognised by those opposite because they have become utterly irresponsible.
Northern Territory Emergency Response
5455
5455
14:59:00
Hale, Damian, MP
HWD
Solomon
ALP
1
Mr HALE
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government’s efforts to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia?
5455
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—Tomorrow marks the first anniversary of the Northern Territory Emergency Response, and it is an important time for the House to soberly reflect on what progress has been made, both in the Territory and elsewhere, on the critical challenge of closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. As those opposite will know, the government supported the NTER in opposition and welcomes the current opposition’s continued support, as the NTER continues to make some progress. Many families in remote communities are reporting that they feel safer because of the increased police presence, reduction in alcohol consumption, more night patrols and safe houses in communities. There are currently some 51 extra police serving in communities that previously had no police presence. That is a good thing. Then, 13,000 people are being income managed in 52 communities, and women in many of these communities say that the new income management arrangements mean they can buy essentials such as food and clothes for their kids. Shopping habits in licensed stores, we are advised, have changed: more is being spent on fresh food and sales of cigarettes have approximately halved. On the nutrition front, school nutrition programs providing breakfast and lunch for children in 49 communities have resulted in a small, but encouraging, increase in school attendance rates, and I think that is something which all members of this place would welcome.
Over 11,000 child health checks have identified kids who require surgery. This is a very important finding. Follow-up treatment, including surgery, is underway. Audiology services have been provided to 669 children, non-surgical dental services to 350 children, 46 children have undergone ear, nose and throat surgery and 40 kids have undergone dental surgery. In addition to that, 200 additional teachers are being recruited over the next five years to educate 2,000 young people previously not enrolled, and that again is an important measure, though that is very much a measure in progress.
The government is determined to move ahead in doing what it can to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and, consistent with what we said prior to the election, now that this intervention has reached its 12-month point, we will begin a process of formal review of the measures. That measure will take some months. We look forward to the findings of that formal review.
In conclusion, when in February we in this place engaged in a bipartisan way on the national apology to Indigenous Australians, that was very much the first step. I think all of us appreciate that.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey
—The first step was Mal Brough.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—With respect to those opposite, including the member interjecting, I am seeking to make a bipartisan statement about a matter which I believe the Leader of the Opposition and I have a common interest. It is not only the prosecution of the national apology, which we did on a bipartisan basis in this place, but also a program which aims at closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. I have said quite clearly before that the government, when in opposition, supported the intervention. I have said quite clearly before that the government appreciates the continued support of those opposite in this important area of endeavour. That is the spirit in which these remarks are being made.
Consistent with the commitments by the government prior to the election, the review process is underway and we look forward to receiving those findings. On the question of the apology, I think we in this place would all agree it was but the beginning, and I think all of us in this place would regard ourselves as having a common objective, which is to do whatever we practically can, through the national government and through the state and territory governments of Australia, to bring about real, measurable, demonstrable progress on closing the gap in education, literacy and numeracy, health outcomes and security outcomes for Indigenous Australians. Today I have simply reflected on the fact that it is the one-year anniversary of the intervention and on the forward measures which the government is proposing both by way of review and continued action.
5456
15:04:00
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Dr NELSON
—Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I wish to strongly associate the opposition with the remarks made by the Prime Minister in relation to the Northern Territory intervention to date and, in a spirit of bipartisanship, recognise the leadership shown by both the previous Prime Minister and the former member for Longman, Mr Mal Brough, in implementing the intervention and recognise the support from the then opposition in supporting it. I would also recognise that the apology offered by both sides of this parliament to the forcibly removed generations of Aboriginal children was an important step in the process, but we would not consider it the start.
Tourism
5457
5457
15:05:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
Mr CIOBO
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. At a time when the tourism export industry is doing it exceptionally tough, will the minister justify why the Rudd Labor government is slugging the tourism industry with nearly $1 billion of new tourism taxes? Aren’t the minister and the government contributing to the growing job insecurity within the industry?
5457
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism
1
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I welcome the question about the tourism industry. The tourism industry is a very important section of the Australian community. It represents 480,000 directly employed Australians and it represents $22 billion in export earnings. I also appreciate that the tourism industry today is going through a huge challenge both domestically and internationally. We as a nation are not only facing the challenge of the strength of the Australian dollar, which is having a huge impact on traditional markets such as Japan whilst we try to seize opportunities in new markets such as China and India, but also facing the impact of the oil crisis on the cost of aviation. In the last 12 months alone, the cost of jet fuel has doubled. It is also interesting to note that, for the first time ever, the cost of fuel relative to labour costs in a labour intensive industry has now outstripped the cost of labour.
It is in that context that the Australian government is going out of its way to assist the tourist industry, not only through the support of Tourism Australia and its endeavours to put in place a new marketing and creative advertising campaign but also through creating new opportunities through changes in the guidelines for the export market development program. This effectively means the program will no longer just be available to individual tourist operators. The changes are aimed at encouraging regional tourism organisations to work collectively to go beyond Australian shores to actively promote the opportunities in important regions such as the Gold Coast, Northern Queensland, the Hunter region of New South Wales and a number of other regions of Australia which are exceptionally important, because regional employment in the tourism industry is the key to a number of economies.
We also appreciate that one of the big attractions for people coming to Australia is not only that they will have a terrific tourism experience but also that Australia is a nation which takes the fight against terrorism seriously. That means that, in terms of border control, we have to make sure that the government is well resourced financially to put in place the best possible organisational response to terrorism.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: $1 billion of new taxes—and this is no connection back to the—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Moncrieff will resume his seat. The way to raise a point of order is to at least state the point of order, not to verge into a debate. The question has been asked and people have indicated that they think that this is a serious matter. They should listen to the response by the Minister for Tourism.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—It is a very serious issue. I can also advise the House that one of the challenging issues confronting the tourism industry at the moment is inflation. The industry are not only experiencing the impact of oil prices, from both a domestic and an international point of view, but also seeing it feed in through increases in the price of food and beverages. They expect us to operate in an economically proper way—and, at a macro level, that is about taking on the fight against inflation. It is for that very reason that the Australian government made some very tough decisions in the recent budget aimed not only at guaranteeing that we deliver every election promise, including the changes to the export market development program, which are of major assistance to the tourism industry—
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I say for the information of the shadow minister that that idea actually came from consultation in Cairns during the course of last year—because we actually get around Australia and talk to tourism operators to work out how we can assist them with fundamental changes to policies to enable them to compete in a tough global market. I simply say in conclusion that we as a government will not only confront the international challenges but also put in place, for the first time in a long time, a new consultative process aimed at facing up to some of the supply-side issues which were neglected by the previous government and held the tourism industry back in recent times—fundamental issues such as infrastructure and the shortage of skilled labour in Australia, which are very much covered by recent budget announcements of the Australian government.
Opposition members interjecting—
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—Yes, the tourism industry is important. I simply say to the honourable member that, unlike the opposition, the government has no short-term political stunts aimed at assisting the tourism industry in a very tough global world.
Beijing Olympic Games
5458
5458
15:11:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
1
Ms LIVERMORE
—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Minister for Youth. Would the minister please update the House on the preparations of Australian athletes for the Beijing Olympics and Paralympics?
5458
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport
1
Ms KATE ELLIS
—As we mark the 50-day countdown to the Olympics opening ceremony, I was very proud this morning to join with the Prime Minister, as well as the shadow minister for youth and sport, to officially farewell athletes from the Australian Institute of Sport who have been selected for the Olympics and the Paralympics. We are all incredibly proud of the Australian Institute of Sport and its athletes, facilities and staff. It is a great testament to the AIS, which is regarded worldwide as the Harvard of sports academies, that around 200 of the 440 athletes in our Olympic team are expected to be current AIS athletes. In addition, some 24 of the Paralympic athletes so far selected are current or former AIS athletes.
While many athletes have already qualified to live their dream, some are still to finalise their selection. As the pinnacle of so many careers is fast approaching, the nation certainly shares the sense of rising excitement and anticipation. We know that they will do Australia proud, as they always do, and that our sport-mad nation will be glued to our televisions cheering on our great athletes. Our government is well aware of the importance of sport and the Olympics to Australians. This year the Australian government has provided almost $216 million to the Australian Sports Commission, of which about $142 million is dedicated to achieving excellence in sport.
In addition, we are working to protect the integrity of sport. The Australian government, through ASADA, has invested more than $1 million to ensure that the Australian Olympic team is subject to the most rigorous antidoping measures of all time. As announced earlier this year, for the first time in our history every member of our Olympic team will be tested before Beijing after a historic agreement between the government and the Australian Olympic Committee. This puts our country at the cutting edge of the world antidoping movement. To date, ASADA has completed more than 1,300 tests, covering around 92 per cent of potential Olympians, with around 200 of these samples placed in deep-freeze storage facilities for future testing with new science and new technology. We are firmly committed to protecting the integrity of Australian sport and contributing to global efforts to see international competition untarnished by doping.
We all respect the dedication and discipline that our athletes display in order to represent our country on the world stage. I would like to pay tribute to their years of hard work, sacrifice and training. On this 50-day milestone, I am sure that we all wish all of our athletes well for their final days of preparation and for the challenges which lie before them in Beijing at both the Olympics and the Paralympics.
00AMX
Johnson, Michael, MP
Mr Johnson
—Mr Speaker—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—In the most respectful and impartial way: I cannot give you the call when you are out of your seat. That is according to the standing orders, which I am trying to independently put in place.
Murray-Darling River System
5459
5459
15:15:00
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
0
Dr STONE
—My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Minister, given that Eildon Dam is at 13 per cent capacity and the water storages of Melbourne and Geelong are currently over 30 per cent capacity, will you guarantee that no environmental water will be diverted from the Murray-Darling Basin food bowl to the toilet bowls of Melbourne and Geelong via the north-south pipeline?
5459
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
Mr GARRETT
—I thank the honourable member for her question. As she knows, the undertakings that have been made by the government on this issue are particularly clear. As she also knows, the $12.9 million commitment that the government has made to the Water for the Future program is unparalleled in the history of approaches to this issue. The government has identified as necessary an investment of $3.1 billion in restoring health to the Murray-Darling Basin and the region. On that basis, the government’s policy position has been particularly clear.
Whaling
5459
5459
15:16:00
George, Jennie, MP
JH5
Throsby
ALP
0
Ms GEORGE
—My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Will the minister update the House—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I like to deal with these things straightaway. There were three people on their feet. The first person on her feet was the member for Throsby. The member for Throsby has the call, and she can repeat her question.
JH5
George, Jennie, MP
Ms GEORGE
—My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Will the minister update the House on how the Australian government is charting a new course on international whale conservation?
5459
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
Mr GARRETT
—I thank the member for Throsby for her question and acknowledge her keen interest in the government’s position on opposing the killing of whales. I will be leading Australia’s delegation to the International Whaling Commission meeting in Chile, where I will introduce the Australian government’s proposal for a new future for the International Whaling Commission—a proposal that has attracted strong support from like-minded nations. This proposal has three elements: internationally agreed cooperative conservation plans for whales; collaborative research programs; and reform of the management of science, including an end to the granting of special permits for so-called scientific whaling. These proposals are underpinned by firm commitments and real science, including an extra $1 million from the government for the Australian Marine Mammal Centre to continue its non-lethal research program and to establish international cooperative research programs and conservation management plans for the great whales of the Southern Ocean.
Last Saturday I released a progress report on the global study I have commissioned of the science and economics of whale conservation. This study is bolstering our call for better protection of whales and providing important data to support our case at the IWC. Just this week members may have seen further scientific analysis of the threats climate change poses to whales—in particular, the potential impacts of shrinking Antarctic sea ice on whales’ critical habitats. This accumulation of new and existing threats is the reason why we must do all we can and why the government is committed to bringing an end to commercial whaling in all its forms. It is an approach that recognises that it is not good enough to go through the motions—like the last 12 years of ritualised, lacklustre and unfocused policy under the Liberal Party and like the last 12 years of rhetoric and press releases which produced nothing. We accept the need to strive for reform of the IWC and to work both inside and outside the commission to increase the protection of whales. That is why we have embarked on enhanced diplomatic efforts and why we continue to pursue a range of actions the previous government never contemplated.
I am surprised that the opposition is not supporting the Rudd Labor government’s reform proposals, given we are the only nation with a constructive proposal of this scope on the table at the International Whaling Commission. I look at what happened on the previous government’s watch and I see that the number of whales targeted by Japan more than doubled between 2004-05 and 2005-06. It doubled from 440 to more than 900, including a quota of endangered fin whales. That was on the previous government’s watch, and that is where we find ourselves today. When the member for Flinders was trying to defend 12 years of inaction, he told the ABC on 15 January:
Well, let’s be clear that we won every vote in the International Whaling Commission year after year.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—But that is wrong. For the record, we need to note that in 2006 anti-whaling countries, including Australia, lost a vote at the IWC—with a simple majority calling for a return to commercial whaling.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sturt.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—All the while, the number of whales targeted doubled between 2004-05 and 2005-06.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—What about Lake Alexandrina? What about Lake Albert?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sturt will get the opportunity to whale watch in Lake Albert!
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—We are not pretending that the IWC engagement is going to be easy.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sturt is warned!
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sturt will leave the chamber for one hour.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Warringah will contain his excitement about people leaving the chamber.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—The government is not pretending that the International Whaling Commission engagement is going to be easier, but the government actually do have a policy for reform. We have a constructive approach we are bringing to the table. But all the opposition ever seems to do is to talk down Australia’s prospects of success. All we have had from the opposition is negative or confused in approach and, when it comes to confusion, the member for Flinders could not wait for the Oceanic Viking to arrive in the Southern Ocean last January. In fact, he was pleading with the government on 16 January when he said the Oceanic Viking ‘must now arrive to not only help monitor and protect the great whales of the south but also to help act as a balance and to keep the peace on the high seas’. Of course, the Oceanic Viking did undertake monitoring and surveillance in the Southern Ocean, something that was never achieved in the 12 previous years of the Liberal government. Then we had the member for Goldstein making his contribution on 15 June about the Australian government’s action. He said:
It has reduced our credibility, reduced our leverage, our negotiating position in trying to reach a diplomatic solution.
I cannot think of a weaker message to be sending on Australia’s commitment to whale conservation than what the opposition have been saying, with their confused actions, their negativism and their record of seeing the whale quotas increase by a considerable number on their watch.
There is a lot of noise from members opposite because they recognise that their policy on this issue delivered absolutely nothing over 12 years. It is time for them to get serious and to resolve what they actually think about this issue and to look at the substantial engagement that the Rudd government has to get behind the strong proposals to refocus the International Whaling Commission on the conservation of whales—to come in with all of Australia as we chart a new course in the protection of these magnificent sea creatures.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
5461
Personal Explanations
5461
15:24:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
0
0
Mr NEVILLE
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
KV5
Neville, Paul, MP
Mr NEVILLE
—Yes.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
KV5
Neville, Paul, MP
Mr NEVILLE
—In stories emanating from the press today, too numerous to list, it is said in some articles that I was absent from question time. That is not the case. I left the chamber briefly to give an interview on exceptional circumstance drought relief of some concern to my electorate. The second misrepresentation was that I have a life-size bear in my office, which is not the case. I do not have a life-size bear in my office but simply a poster in the window of my office. However, I believe this arose from the wilful exaggeration of the Minister for Health and Ageing yesterday.
5461
15:25:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr TURNBULL
—Yes.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr TURNBULL
—In question time today the Treasurer claimed that my website contained a glowing endorsement of the budget. That is completely untrue. The Treasurer misleadingly represented a link on my website to an Australian Parliament House website which hosts the budget papers containing the words he quoted. The minister should apologise for misleading the House.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr Swan
—Mr Speaker, I table the member for Wentworth’s home page.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
5462
Questions to the Speaker
Members’ Attendance
5462
5462
15:26:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
0
Mr SLIPPER
—Proceedings of the Main Committee are considered to be proceedings of the House of Representatives. Under the standing orders, what is the situation when a member on a sitting day attends and participates in the activities of the Main Committee but does not actually come into the House of Representatives chamber? Is that member marked present or absent?
5462
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—The Main Committee does not enable the member’s name to be ticked off the list as being present for the day’s sitting.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
5462
Personal Explanations
5462
15:27:00
Robert, Stuart, MP
HWT
Fadden
LP
0
0
Mr ROBERT
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
HWT
Robert, Stuart, MP
Mr ROBERT
—Yes.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
HWT
Robert, Stuart, MP
Mr ROBERT
—I thought I would take the opportunity to introduce myself to ‘Lord Albo’ of Grayndler.
5462
15:27:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr TURNBULL
—Yes.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr TURNBULL
—A moment ago the Treasurer tendered this printout of my website claiming that it contained an endorsement of the budget. It contains, as we can see, a link to the parliament’s budget website.
DOCUMENTS
5462
Documents
5462
15:29:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS
5462
Auditor-General's Reports
Report No. 42 of 2007-08
5462
5462
15:29:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
——I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 42 of 2007-08 entitled Management of customer debt—follow-up audit: Centrelink; Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations; Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
5462
Ministerial Statements
Northern Territory Emergency Response—One Year On
5462
5462
15:30:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
0
Ms MACKLIN
—by leave—As all members would be aware, a year ago, following the shocking findings of the Little children are sacred report and the recommendations it made, the Northern Territory Emergency Response was launched. Initiated by the Howard government, we in opposition supported the measures, acknowledging the need for an urgent response and offering bipartisan backing. This bipartisan commitment to protect children in Northern Territory communities continues and I welcome the opposition’s ongoing support for the Northern Territory Emergency Response.
The Little children are sacred report backed up claims of serious child abuse made public by Alice Springs prosecutor Nanette Rogers and found that child sexual abuse was occurring in all 45 communities visited. It was just one of a succession of special commissions and coronial inquiries exposing disturbing conditions and behaviour in Indigenous communities and its first recommendation was that ‘Aboriginal child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory should be designated as an issue of national significance by both the Australian and Northern Territory governments’. It was and remains an issue of national significance and a priority for the Australian government. Its effectiveness is central to meeting the specific targets the government has set to tackle entrenched Indigenous disadvantage and to bring about the practical, structural, sustainable change that is essential if the next generation of Indigenous Australians are to have a better future.
A year on, the government remains committed to the NTER and determined to maintain the momentum and committed to an approach that stringently examines the facts and makes policy decisions based on evidence, anchored in what works. That is why we have commissioned a review into the effectiveness of the Northern Territory Emergency Response measures—to take a hard-nosed look at what has been effective, what needs to be strengthened and to make recommendations for the future. Any assessment of the NTER must be based on data and hard facts. We know only too well from past failures in Indigenous policy that decision-making grounded in ideology is doomed to fail Indigenous Australians.
The NTER Review Board has begun its work and will submit its final report by 30 September 2008. But the pace is not slowing while the review is going on. We will press forward with measures to make children safer and build strong resilient families and communities. We have committed $666 million to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage in the 2008-09 budget. We are continuing all current NTER initiatives as well as providing nearly $100 million for 200 new teachers and almost $30 million for three Indigenous boarding colleges.
We have learnt much from the first year of the NTER. We know that much can be achieved by working in partnership with Indigenous communities and that achieving sustainable change involves new approaches and strong leadership from all levels of government, industry and Indigenous people. One year on and the protection of children and improved community safety remains front and centre of the NTER. Our greatest responsibility is to make sure that children are safe and healthy, and growing up in families and communities which nurture and protect them.
To keep children and families safe, the Northern Territory Emergency Response has provided more police and police stations to enforce the law, help prevent violence and antisocial behaviour and enforce the bans on alcohol and pornography. Previously many remote communities were without law-enforcement authorities and serious violence went unreported. There are currently 51 extra police serving in communities which previously had no police presence, and night patrols are operating in all 73 prescribed communities. As well as policing duties, they are actively involved in their communities—coaching the local footy team, taking on a lifeguard role at the local pool. This is helping to build trust and increasing communication.
The Australian government has legislated to ban alcohol in prescribed areas and the takeaway sales across the Territory are monitored to stop grog trafficking. Night patrol services—a community-driven response to law and order problems—patrol community ‘hot spots’, diffusing violent situations, taking people out of harm’s way and diverting potential offenders from crime. Extra funding is being provided for legal aid and interpreter services and the Indigenous Violence and Child Abuse Intelligence Taskforce, part of the Australian Crime Commission, is conducting targeted intelligence operations both within the NT and more widely across Australia.
Supporting families and keeping them safe is critical to the NTER. Safe houses are being built in up to 16 remote communities and services are being expanded in Alice Springs and Darwin. A mobile child protection team has begun operating with the recruitment of additional child protection workers and Aboriginal family and community services.
To move towards meeting our targets to close the gap in Indigenous life expectancy, nearly 11,000 children have received a child health check. And much of the required follow-up treatment, including surgery, has started. Community based follow-up, including primary health care, audiology, ear, nose and throat (ENT) outreach and non-surgical dental services are being delivered in 46 communities and town camps across the Northern Territory. Audiology services have been provided to 669 children, non-surgical ENT services to 227 children, and non-surgical dental services to 350 children. Forty-six children have undergone ENT surgery and 40 children have undergone dental surgery.
The introduction of a school nutrition program, operating in 49 communities and associated outstations and seven town camps is providing breakfast and lunch to school aged children—improving their concentration and engagement in education. There is a small but nevertheless very encouraging increase in the school attendance rates in those communities where the school nutrition program is in place.
In 2006, the school retention rate for Indigenous students in the Northern Territory was just over 40 per cent—compared with the non-Indigenous rate of 75 per cent. The situation is most critical in remote areas. In these communities, the NTER is challenging the assumption that many children would simply not attend school and is asserting both the right and the obligation of school attendance. Two hundred additional teachers are being recruited over the next five years at a cost of $100 million to educate the 2,000 young people previously not enrolled. The first intake is currently in training. Significant capital investment in education is being made by the Northern Territory government and the Catholic Education Office. And the Australian government is building three new boarding schools to accommodate and educate remote area students from years 8 to 12.
We know that housing is critical to children’s safety, wellbeing and health. Families cannot function in substandard, overcrowded houses. The NTER is laying the basis for major improvements in housing stock and housing maintenance and management for Indigenous people. We are investing $813 million in remote Indigenous housing and infrastructure in the Northern Territory, including $793 million over the next four years as part of a joint agreement with the Northern Territory government. A further $20 million will be spent to refurbish houses in six communities. Under the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program living conditions for 80 per cent of people in targeted communities will be improved. This will include:
-
around 750 new houses including new subdivisions,
-
more than 250 new houses to replace houses to be demolished,
-
over 2,500 significant housing upgrades, and
-
essential infrastructure and improvements in living conditions in town camps.
Income management is key to making sure welfare payments are used for the benefit of children and increasing the financial security of families raising children. As at 13 June this year, a total of 13,309 customers were being income managed in 52 communities, associated outstations and seven town camp regions. Women in many of the targeted communities are finding that the new income management arrangements are helping buy the food their children need. And licensed community stores are reporting significant changes in customer shopping habits with increased purchases of fresh food and more money spent on the needs of children. Sales of cigarettes have approximately halved, and customers are also saving for the purchase of whitegoods, such as fridges, so they can store fresh food at home. Store operators have also reported that there is less cash circulating, residents have more control over their money and the incidence of ‘humbugging’ for goods or cash has dropped.
Some customers are using income management to help them save. For example, one elderly woman from Titjikala has been saving for the first time in her life and has been able to buy furniture and a television. The food security of communities is being assessed and upgraded on a region by region basis through new community stores’ licensing arrangements. Fifty-nine stores have now been licensed and a system of bush orders introduced.
The Australian government recognises that creating socially and economically viable communities in remote Indigenous areas is a huge challenge. Our approach has been to set high-level targets to close the gap, to identify effective policy building blocks and progressively put in place the policy and program settings to reach these targets. Our target to halve the gap in Indigenous employment within a decade is critical to increasing economic participation—which in turn is fundamental to sustainable, long-term improvement in life outcomes for Indigenous Australians. Lifting Indigenous economic participation demands concerted, cooperative effort and attitudinal change from all levels of government, industry and Indigenous people themselves.
It also demands a forward-thinking strategy to manage the inflow of mining royalties and other resource industry funds in the best interests of current and future generations of Indigenous people. These unprecedented financial benefits must be used to create employment and educational opportunities now, with investment too in long-term benefits for communities. It must be made to last for generations, not distributed as irregular windfalls to be frittered away for no permanent good. I believe all of us in this parliament have a responsibility to work with industry and the Indigenous leadership to harness these resources for social and economic advancement. New approaches are needed to the ways payments are negotiated and structured so that we improve accountability and provide greater assurance to Indigenous interests.
Just this week, I approved a lease agreement between the traditional owners of lands in the north-west of the Northern Territory and the Bonaparte gas pipeline construction company. This pipeline, crossing Aboriginal land, will play a major role in guaranteeing energy security for the residents of the Northern Territory, and it is encouraging to see Indigenous interests playing their part in the economic development of the Northern Territory. The agreement is for a 99-year lease with Eni Australia Ltd, which is building the pipeline to carry gas from the Blacktip gas processing plant near Wadeye to the Stuart Highway. Under the agreement, 2,500 people making up 19 land-owning groups will share in $10 million over the term of the lease.
While it is my statutory duty to oversight these major agreements and the responsibility of land councils to act in the interests of traditional owners and any other Aboriginals interested in the land, I have no direct capacity to determine the way in which these payments are either allocated or utilised. But, as I said earlier, I believe the government does have a responsibility to take the initiative to make sure the money flowing from this pipeline venture is invested in the future of local people. I have therefore decided to take this opportunity to make a generous proposal to the landowning groups through their representative, the Northern Land Council.
I have written to the NLC chair this week and made the following offer: if the landowners are prepared to establish an educational trust fund which benefits children across the region and allocate at least 90 per cent of the projected benefits into the fund, the Australian government will match them dollar for dollar up to a maximum of $10 million.
A fund of around $18 million would provide considerable benefits in perpetuity for parents and children in a region with one of the youngest and fastest-growing populations in the country. There are already precedents for this in the Northern Territory, with recent agreements between Newmont Asia-Pacific and Warlpiri traditional owners establishing a series of programs under an education trust. We are determined to make these kinds of agreements more common so that real and sustainable improvement can be achieved now and into the future.
So, one year on from the emergency response in the Northern Territory, we have made some important progress towards providing Indigenous Australians with the fundamentals of a decent life: a safe home, good health and nutrition, a decent education and a job. But there still is much, much more to be done. We have made a positive start, but we need to continue to work in partnership with Indigenous people. I am confident that if we continue to work both with the Indigenous leadership and across the parliament we can build on this progress.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Warringah to speak for 17 minutes.
Leave granted.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Abbott speaking for a period not exceeding 17 minutes.
Question agreed to.
5466
15:47:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
0
0
Mr ABBOTT
—This is the third ministerial statement by the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and it has been the first one that was really worth making. First, it has been on an important topic and, second, she has had something significant and useful to say. So I want to congratulate the minister on her commitment to the intervention. I want to congratulate the government on the presence of 51 extra police in the affected remote Northern Territory townships. I congratulate the government on the fact that 11,000 Indigenous children have received health checks. I also congratulate the government on the extension of income management to 13,000 people in the affected Northern Territory townships.
I welcome the minister’s assessment that, as a result of the intervention, there is now less gambling, less substance abuse and less domestic violence in the intervention townships and that there is now more food on the tables of the families living there. However, I remain concerned that, notwithstanding the government’s overall commitment to the intervention, the restoration of the permit system, the watering down of the pay TV porn ban and the restoration of CDEP and its implications for effective quarantining in the impacted townships are potentially significant steps backward. Nevertheless, in essence the government does remain committed to the intervention launched a year ago by former Prime Minister Howard and former minister Mal Brough.
The police have moved in. The booze has largely been removed. The children are at school to a greater extent than before and the adults are in work to a greater extent than before. Nevertheless—and I say this not by way of criticism of the minister but more by way of observation about the government and the party which forms the government—there is a hint of half-heartedness about the government’s commitment to the intervention. I cannot forget the statement of the now Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory that the intervention was ‘the black kids Tampa’ and I also cannot forget the fact that in other respects this government is somewhat watering down the practice of mutual obligation.
I am conscious of the stress on service delivery in the minister’s statement. Obviously the opposition welcomes the delivery of the best possible services in these townships, as indeed everywhere. But the problem is not so much lack of services in these places; the problem is more lack of an economic base. The problem is not so much lack of good quality housing; the problem is more building houses in places where there are no jobs.
I am conscious of a new stress on consultation. Consultation is something that almost no-one can oppose. Yet consultation has become a way of life in Indigenous communities; almost a substitute for getting on with life. I could not help but note the minister’s emphasis on creating ‘socially and economically viable communities’ in remote areas. I think I should in all honesty point out to the House that you cannot have socially viable communities that are not also economically viable, and you cannot have economic viability without a natural economic base. We will never close the gap in health without also closing the gap in employment, and we can never close the employment gap without equipping people to live in Australian cities as well as in Indigenous townships. I think we need to understand that we must do so much more than equip Indigenous people to live in an Indigenous version of old Sydney town.
Only Aboriginal people can maintain Aboriginal culture. The responsibility of government is less to facilitate the preservation of culture than to empower all Australians especially Indigenous Australians who need it most to operate effectively in the modern Australian society. That means essentially that the children have got to go to decent schools and the adults have to be involved in work programs that as far as possible reflect real jobs with real consequences for nonperformance. That in essence is the message which has been consistently given to Australians by Noel Pearson, and by Warren Mundine, the former national president of the Australian Labor Party, and I should acknowledge to the House that really they were a substantial inspiration behind the intervention and it is their courageous thinking to which we must stay true.
I want to conclude by saying that there was much that was mistaken in the mission era for which this House rightly apologised earlier in the year. But one thing that cannot be denied is the commitment of those missionaries to the people they served. The central error of the modern era has been to think that Australia is occupied by two peoples, one Indigenous and one not. We are, or should be, one people all with the same commitment to our families, their prosperity and their safety, all with the same standards of decency, all with the same standards of humanity. That in the end is what the intervention has been designed to secure. That is why it should be strengthened and extended. That is why I welcome the good news that the minister has been able to announce to the House today.
FAMILY ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CHILD CARE BUDGET AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2008
5468
Bills
R3001
EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS AMENDMENT BILL 2008
5468
Bills
R2966
VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2007 ELECTION COMMITMENTS) BILL 2008
5468
Bills
R2950
HEALTH CARE (APPROPRIATION) AMENDMENT BILL 2008
5468
Bills
R2972
PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008
5468
Bills
R2971
HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (90 DAY PAY DOCTOR CHEQUE SCHEME) BILL 2008
5468
Bills
R2961
DEFENCE HOME OWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE SCHEME BILL 2008
5468
Bills
R2998
DEFENCE HOME OWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE SCHEME (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
5468
Bills
R2997
INDIGENOUS EDUCATION (TARGETED ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT (2008 BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2008
5468
Bills
R3005
LAW OFFICERS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008
5468
Bills
R2985
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (TOBACCO CONTENT) BILL 2008
5468
Bills
R3010
FARM HOUSEHOLD SUPPORT AMENDMENT (ADDITIONAL DROUGHT ASSISTANCE MEASURES) BILL 2008
5468
Bills
R3006
Returned from the Senate
5468
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
AUSTRALIAN ENERGY MARKET AMENDMENT (MINOR AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
5468
Bills
R2949
Report from Main Committee
5468
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
5468
Mr GRAY
(Brand
—Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia)
15:56:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
(Quorum formed)
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
5468
Matters of Public Importance
Job Security
5468
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Moncrieff proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure to provide job security for working Australians.
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—
5468
15:58:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
0
Mr CIOBO
—I am especially pleased there are so many members in the chamber for this matter of public importance, because it is important that we look at the Rudd Labor government’s inability to provide job security for working Australians, those Australians who the Rudd Labor government said were front and centre at its election in November last year. What is crystal clear is that in the period since the Rudd Labor government was elected we have seen that the rhetoric has fallen away, the empty promises have fallen away, and what the Australian people have been left with is a government that is directionless when it comes to providing job security for Australians.
There was one fundamental promise that the Howard government gave when it was in office, and that promise was to ensure that unemployment would be driven down. Fundamentally, the coalition took the view that there was one core principle that the coalition could always be counted on to deliver—and that was lower unemployment. In fact, thanks to the policies of the Howard government, we saw a 33-year record low of unemployment. It had been 33 years since the Australian people had seen unemployment reach levels as low as they did under the Howard government. And it was no thanks to the Labor Party, no thanks at all.
On every key reform that was fundamental to ensuring that we brought down unemployment, we knew one thing from the Labor Party, and that was opposition, opposition, opposition. It was on every key reform, and we remember because we are rapidly approaching ‘fundamental injustice day’. We all remember ‘fundamental injustice day’. That was the day our Prime Minister said would be the day that descended upon the Australian people as a result of our new tax system. That is Labor’s rhetoric: ‘fundamental injustice day’.
The coalition’s policy in this area—and, most importantly, the coalition’s results in this area—was to provide job security for Australians, because the coalition knew that with the record 33-year low level of unemployment we were providing more Australians than ever before the chance to pay off their home, the chance to pay off their car, the chance to make sure that their kids could get a decent education and the chance to pay for private medical insurance or use the public system. In so many areas, we knew that the most fundamental workplace right of all was the right to a job, and that is something that the Australian Labor Party just does not understand.
What we know is that the Australian Labor Party is more concerned about the rights of someone who is unemployed than they are about the rights of someone to actually get a job. We see Labor Party policy absolutely reflect this. In so many respects, we have seen this new government since its election completely lose its way. As a result, we are seeing that there are so many Australians who are already feeling the dead weight of the government’s actions. Most importantly, we see this dead weight in terms of the government’s forecasts.
What we saw over a long period was the unemployment trend going down. And what do we know? Within six months we have seen the government’s own budget forecasts actually forecasting 134,000 Australians to lose their jobs. That is the government’s record in six months in office—134,000 fewer working families as a result of your government policies. To compound the problem, what we know about the Rudd Labor government’s policies is that consumer confidence and small business confidence have absolutely collapsed. I am pleased that the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy is at the table today, because he has got some explaining to do.
The minister has got some explaining to do for the policies that his government has implemented—the very policies that will put 134,000 Australians out of a job. That is the result of Labor Party policies. When members opposite sit in here on their cushy seats after they have made the transition from the trade union movement into politics, very few of them have any small business background. When they make that transition from their cushy trade union jobs to the cushy couches of government, what do we know? We know that the fundamental disconnect between their experience in the real world and Labor policy continues today. That is what we know about Labor Party policy.
There is a fundamental disconnection between the actual drivers of the economy and what drives the Labor Party. We on this side know what drives the Labor Party. It is the trade union movement. They are owned, they are operated and they are a franchise of the Australian trade union movement, and what we know is that in order to serve the interests of the trade union movement, unfortunately, there is going to be a bit of road kill on the way. And that road kill is the 134,000 Australians who this side of politics would always stand up for—those 134,000 Australians who we put into work and that you are now going to put out of work. They are who we will stand up for and they are the reason why we will make sure that our policies always create a positive small business environment.
HVM
Bidgood, James, MP
Mr Bidgood interjecting—
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The member for Dawson has had a good go!
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr CIOBO
—What is extraordinary is that the members of the Labor Party stand there and sing this ongoing refrain and rhetoric about how inflation is at the highest level it has been. We hear the Australian Labor Party continuously make comments about inflation being at the highest level it has been for 16 years. There are lots of facts in this regard, and I would like to educate the small business minister and those opposite about this issue of inflation.
Inflation is tied directly to the economic capacity of the country. Inflation is tied directly to the economic strength and the growth of the country. And, thanks to the former coalition government, and the fact that it did more to drive economic growth, did more to drive the utilisation of capacity, did more to drive unemployment down, did more to drive investment in business and did more to drive an overall increase in consumer growth, those things actually resulted in a strong economy that was the envy of the world.
What do we know about the Australian Labor Party? We know that their attempt to reduce inflation will not be to actually do something constructive but will be to slow down the Australian economy to such a point that Australians are thrown on the unemployment scrapheap. That is what we know about Labor Party policy when it comes to inflation. They have no real ability to tackle the problem through increasing capacity, but rather only an ability to tackle the problem by making sure that they throw Australians back on the scrapheap.
What is also clear about Labor Party policy is that there will be a very negative and ongoing consequence for some time, because this is just the beginning when it comes to a lack of consumer confidence. When the coalition lost office in November last year, the small business sector had an attitude towards the government that found that, on the whole, there was a net positive. A net positive number of small businesses felt that the federal government’s policies were actually good for their business—in fact, a net positive of 29 per cent.
By May of this year, that net positive of 29 per cent had swung around by 53 per cent to being a net negative of 24 per cent. What does that mean? That means that more small businesses now believe that the federal government’s policies are bad for their business. You will not hear the minister talk about that. The minister will not address that issue. The minister will talk about international economic circumstances. The minister will talk about domestic circumstances. But the minister will not talk about one key fact, and that is that the Sensis small business index shows that when it comes to small business policies, the federal government’s policies are destroying small business. That is what is crystal clear from the Sensis small business index.
That is in stark contrast with the legacy that was left by the Howard government. As the small business policies of this new Labor government are rolled out, as small business owners are forced to deal with the by-product and unexpected ramifications of these ill-conceived, short-sighted and myopic federal Labor policies, we know that they will lay off workers. They will not take the risk. If you want to see a case in point, I draw your attention to the tourism industry. Very recently we saw in Australia’s key small business industry the arguments put forward by the Minister for Tourism on why the tourism industry was doing it tough—the high Aussie dollar, exceptionally competitive destinations and every other country in this region growing more rapidly than Australia. As a result we have seen airline capacity cuts because of decreased demand. We have seen a record high oil price, which has also meant that the airlines have been struggling with the increase in the fuel cost. What was the Rudd Labor government’s solution for an industry that is doing it very tough? They imposed $1 billion of new tourism taxes on an industry that the minister acknowledges is doing it particularly tough—and I am not surprised that the member for Leichhardt is not in the chamber. We know that the member for Leichhardt has a bit of a propensity to sneak off early. We know that he likes to scoot off early.
Most fundamentally it is time the Australian people looked the Rudd Labor government in the eye and asked, ‘When an industry is down on its knees, when an industry is doing it tough with record high fuel prices, when an industry is struggling under the weight of a high Aussie dollar, how can a Labor government possibly say, ‘Here is $1 billion of new tourism taxes and we are here to help’? Kevin is not ‘from Queensland and here to help’; Kevin is from Queensland and here to impose $1 billion worth of new taxes—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! The member will refer to the Prime Minister appropriately.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr CIOBO
—and ensure that there are more than 134,000 people thrown on the unemployment scrap heap. That will be Labor’s legacy in the first six months and I am concerned that it is only going to get worse.
5471
16:09:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy and Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation
1
0
Dr EMERSON
—We had a spectacle here in the Australian parliament just a few moments ago when the ‘Foghorn Leghorn’ of the Australian parliament, the member for Moncrieff, who is very proud of himself, got up and said, ‘I’m very impressed with myself.’ So impressive is he that he could not get eight of his colleagues to stand up and agree that this was a matter of public importance. Most of his colleagues did not agree that it was a matter of public importance. They stayed away in droves. They had to call a quorum as a contrivance in order for the member for Moncrieff and shadow minister to get enough colleagues to come in—under duress and whipped into a fever by the Opposition Whip—and say that, reluctantly, they did agree that this is a matter of public importance.
Of course the future of the Australian economy is indeed very important. The shadow minister was telling us about a number of surveys that have been released recently and I will just go through a couple of them. The National Australia Bank quarterly business survey, in reference to a fall in investment intentions and business confidence, referred to high interest rates. The Dun and Bradstreet national business expectation survey referred to a combination of high interest rates and market turmoil. The SAR global ACCI survey shows that high interest rates and ongoing financial sector turmoil have significantly dented business confidence. The Australian Retailers Association survey released just a couple of days ago refers to rising interest rates and another released today again refers to rising interest rates.
They all have this issue in common: why have interest rates risen 12 times since 2002? The reason is that the Reserve Bank is very worried about inflation, and when it worries about inflation it increases interest rates. This opposition, when in government, allowed inflationary pressures to build up from 2002 right through to November 2007 and onto the current period and did nothing to ease those inflationary pressures. That is why small business confidence is being affected and business confidence generally is being affected. We know that high inflation, giving course to high interest rates, is public enemy No. 1 for small business and the business community in general. What is the official view of the opposition about inflation? We heard the shadow Treasurer today saying that inflation is a problem. This is a revelation. I have never heard the shadow Treasurer say that inflation is a problem; indeed, he said it is a fairytale. The Leader of the Opposition described inflation as a charade. But the absolute spending binge that the coalition engaged in is what has caused inflationary pressures. It has been a never-ending tea party!
We heard the member for Higgins, upon the release of the then Prime Minister’s memoirs, say to colleagues, ‘I offered him the menu and he took the entree, the main course, the dessert and the vegetarian option.’ Such was the spending binge of the previous government—and it has fallen on the Rudd government to rein in that extravagant government spending. This was a never-ending tea party where there was fairytale economics. Fairytale economics was practised by members opposite because, remember, inflation is a fairytale. In this Mad Hatter’s tea party, the more you spend the more you have to spend. In fairytale economics they do not believe that it is the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia who sets interest rates but the gnomes of Zurich in a faraway country called Switzerland. These people are on another planet. They have presided over the building up of inflationary pressures and, in doing so, they created a situation where there have been 10 interest rate rises in a row. That was the judgement the Governor of the Reserve Bank delivered on the economic policies of the coalition government. We will always remember the then Prime Minister in the 2004 election promising to keep interest rates—
Government members—At record lows!
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—at record lows. But they went up and up and up. As a consequence of that, we have these inflationary pressures. If you want an endorsement of this government’s fiscal policies, of our responsible economic policy, you need go no further than the OECD. In a report released a little while ago in relation to the budget, the OECD said that the stabilising role that fiscal policy should play is welcome. The OECD welcomes it, but not the member opposite, not the shadow Treasurer, not the opposition leader—he does not welcome it. In relation to budget policy, the report concludes that fiscal policy is slightly restrictive—that is, it is working to reduce the pressure on inflation and therefore on interest rates.
What does the shadow Treasurer say in relation to the budget? He said that it is inflationary. So you have got the shadow Treasurer saying that it is inflationary, that it is an expansionary budget and that it has got too much spending, and you have got the OECD saying quite the opposite. The shadow Treasurer does not know what he is talking about and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not know what she is talking about. They are all engaged in this Mad Hatter’s tea party.
I notice the website of the shadow Treasurer. I had a good look through that website. I looked and looked and I rang my office and we looked and looked. We were looking for a link to the budget reply from the opposition leader. Where is Brendan? I could not find any reference. They have no regard to responsible economic policy in this country, no regard whatsoever.
This is a government that is working to bring down inflation and therefore to bring downward pressure on interest rates. We are doing it through a responsible fiscal policy. You are off on your Mad Hatter’s tea party with the March Hare and the Dormouse and Alice and the Mad Hatter. They are all sitting over there having their never-ending tea party. Why don’t you get on board and get your grubby hands off the surplus! That is what you are doing—irresponsibly raiding the surplus. If you cannot cooperate in getting good economic policy implemented in Australia then get out of the road and let us get on and govern this country and invest in Australia’s future by creating a strong economy, a modern economy, to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
5473
16:17:00
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
0
0
Dr SOUTHCOTT
— In an MPI based on job security the previous speaker could not utter the J word—jobs. Back in the day when he was the economic adviser to Bob Hawke they used to talk all the time about the numbers of jobs that had been created. I have a suspicion—more than a suspicion—that we will not be hearing about job creation over the next 12 months. That is not something we will be hearing from the Prime Minister; it is not something we will be hearing from the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations; it is not something we will be hearing from any of the frontbench. I think it is a damning indictment of one of the ministers of the current government and it is a let-down for the people who voted for you that you could not address the issue of job security in an MPI on job security.
The government has a plan to destroy 134,000 jobs. It will not be job creation; it will be job destruction. In 12 months time there will be, on your own forecasts, 134,000 fewer jobs. What I have to report is that the Labor Party are on track to meet their own job destruction target. They have already taken out almost 20,000 jobs in the month of May. So in a month when the Treasurer delivered his budget, we had 19,700 fewer jobs at the end of May than we had at the beginning of May. So Labor are on track. I might point out this is the last time we will have detailed labour force data from the ABS. It is one of the things they have cut back. They are not going to be producing job vacancy data anymore and they are reducing the size of the labour force survey.
When we look at the industries that are shedding jobs under this new regime, on seasonally adjusted figures over the last three months, from February to May, the construction industry has shed 10,200 jobs, wholesale trade has shed 19,800 jobs and the retail trade has shed 5,200 jobs. Under the watch of the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, who is responsible for things like wholesale trade, retail trade and so on, there is no mention of these industries and the jobs they have been shedding. Since the government was elected we have seen a number of businesses shed workers: Integrated Forest Products in the ACT shed 110 workers; Telstra shed 111 workers in December; Commander, a communications company, shed 600 workers; Mitsubishi shed 930 workers; National Parts shed 300 workers; Telstra in Launceston shed 100 workers; Western Exporters in Charleville shed 90 workers; Brintons in Geelong shed 100 workers; Fisher and Paykel in Brisbane shed 310 workers; Players Biscuits in New South Wales shed 200 workers; Riviera Marine in the member for Fadden’s electorate shed 136 workers; Octavia shed 100 workers in February and 20 in May; Qantas and Jetstar are shedding jobs in Cairns; Holden in Victoria is shedding 531 workers; Clipsal is shedding 200 workers; and Crane is shedding 90 workers.
That is the record of the Labor government in six short months. They have already seen the turning point of the economy. In the leading indexes we now see a turning point in the economy. In the month of May they lost almost 20,000 jobs. At the end of May there were 20,000 fewer jobs than there were at the start of May, and there is more to come. Your plan is to take 134,000 workers out of the Australian economy. Your plan is to have 134,000 fewer working families in 12 months time than what you have now. It is a disgrace. You have let down the people who voted for you.
5474
16:22:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement
1
0
Mr COMBET
—The subject of this MPI is the issue of job security—and what a silly position the member for Moncrieff has put forward. The members opposite have contributed to the greatest attack on the job security of working people in this country in the history of Federation. That is what you have done while in government. For the 12 years of the Howard government, you presided over the greatest attack on job security in this country’s history. How did you do it? With Work Choices. Job security in this economy is served by two things—
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—Having a job.
YW6
Combet, Greg, MP
Mr COMBET
—having a job—that is right—and attending to macroeconomic policy in a responsible way. My colleague the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy indicated exactly how you failed on a range of issues in a macroeconomic sense. The second most important thing for working people and their job security is the safety net and being protected from unfair dismissal. You brought in Work Choices. What did Work Choices involve?
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr Southcott
—This is tired.
YW6
Combet, Greg, MP
Mr COMBET
—It is not tired; it is the greatest piece of theatre of the ridiculous. It is absurd to see you come in here and pretend that you are concerned about job security. Consider the key elements of Work Choices, from which you have not yet learnt a lesson. The first is to abolish unfair dismissal protection. What is it that serves the job security of Australian people in the most significant way? It is being protected from indiscriminate and unfair dismissal in their employment.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The member for Moncrieff has had his turn.
YW6
Combet, Greg, MP
Mr COMBET
—You brought in a system that exposed 3.7 million people; all employees of businesses with fewer than 100 employees had their unfair dismissal protection removed. What was the result? People lost their job security. That system did not create jobs; it exposed people to indiscriminate and unfair treatment by their employers. If you have not learnt that, you have not learnt much from the last election. The strength of the rejection by the Australian community of your attack on their job security was what led to your defeat in the election. And that is only one element of your Work Choices legislation from which you have learnt no lessons. You put the safety net up for grabs at the bargaining table, and those in the most vulnerable positions were exposed to having their employment conditions removed and their jobs casualised. If you understood what job security was for Australian working people—
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr Southcott
—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I may have offended in this respect myself, but I think the speaker should address his remarks through the chair.
Government members interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! Everybody has offended that rule during this debate and I have not picked up on it. The parliamentary secretary has the call and the member for Boothby will try to listen to him in silence.
YW6
Combet, Greg, MP
Mr COMBET
—I support that, Madam Deputy Speaker. You put the safety net up for grabs and, with AWAs—
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr Southcott
—Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think that ‘you’ put the safety net up for grabs; I do not think we did either, but—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The parliamentary secretary will not use the word ‘you’.
YW6
Combet, Greg, MP
Mr COMBET
—The member for Boothby and the member for Moncrieff and their colleagues, in their role in the Howard government, put the safety net up for grabs, and people do not forget it. In addition, you brought in AWAs and, through that mechanism, people’s job security was undermined—their employment conditions were removed and their pay was cut.
Again, if you were concerned about people’s job security, you would immediately repudiate those policies. It is not enough to say that you do not believe in AWAs anymore; you should be saying that you believe in unfair dismissal protection. The members opposite should make clear their support for the protection of people’s job security by supporting the Rudd Labor government’s position on changes to the industrial relations system, which will deliver job security by protecting from unfair dismissal and eliminating individual contracts and AWAs, which undermine job security and take away working conditions.
There are other elements of the Work Choices legislation that members opposite should also reflect on. That legislation undermined the right of people to organise and to be represented by a union. Both of those things serve job security well in the Australian workforce and have done so for a long time. You also destroyed the role of the independent umpire in the industrial relations system. The independent umpire has assisted by mediating where any irresponsible party has unfairly attacked people’s job security over many decades—and you took that independent umpire away. And you sit there and possibly wonder about it; you react with mirth to criticism of the policies of the previous Howard government, which destroyed people’s job security. You cannot create jobs by destroying people’s job security.
The members opposite do not understand that responsible economic management and the protection of job security through a decent safety net are not incompatible. They are both compatible elements of a decent approach to the regulation of the labour market in this country. The members opposite failed on macroeconomic policy, on the protection of the safety net and in relation to the protection of people’s job security against unfair dismissal. You have failed on so many fronts that you have been rejected by the Australian community. Learn a lesson from it. Support the Rudd Labor government’s approach to protecting people’s job security.
5476
16:29:00
Bailey, Fran, MP
JT4
McEwen
LP
0
0
FRAN BAILEY
—In the couple of minutes that are left, let me also join in this matter of public importance debate on job security. The reality is that it is the millions of Australian small businesses who employ 3.8 million Australians that understand what this government has done to them and their employees. They gave an indication of it the day before the federal election, when the Sensis survey came out; they said that they were worried about a potential change of government. The Sensis survey in February, the latest one, shows that small business, the major employer in this country, has no faith in this government’s policies. Look at what this government has already done to small business. The now Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, who is sitting there, 12 months ago would visit regional areas of Australia in particular and extol the virtues of the Small Business Field Officer system, and now he has scrapped it.
ADJOURNMENT
5476
Adjournment
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Mr Peter O’Callaghan
5476
5476
16:30:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the late Peter O’Callaghan, who lost his battle with cancer just a couple of weeks ago. Peter was a great builder of the local Croydon community. He was a doer, an entrepreneur, a man who always did his best, a positive man, a kind man, an inspirational man, a quietly determined man and a man who always had a smile. He lived life to the full. No minute was wasted in any day of his 68 years of life. He served his community tirelessly. He established highly successful businesses from scratch. He established Apollo Gas in the late 1970s or early 1980s, which was one of the first LP gas fitting companies. He established the well-known Pick-A-Part car parts yard in outer eastern Melbourne and, in more recent years, he established AA Recycling. He served the Croydon South Football Club with every ounce of energy for decades, raising money, helping the club and sustaining the club. He served in numerous positions at the club and was a pillar of that community. He then became more involved in local community representation, serving on the then Croydon council. He raised his family of five kids with his then wife, Jan. He was a fanatical cyclist as well in his spare time, riding his bike hundreds of kilometres in all parts of Australia, particularly around the Yarra Valley and the Dandenong Ranges, where he lived and worked, but also overseas in numerous countries.
He was also a dedicated and passionate member of the Liberal Party of Australia. He helped numerous state and federal candidates and members of parliament over a very long period of time in the Croydon area. It was through this connection that I first met him in 2001, when I became a candidate in that election. I will never forget my first meeting with him—a happy, optimistic party member who had rung up and said, ‘Pop down, I would like to meet you.’ We talked about the businesses he had established and about the local community that he had been part of for all of his life. He gave his time, his energy and his support to all of us in the Liberal Party in Casey and in the surrounding state seats. There are too many people he helped to mention individually. His inspiring example, his zest for life and his kind nature will live on in his wonderful family, in his five great kids: Tracy, John, Paul, Katie and Emma and, of course, in his grandkids, whom he was so fond of. I pay tribute to all of them, to all of his family, to all of his friends and to his partner of recent years, Christine. In this House of Representatives I pay tribute to the man who touched all their lives and whose influence will live on with them. I pay tribute to the late Peter O’Callaghan. His passing is a sad loss to the Croydon community and to the local Liberal Party, both of which he served with energy, purpose and distinction for the best part of 40 years. We will miss his happy smile and his helping hand, but his positive, vigorous approach to life will live on.
Job Security
5477
5477
16:34:00
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
HVN
Petrie
ALP
1
0
Mrs D’ATH
—I rise today to speak about the Howard government’s record on job security. This is the government that brought us the Workplace Relations Act 1996, which included Australian workplace agreements, undermined freedom of association and right of entry and excluded certain workers from unfair dismissal rights. The argument we heard from the member for Moncrieff today once again shows how out of touch the opposition is with the community. Of course, we all know that the government attempted many times to bring changes to the Workplace Relations Act over many years but were unsuccessful in getting their radical laws through the Senate. However, when gaining control of the Senate in 2006, the Howard government quickly used their majority to ram through Work Choices, a law that fundamentally stripped away job security for millions of workers throughout this country. Both the Workplace Relations Act and Work Choices sought to undermine the right of representation, to allow for the proliferation of casuals in employment and to encourage more and more employers to provide advice to their employees that they should go off and get an ABN number and start working for themselves as contractors. Alternatively, companies were shifting the employment arrangements of their workers over to labour hire companies without their knowledge just to avoid their responsibilities. And those responsibilities went not just to employment conditions but also to workplace health and safety obligations.
As an example of how extreme the Work Choices laws were, let us make a comparison of the industrial relations laws over the years. In Queensland, the first unfair dismissal case was in 1916 through the Fair Treatment Tribunal. The worker was a sewage transport worker with the Maryborough Shire Council. His union ran the case and won, proving that the worker had been unfairly dismissed. Compare that case to the rights of workers in 2006. A worker dismissed by the same council would have had no recourse to pursue an unfair dismissal claim through any tribunal. So in 2006, workers in Australia had fewer rights than workers in 1916. This is the Liberal Party’s idea of job security. Ninety years after the first dismissal case took place in Queensland, the Howard government had unethically stripped away the right of protection from workers. One of the key areas of the changes through the Howard government’s Work Choices laws was the unfair dismissal laws.
Prior to the election last year, Labor and the unions were being accused of scaremongering. It was said that everything was just union rhetoric. Today, the claims of Labor, workers and unions across this country have been proved to be correct. Examples of despicable treatment of employees by employers were arising on an ongoing basis since the introduction of Work Choices. Australia had seen groups of workers being sacked from permanent employment, only to be offered casual employment the next day. Workers were sacked by text message. Workers were being sacked for allegedly sneering at their employer, accused of being disrespectful. The Howard government claimed that workers could not be sacked for family reasons. However, Work Choices allowed the employer to dismiss someone without giving any reason at all, so it was extremely difficult to prove a case of discrimination. Even if the worker could prove it, they were required under the industrial relations laws to file the matter through the Federal Court. The average worker could not afford to go through such a convoluted, expensive legal process when the maximum compensation if they were successful was six months wages. We know that employees in businesses with fewer than 100 employees were excluded from pursuing an unfair dismissal claim. In addition, workers in large businesses were excluded for their first six months of employment. Even if you managed to get over all these hurdles, the employer could claim that you were sacked for operational reasons and the dismissal would be considered fair.
On 10 August 2005 Peter Costello, the then federal Treasurer, referring to businesses excluded from the unfair dismissal laws, was quoted in the Australian as saying, ‘There is no magic in the number 100’. He went on to say: ‘In years to come, unfair dismissal exclusion should be extended to all companies. I’d be open to this idea.’ This was the man who wanted to be Prime Minister. The opposition should not need to think too hard as to why they lost government. They were and continue to be out of touch with the community, and they intentionally turned their backs on workers in this country. This is the same party which yesterday ridiculed a federal member for giving supermarket tips. I suggest that you talk to any mother who goes shopping, and she will tell you that she looks for the specials when she walks in the door. No-one can believe the opposition when it comes to job security. The Rudd Labor government is serious about a fair go, and that is why it is introducing its Forward with Fairness policy.
Parliamentary Education
5478
5478
16:39:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
0
0
Mrs GASH
—During my term as the member for Gilmore, I have had the privilege of having a number of students from my electorate come to Parliament House and learn of the experience of life as a politician. It is often said that young people now have no interest in the political scene, much less understand it. I have made a conscious effort to prove that that is wrong. And so, as part of the deal in coming to Parliament House, each student needs to prepare a five-minute adjournment debate speech on what they have seen and how the experience has affected them. I hasten to add that the words that are to be spoken by me are the words of Brad Stait, our year 10 work experience student from Shoalhaven High School, and I have had no input into his speech. Brad is sitting up in the gallery and I am very proud of him.
To distinguished members of parliament, I am Brad Stait, I am 15 and I am a year 10 student at Shoalhaven High School. In the first term of this year at Shoalhaven High, all year 10 students elect to do work experience for one week at a business of their choice in New South Wales or the ACT. Personally, I have always had an interest in politics and I thought work experience with my local member of parliament, Ms Joanna Gash, would shed some light on this interesting career path. I went into Ms Gash’s office a few weeks prior and asked if it was possible to do work experience with her and she happily agreed. On 31 March, I started my work experience with Ms Gash. After enveloping 200 letters for newly enrolled constituents and making nearly 150 phone calls to businesses around Australia for contact details, I thought if that was my first day, do I dare come back for more? I was doing office work like this for the first two days before I got the opportunity to see another side of working with a federal MP.
On the third day that I was working for Ms Gash, she was hosting all the primary school leaders in the area for an afternoon tea. I was asked if I would like to see another aspect of her job, so I happily sat in. As primary school students, they asked questions which may seem simple at first, but I began to realise that as an MP, Ms Gash must thoroughly think through each answer and phrase her response extremely carefully so as to not offend anybody, or accidentally say something that may contradict an upcoming policy or party belief. I began to see that this is one of the main concerns for a politician. A local MP has been elected by the people as their representative by a majority of the voting community and as such, cannot be biased, racist or sexist, even if by an accidental slip of the tongue or misinterpretation. On the other hand, if a representative has made a promise that they don’t keep, or later contradict or dismiss, the people feel like they have been let down and lied to. I learnt that as a dedicated federal representative, Ms Gash needs to keep everyone happy with what she is doing and must try not to let anyone down. I know this would be extremely hard, but all this must come into consideration for Ms Gash even when she is answering the most seemingly simple question from a child.
Towards the end of the day, Ms Gash asked me if I would like to see yet another aspect of her job, so I decided to go with her on her village visits the next day, even if I did have to get up really early in the morning. So the next morning, Ms Gash and I drove down the coast to Ulladulla and started her village stops. I think that the village stops are absolutely essential for the smooth running of an electorate. With more than six thousand square kilometres of area in the Gilmore electorate, not everyone can make it into Ms Gash’s office when an issue arises. This allows constituents to meet Ms Gash in their local town or village and discuss any problems that they may have. That day I think I learnt the extent of the job of a federal MP and that being a community representative in parliament is only the tip of the iceberg in an MP’s role. The job of a good MP entails unfathomable duties, official and un-official, such as when Ms Gash met with constituents and tried to deal with their problems. Even if they were not her responsibility, for example, zoning, which is a local and state government responsibility, she would still go back into her office and work late into the night on letters to various ministers and departments on behalf of these constituents. Two months on, and Ms Gash invited me to attend this week of parliament with her. Now I think I realise what it really does mean to be a politician, and that how the media portrays politicians and politics in general—in my opinion—normally could not be further from the truth. What the public sees can sometimes—or in my opinion usually—be biased as the media is not an impartial observer, and stereotypes are really normally a portrayal of a very small minority of a group.
I am currently in year 10 at Shoalhaven High School, and last week our year chose our subjects for the HSC, and therefore our university options. After much deliberation and popular career fads that were circulating around my year, I decided what I would generally like to do after high school: a Bachelor of Arts, most likely in international relations, but what courses I would like to do within that degree, and where I would like to do it still escaped me. Previously, working with Ms Gash started opening my mind to some of those decisions, but in general I pretty much still had no clue. I, probably like a lot of the general public, naively believed that what I saw on TV in relation to parliament was generally accurate and right. After just one day in this immense building, my eyes started to be opened to the truth of the matter: politics is a career path where you may serve the public for 15 years and do everything right, but still get no real recognition, but if an individual has served for any period of time and makes just one mistake, that, for months on end can be thought of as their only career achievement and can even lead to the end of a long and distinguished career. Yes, you may be thinking: but a politician is supposed to be a role model and representative of up to a hundred thousand people. But if Ms Gash, for example, made an offhand remark that was taken as extremely offensive to maybe an ethnic group but that was unbeknown to Jo, that could possibly spell the end of a long and distinguished career.
I am very proud of you, Brad. (Time expired)
Mr Leonard Code
Mr Erin Grashuis
5480
5480
16:44:00
Rea, Kerry, MP
HVR
Bonner
ALP
1
0
Ms REA
—Last week, the Minister for Ageing came to Bonner to recognise two prominent local residents, Mr Leonard Code and Mr Eric Grashuis, for their significant contribution to improving the lives of senior Australians. We presented both Mr Code and Mr Grashuis with a plaque during a visit to the Alzheimer’s Association of Queensland’s facility in Upper Mount Gravatt, known locally as Garden City. The community service award is presented by the Minister for Ageing to individuals who provide outstanding service to older Australians or to older Australians who provide outstanding community service. They may be community members, volunteers, carers, aged-care workers or administrators.
Len Code is the very well-known Secretary of the Waterloo Bay Leisure Centre. The Waterloo Bay Leisure Centre is a very special place in the bayside suburbs of the electorate of Bonner. The centre is staffed wholly by volunteers, who in turn raise the moneys required to enable the leisure centre to financially survive. It receives no federal, state or local government subsidies but offers a wide range of activities and entertainment to its members, with a particular emphasis on participation rather than observation. Members are encouraged to take part in art and craft courses and to involve themselves in indoor activities such as bowls, snooker, table tennis and line dancing. Bingo is also conducted on Thursday mornings. Meals on Wheels operates on a site adjacent to the leisure centre, and the Wynnum-Manly senior citizens club conduct their weekly meetings there. Major events are held throughout the year to fundraise for the centre.
Len Code is the clear and guiding secretary of that organisation. In fact, Len has been secretary of the leisure centre for 17 years. He believes the most rewarding thing, and the centre’s biggest achievement, is the art classes conducted by Clear Horizons—which, thanks to his volunteer work, have seen a significant growth in numbers and the centre become a thriving social network for Bonner’s older Australians. The centre’s members range in age from 50 to 94. Len is responsible for the running of the organisation—as I said, he has been for the last 17 years—and has seen the membership of the leisure centre grow to 400. That is a fantastic effort and a real indication of what a popular and engaging place the leisure centre is.
Mr Grashuis has been a volunteer at the Garden City facility run by the Alzheimer’s Association for the past five years. This facility is a very special place in the southern suburbs of the electorate of Bonner. It is a facility that caters particularly for Alzheimer’s sufferers. It offers both permanent and respite care. It has 41 ageing in-place beds. It has a special secure area within the hostel, with 14 beds, designated specifically for people suffering from dementia. It also has two permanent beds it offers as respite. All of us who know anyone who is caring for a family member or friend who suffers from Alzheimer’s know how important it is to have some form of respite to enable you to enjoy other things and to get the rest of your life in order. Mr Grashuis has been volunteering at this centre for the last five years, where he helps transport less mobile people to do their shopping and other activities.
I would like to put on record my thanks and the thanks of the people of the electorate of Bonner to these two very remarkable volunteers. We must always honour and respect the contribution of our elderly Australians and the role they have played in shaping our country. I am so pleased that we have such wonderful examples of elderly Australians in the electorate of Bonner, and I am so pleased that they have offered their volunteer hours to support other elderly Australians who unfortunately are not as capable or physically able as they are. I thank them on behalf of the electorate. I would like to put on record my congratulations to them and my thanks to the minister for recognising them through the community service awards. (Time expired)
Mr Charles Hamilton
5481
5481
16:49:00
Morrison, Scott, MP
E3L
Cook
LP
0
0
Mr MORRISON
—As a new member of this place, I have been following the example of someone I believe is the best local member in this House—that is, the member for Gilmore, who sits here before me—and running a series of Cook community clinics. These clinics have been held in Cronulla, Miranda, Sylvania, Bundeena, Kurnell, Kareela, Gymea and Caringbah and the last in this series will be held on Saturday week at Jannali. As members of this House will know, they are a great opportunity to listen proactively and to take on board the views of constituents. In my case, issues have ranged from aircraft noise to the desalination plant at Kurnell, to the F6 extension, to matters relating to the budget—particularly private health insurance—and a range of other issues.
Two weeks ago at Caringbah I was approached by a constituent from Taren Point who had been a carer of his mother for 16 years. His name is Charles and his mother’s name was Margaret. Charles is the youngest of four brothers. After his father left his mother in the mid-sixties, Margaret raised the four boys on her own—working as a typist in the railways and at Lidcombe Hospital, where at one stage she contracted TB. Margaret sacrificed herself for her children at a time when it was even more difficult to be single parent in our society than it is today. To her great and enduring credit, one of her sons went on to study agriculture at Sydney university and the three older sons all had families of their own.
However, it is her youngest son, Charles, that I believe she would be most proud of. Charles started work with Qantas in 1967, aged just 17. In 1991, at age 41, Charles took a redundancy and in 1992 took on the role of carer for his mother, Margaret, who was then aged 81. For the next 16 years Charles’s entire life was dedicated to caring for his mother. Charles never married. He supported himself throughout that time by spending his redundancy and taking part-time or casual work when he could. In September 2001 under the coalition government he began receiving the carers allowance and in July 2003 he received the carers payment. Charles also received the annual $1,000 carers bonus. His mother throughout this time received an age pension. Charles provided a high level of care for his mother, enabling her to stay in her own home and enjoy a quality of life with her son, her family and her community. Charles would dress her, bathe her, prepare meals, research her diet—ensuring she had the right balance—manage her medication, take her for outings, take her to doctors appointments, make her morning and afternoon tea, do the shopping and dress her wounds, as her skin would constantly tear because of her age. Above all, he constantly monitored his mother’s condition—sleeping, as he said, with one ear open always.
Many people live the life that Charles has lived. They are the unsung heroes of our community who selflessly care for those they love. Charles’s mother, Margaret, sadly passed away on 12 September last year. Her pension naturally terminated on that day and on 19 December the carer allowance for Charles terminated also. Charles is currently 58 and will not be eligible for the age pension until he is 65. For the 16 years he cared for his mother he had three days of respite. During those years he was unable to contribute to superannuation and was unable to generate entitlements such as holiday leave or long service leave. Now, at 58, he has to go back into the workforce. We hear much about people’s rights at work. However, the question must be asked about the rights and entitlements of carers, who are excluded from such a debate. Charles said to me, ‘The system does not recognise my effort in any way for the way I sacrificed my working life.’ Had he been working, Charles tells me he would now have 82 weeks of accumulated leave.
Charles’s story is a reminder to me and to all of us in this place that when it comes to carers we have a long way to go and a lot to answer for. While I am proud of the work of the Howard government and the various initiatives that were introduced to improve conditions for carers, we truly still have a long way to go. I take the opportunity in this place to thank Charles for his service to his mother, his family and our community—on our behalf. I wish Charles all the very best in the next phase of his life, but I know it will be difficult for him. We must do more for Charles and all those like him. We in this place should not rest until we do.
Education
5482
5482
16:53:00
Clare, Jason, MP
HWL
Blaxland
ALP
1
0
Mr CLARE
—Benjamin Disraeli once said:
Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends.
This is as true of Australia today as it was of 19th century England. We have a mandate to revolutionise education in this country, and tonight I want to commend the government’s first steps. Our first steps, after all, are the most important. This is where the education revolution begins. Learning starts early. Research indicates that 50 per cent of our educational capacity is determined before we even start school. Eighty per cent of Australian four-year-olds currently go to preschool. In Blaxland it is only 60 per cent. This is where the government’s commitment to universal preschool for all four-year-olds will reap the greatest dividends, and I commend the government for the funds they have allocated towards this task in the budget. I also want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Childcare for her commitment to this area. She has accepted my invitation to meet with local childcare providers in my electorate next month to discuss issues of concern to them and to understand their needs.
At the other end of the education spectrum the principle is the same: a focus on equity and need. I am glad to see that legislation has now passed through this place to abolish full-fee paying places at university. Entrance to university should be based on merit, not net worth. I do not believe that you should be able to buy a degree at the expense of another student who does not have the money to pay up-front. At every election since 1998 we have promised the Australian people that we would end this inequity and, now that we are in government, I am glad to see that we are keeping our promise.
In between the crayons and the glue and the caps and the gowns are our schools. In the last few weeks the Deputy Prime Minister has made a number of important speeches about the need to get over the old public-private school debate and to fund schools based on need. There are a lot of public schools and a lot of private schools in my electorate. Few of them are wealthy. There are a lot of priority or disadvantaged schools there and they will welcome a new funding model based on need. I am looking forward to welcoming the Deputy Prime Minister to my electorate next month to see the potential benefits of this approach. We saw the first evidence of what this will mean last week with the rollout of the National Secondary School Computer Fund. The first computers are going to Australia’s most needy schools—schools with a computer-to-student ratio of 1:8 or worse. This is the way I believe limited government resources should be allocated—based on need. For a place like Blaxland, overlooked and ignored by the previous government, it means we will be one of the major beneficiaries.
Thirteen high schools in my electorate have qualified for funding in round 1. They will receive more than 2,000 computers, which is more than $2 million—more than almost any other electorate in Australia. The schools include Bass High School, which will get 190 computers; Birrong Boys High School, 132; Birrong Girls High School, 210; Cabramatta High School, 180; Canley Vale High School—my old school—242; Chester Hill High School, 309; Punchbowl Boys High School, 85; PAL College, 38; La Salle Catholic College, 186; Patrician Brothers College, 322; Al Amanah Islamic College, 64; Bankstown Grammar School, 137; and Malek Fahd Islamic School, 165. I think this is a good example of the difference a Labor government makes—delivering for people based on need, not on how marginal the seat is that they live in.
Next month I will be holding the first of a regular series of roundtable meetings with the 52 principals, public and private, in my electorate. All of them are committed to our local community. In fact, some of them helped me with my local 2020 summit by facilitating workshops. I am looking forward to working together with my local principals to talk about their challenges and to see how I can help. I am sure we will be able to come up with a lot of good ideas that I can bring back to Canberra.
I commend the government’s first steps towards an education revolution, one based on equity and need at preschool, school and university; one that recognises that we live in a knowledge economy and that the challenges of today and tomorrow require a highly skilled digital literate workforce; one that makes sure every child has the same opportunity to succeed, which will help ensure we all succeed; and one that makes good the promises we have made, whether that is the promise we made a decade ago to abolish full fee paying places at university or the promise we made last year to provide universal preschool. It reflects our belief that upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends.
Journalism
5483
5483
16:58:00
Irwin, Julia, MP
83Z
Fowler
ALP
1
0
Mrs IRWIN
—Last month in Kenya 12 women were burned to death as witches. But it appears that good old-fashioned witch-hunts are not restricted to deepest, darkest Africa. For the past two weeks in Australia we have witnessed a media frenzy that can only be described as a witch-hunt. We have seen media outlets descend to new lows as they fan the fires of superstition. While I would single out the hammer of witches, the Daily Telegraph and its brother the Sunday Telegraph, I would also add crikey.com.au for some of the most disgraceful journalism ever seen in this country. But what is worse is that so-called quality news outlets have been lighting their own torches to join in the witch-hunt. In the age of digital media it seems our journalists are stuck in the 15th century. Only Alan Jones seemed to understand the gravity of this lapse when he said:
Unless the media are dedicated to the truth and the facts above all else, it’s difficult to know how the democratic process can function properly.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Order! It being 5.00 pm, the debate is interrupted.
5484
17:00:00
House adjourned at 5.00 pm
NOTICES
5484
Notices
HVY
Saffin, Janelle, MP
Ms Saffin
to move—
That the House:
-
notes that:
-
the 19 June 2008 marks the 63rd birthday of Nobel laureate and leader of the democracy movement in Burma, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi;
-
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been held under house arrest since May 2003, and periodically before then since 1989;
-
the Burmese military dictatorship has refused to acknowledge the results of the 1990 election, in which the National League for Democracy of which Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was General Secretary, won an overwhelming majority; and
-
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has refused a number of opportunities to leave Burma, even to visit her dying husband, knowing that she would be denied the right to return to continue the struggle for democracy and human rights in Burma;
00AMT
Vamvakinou, Maria, MP
Ms Vamvakinou
to move—
That the House:
-
recognises the social, economic and human cost of the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict;
-
notes the broader implications of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in terms of regional stability as well as diplomatic relations in the Middle East;
-
condemns all forms of violence as an obstacle to peace;
-
supports the renewal of diplomatic efforts to negotiate a just and lasting peace and recognises the efforts of the Quartet-led Road Map to peace in the Middle East;
-
notes the Middle East peace initiative formally announced by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah during a meeting of the Arab League Summit in Beirut in March 2003;
-
acknowledges that a negotiated settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict must necessarily involve both parties reaching agreement on final status issues, including the status of Jerusalem, the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees, settlements, security, borders and water;
-
supports the Australian Government’s recent decision to increase Australia’s development assistance program to the Palestinian Territories; and
-
believes that Australia has an important role to play as a middle power in encouraging peace initiatives between Palestinians and Israelis that are consistent with Australia’s commitment to multilateral diplomacy, responsible international citizenship and the principles of international law.
2008-06-19
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 9.30 am.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
5485
Statements by Members
Cost of Living
5485
5485
09:30:00
Robert, Stuart, MP
HWT
Fadden
LP
0
0
Mr ROBERT
—What a distinct pleasure once again! I rise to raise an issue of significant importance to my electorate of Fadden, which of course is the fastest growing electorate in the nation, and that is the continual cost of living increases and pressures and especially the increasing cost of petrol and groceries. During the last election campaign, the Rudd-Swan government 20 times led the Australian people to believe that it would be able to address the rising cost of petrol and groceries. Yet six months into the term all of these things have risen in cost. The government continues to tout promise after promise, yet the delivery time appears to wax and wane and, indeed, appears to be optional. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, looking at the CPI during the December and March quarters, food rose by 2.1 per cent, housing costs rose by 1.9 per cent, health increased by four per cent and education costs increased by 5.2 per cent in the first six months of the Rudd-Swan government.
All of these increases add to the pressure of balancing the family budget at home. Combined with that, consumer sentiment since November, when the government was elected, is at its lowest since 1992, when Australia was plunged into a banana republic situation by then Prime Minister Keating with a recession that apparently we ‘had to have’. We have a budget that has just been brought down that has included $19 billion in new taxes and, looking forward to the next four years, has increased expenditure by $15 billion over what the previous government had. The Rudd-Swan government touts an inflation-fighting budget by reducing expenditure, yet, looking through to the next four years in what are called the forward estimates, the opposite is the case.
Fuelwatch is being brought in as a stunt to try to convince the Australian people that the government is doing something about watching fuel, when in fact all it is doing is watching the price go higher and higher. Four of the significant economic government departments all warned against it. The Minister for Resources and Energy warned his colleagues against it, and yet still the government persists with this charade.
ABC Learning has indicated that it will put up its childcare fees by a staggering 10 per cent, which will consume all of the 30 per cent to 50 per cent increase in the rebate for childcare centres. The Deputy Prime Minister stood in the House and said that she will ‘watch’ what childcare providers are doing. We need this government to do more than just watch—heaven forbid, we actually need them to act.
Mr Michael Walsh
5485
5485
09:33:00
Owens, Julie, MP
E09
Parramatta
ALP
1
0
Ms OWENS
—On 17 May I joined a group of junior cyclists from the Parramatta Cycling Club and rode from Parramatta down to Liverpool to meet up with 16-year-old Michael Walsh. While we had been riding down from Parramatta, which is about 50 kilometres, Michael had ridden from Melbourne over the preceding six days to raise money for cancer research as part of the Relay for Life. When we joined Michael at the beginning of the M7 he had 50 kilometres to go back to the Castle Hill Showground, and I have to say that he made it very difficult for us all over that 50 kilometres into a headwind up at the front. After six days on the bike on his own, he was not going to let any of us lead him into the Castle Hill Showground.
The event was all Michael’s idea, an extraordinary undertaking for a 16-year-old. It was his idea. He put together the team that made it happen. He enlisted the support of the school at Castle Hill and Excelsior Public and both helped to raise money. In fact when he rode into Castle Hill, the students from Castle Hill High School as an act of support had all dyed their hair red to match Michael’s. It was a great greeting from the crowd at Castle Hill Showground. Denlo Subaru sponsored the Relay for Life and donated a Subaru Forester for Michael’s parents, Jenny and Terry, to use as a support vehicle.
I was lucky to be invited. I was riding around Parramatta Park one morning and met Michael. He knew I had done the ride from Melbourne to Sydney a couple of months earlier, also raising money for medical research, so he invited me to do the last 50 kilometres. It was an absolute pleasure to support such an extraordinary young man in what was a phenomenal undertaking—for the information of people who do not ride bicycles, it is about 150 kilometres a day, each day, on his own. It is much, much harder to do it on your own than it is to do it in a bunch. But even more than the feat of doing it is for a 16-year-old to come up with that idea and to actually make it happen. He rode out of Melbourne and through Albury, Wagga Wagga, Wollongong and Goulburn on that 900-kilometre route. He stopped at schools and community groups all the way who supported him and made donations to the cause. It was quite a phenomenal undertaking. I also know he went out and cycled 100 kilometres the next day so that he would not miss the opportunity to have done 1,000 kilometres in a seven-day period. Once again, a great job by Michael: not just the ride but also the idea and making it happen. I also congratulate his parents, who spent probably quite a nerve-racking six days following Michael along some fairly rough highways.
Herbert Electorate: St Anthony’s School
5486
5486
09:36:00
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
0
0
Mr LINDSAY
—I want the parliament to know, I want the Australian government to know and I want the Australian people to know that I support the students at St Anthony’s school at Deeragun who care for other students. Last week I received 82 individual contributions from the students, and they were very thoughtful contributions indeed. They are coloured in as a mechanism to ensure that the students made their point: that they care. They care about child poverty; they care about child health; they care about the millennium goals that the world has set, to be delivered by 2015. I particularly want to thank Sophie Lulham from 3D at St Anthony’s school, who made a very colourful contribution, and Thomas Boscacci from 3D—Mrs Hickey’s class—for his contribution. It certainly touched me and I want to say to St Anthony’s school: you have my full support and I believe that you will have the support of all of the members of the Australian parliament.
There are eight UN Millennium Development Goals, but the school is particularly interested in millennium goal No. 4, which is to reduce child mortality. Not only do we have to think about that across the world; we also have to think about it in our own country. We have to think about what all of us can do to improve the lot of children as they face the world of the future.
To St Anthony’s school: thank you for sending me this particular certificate. You have indicated to me that St Anthony’s primary campus cares that Australia keeps its promise to achieve Millennium Development Goal 4 by increasing aid for child health to $560 million by 2010. You have told me that you have included 82 drawings of yourselves to represent children in developing countries that need access to health care. I want you to know that I support you. I want you to know that I will do what I can for this very worthy cause. Thank you for sending all of this to me.
World Youth Day
5487
5487
09:39:00
Perrett, Graham, MP
HVP
Moreton
ALP
1
0
Mr PERRETT
—In just 26 days, thousands of young people will converge on Sydney to celebrate World Youth Day. Around 250,000 young people are expected to attend, making it the largest youth event in the world and even bigger than the 2000 Sydney Olympics. The week-long event will be attended by Pope Benedict XVI and provides an opportunity for Catholics from Australia and around the globe to celebrate with others and learn about their faith. As well as the pilgrims, the event will involve more than 8,000 volunteers, 2,000 clergy and 500 cardinals and bishops. There will be a lot of robes on show. The event combines creative outlets like music, visual arts, debates and forums, theatre and street performances. World Youth Day is also supported by official ambassadors, like Matthew Hayden, Jarred Crouch, Jimmy Little and many others.
The event was established by Pope John Paul II in 1986 as a way to reach out to the next generation of Catholics, to demonstrate confidence in them and to rejuvenate the church. I want to say how impressed I am that so many young people from Australia and all around the world have put up their hands to attend. These are people who want to learn more about their faith and explore ways to serve their church and, more importantly, to serve their community. Australian society is much better for the existence of the Catholic Church. In fact, I shudder to think what life would be like without the Catholic Church. For starters, I do not think my mum would have had 10 children. What would it be like without the great Catholic contribution to education, without the Catholic efforts to support the homeless and the indigent, without the great Catholic commitment to hospitals and to health and aged-care programs throughout our community, and obviously without priests and other counsellors who offer hope and support to millions throughout the world? People of faith can and do make a positive difference to Australian society. I hope that, as the thousands of young people get together to learn and be inspired by World Youth Day in Sydney, they will then return to their schools, their places of work and their communities and also make a difference.
I particularly want to recognise four young people from my local parish, St Brendan’s, Moorooka, who will attend World Youth Day—Phoebe Fitzpatrick and three brothers of refugee background who came to Australia from Ethiopia some years ago. They are Bay, Yimesret and Metasebia Gebrewald. All four young people are active members of my local church and are eager to make the world a better place. I especially thank the Southern Deanery for their fundraising efforts in supporting the attendance of these terrific young people at World Youth Day. There will be many events in the community, including the greeting of the pilgrims at the international airport on Thursday, 10 July; the Heart of the City event in the middle of the city on Saturday, 12 July; and masses on Sunday, 13 July. I am sure it is going to be a wonderful time.
World Youth Day
Fishing Industry
5488
5488
09:42:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
0
0
Mr SLIPPER
—At the outset, I would like to commend the honourable member for Moreton on his contribution. I think it is wonderful that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is visiting Australia. It would be tremendous if the government would have a special Friday sitting of the parliament whereby His Holiness could be present and members of the Australian parliament would be able to recognise this very important figure. I am sure the government would have no quarrel from the opposition were such a Friday sitting to be instituted.
Having said that, I do intend today to talk about a very important industry to the Sunshine Coast and to Australia generally, and that is the prawn fishing industry, which currently fears it may be forced to close down by Christmas as a result of several factors, the main ones being the rising cost of fuel and competition from cheaper imported products.
The total import of fish products, including prawns, into Australia topped $1 billion for the first time in 2005-06. Crustacean imports, consisting mainly of prawns, made up $256 million of that. Thailand and New Zealand dominate the import market for edible fisheries product, but increasingly there has been importation from China and other parts of Asia.
We believe that the Australian product is the very best product. But, because of the difference in price between the Australian product and the imported product, increasing numbers of Australians are buying the imported product, causing a situation where our local industry is threatened. It is no surprise, of course, with the rising price of groceries in Australia that consumers are indeed endeavouring to save money in any way they can, even if that means buying inferior prawns or other seafood products.
The pressures on the local industry are a major concern for prawn fisheries in my electorate on the Sunshine Coast. Many families depend on the prawning industry. They have been feeling the pressure for some time, and now the increasing price of fuel, which is getting to astronomical heights and has experienced what can only be described as ridiculous price hikes in recent times, has added to what could be a final nail in the coffin.
Other issues the industry says it has been facing over years are the destruction of natural waterways that are an important link in the breeding chain of prawns; the closure of parts of the fisheries north of Fraser Island; and the relocation of vessels affected by the closure to other ports, thereby increasing demand on existing fisheries.
Last week I spoke to Sunshine Coast representatives of the industry. They advised me that they are concerned about losing their homes and their livelihoods, and there have even been thoughts of suicide. The government needs to look at the situation of the prawn industry. I ask that the government look with favour on the plight of these Australians who make such a wonderful contribution to our economy. (Time expired)
Liquified Petroleum Gas Vehicle Scheme
5488
5488
09:45:00
Raguse, Brett, MP
HVQ
Forde
ALP
1
0
Mr RAGUSE
—I rise today to talk about the LPG Vehicle Scheme, particularly in relation to my electorate of Forde. I have talked on a number of occasions about the diverse nature of my electorate—the high-density urban areas in the north and the rural holdings to the south—and how difficult it is for people to move around the electorate, given that our road infrastructure is fairly poor. We have probably a dozen significant townships within the electorate of Forde, but there is poor road connectivity—and public transport, of course, is almost non-existent. So it probably comes down to more of an issue of mobility. While I have been advocating for a better plan for public transport, we know now that the effect of global oil prices is getting to the stage where people are finding it very, very difficult, particularly in electorates like mine and the many other large electorates across the country, where there are large distances to travel and there is a lack of public transport.
What I have decided to do, certainly in my electorate, is to further promote this scheme, which gives rebates to people who want their vehicles to run on LPG. There is a $2,000 rebate for conversions of new or existing petrol vehicles and a $1,000 rebate for new vehicles that are built to run on LPG. A conversion will cost people around $2½ thousand to $3,000. So the $2,000 rebate does go a long way towards it but there is a certain amount of money that needs to be provided. But the average trip within my electorate is long—it can take an hour or an hour and a quarter to drive across the electorate. And, as I said, there is a lack of public transport. So I encourage conversion to LPG, certainly as a short-term measure, although we know, when we look at the fuel industry and at alternative fuels, that we need to put in place a longer term plan. But essentially this will give some people relief right now. The daily news is about the high prices of fuel being experienced in capital cities, and that is not a good thing, but in electorates like Forde, where people are absolutely dependent on their cars—quite often, in a family, two cars—it is very serious.
The cost of these conversions becomes more viable when you look at the average distances that are travelled within my electorate. Probably within three to six months people will recoup the difference between the rebate and the cost of the conversion to gas. I am encouraging people in my electorate to look at this as an alternative, certainly as a short-term measure. Consequently we will be running out a number of public displays that the LPG industry are going to provide to us to give good information and allow people to look at the financial considerations of making such a conversion. This is an initiative that the government has supported and I am very much supporting it, certainly for the people of Forde. I encourage people to look at this as a financial option for them.
Your Water Your Say
5489
5489
09:48:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—I have previously spoken about the priority in Victoria for water recycling from the Gunnamatta outfall. At present 150 billion litres of waste water is discharged off our coast every year. That is 340 to 350 million litres every day. I have said that recycling should be the priority ahead of desalination. There may be a place for desalination—there are examples around Australia—but in Victoria we need to clean up our coast, recycle that water and end that waste first. Against that background, it is deeply concerning that what we have seen in relation to the opponents of the desalination plant near Wonthaggi, at Kilcunda, is a ruthless attempt to suppress their capacity to maintain their opposition. In particular I refer to the fact that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has pursued Your Water Your Say, a local community group, for costs through the courts. This group is now facing bankruptcy. Reports are that they are likely to face costs of $200,000 or more for putting up a challenge through the EPBC Act or the relevant federal environment act and taking that through the courts and that they have now had an award of costs against them.
This is a group which had one solicitor on its side, against a barrage of QCs, juniors and solicitors paid for by the government. The government had an award of costs for every dollar and has sought to reclaim every dollar. This is a David and Goliath battle where Goliath has wheeled out the club and is threatening to bankrupt ordinary citizens—who had the right to express their views, who had the right to take this matter through the courts, who have been treated with utter disdain and who now face the prospect of collective and potentially individual financial ruin.
This is not the way we do things in Australia in relation to honest protest. It is a dangerous precedent. It is one which is extreme in its measures. It is unfair. It is unjust. It is an attempt not just to defeat people—the government has the right to challenge and to represent its views—but to bring protesters to their knees and to do so in a way which destroys their livelihoods and puts at risk their capacity to maintain and protect their families. I call on the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to show some sense, reverse this position and release the call for costs. (Time expired)
Shortland Electorate: Northlakes Public School
5490
5490
09:51:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—On 20 May I visited Northlakes Public School to spend some time with the young people involved in the Active After-school Communities program. I would like to say that this is an outstanding program. It provides primary school students with a chance to take part in a free, structured physical activity program. It is a very important program because at the moment we have an obesity epidemic within Australia, and making sure that children become active when they are younger is one way of combating this.
Before I go into the details I would like to thank the principal, Greg Simmonds, for his involvement in the program and I would particularly like to thank Scott Elkovich, because he is the coordinator who arranged for me to visit the school. Scott is particularly committed to this program, to physical activity and to young people. The program supervisors, Melanie Fairman and Daniel McDonald, were also at the school. I would have to say that their commitment was obvious and the way they related to the children and the interaction that was taking place there had to be seen to be believed.
The young people were involved in a number of physical activities. They were activities that were improving their gross motor coordination. They were activities that were improving their cardiovascular fitness. The one thing that was really interesting about it was that they were having a lot of fun. Before I watched them in their activities I spoke to the young people and I asked them, ‘What is so good about this program?’ The first thing they said was that it was fun. Then they said, ‘You exercise and get fit,’ which I thought showed a lot of insight from these young people. They also said they related differently to the teachers because the teachers were fun to be with when they were involved in the program. They were a number of the issues identified by the young people as being important about the program.
It is also an opportunity to change the national culture that has developed over recent years with young people watching too much television and spending a lot of time playing video games. I would like to encourage principals in all schools to make the commitment that Greg Simmonds of Northlakes Public School has and to become involved in this program, because it is a wonderful program which has benefits for the school and benefits for the students. (Time expired)
Western Australian Gas Explosion
5491
5491
09:54:00
Irons, Steve, MP
HYM
Swan
LP
0
0
Mr IRONS
—On 3 June 2008 a gas explosion occurred on Varanus Island, off the north-west coast of WA. Operated by Apache Energy, Varanus Island is an oil-, condensate- and gas-processing hub and generates 30 per cent of WA’s domestic gas supply. The Varanus gas explosion is having dramatic social and economic consequences in Western Australia. Apache Energy says that it will be two months before gas supplies are partly resumed at its Varanus Island gas plant, and it could be six months until full recovery is made. The WA CCI has estimated that 14 per cent of 83 companies it surveyed recently may halt operations because of the energy squeeze. The member for Forrest informs me that it will affect the majority of businesses in her electorate. This one pipeline rupture has created a crisis, with large, medium and small businesses being forced to either secure alternative energy supplies or close their doors for the interim and stand down staff and contractors.
On Tuesday, 17 June WA Premier Alan Carpenter appeared on local television channels to soften Western Australians up to the possibility of power restrictions and urged everyone to cut their power consumption. However, WA businesses are furious over the daily lottery of power rations. Businesses are being told as late as 6 pm whether to expect power the next day. Some are being forced to close their operations on days when they are not allocated power and are being forced to stand down staff. As Robert Taylor said in the West Australian on Wednesday, 18 June:
No government wants a regimen of cold showers and lights out in an election year but at what point do jobs and livelihoods become the priority?
The Carpenter government’s favourite media outlet, the West Australian, is also now applying pressure on the Premier to reveal what really happened on Varanus Island to cause this explosion. You see, three weeks after the explosion occurred, Western Australians are still in the dark on what caused it, although one may speculate that this is because a lapse of judgement by the state government played a part.
Industry speculation about the cause is rife and we all eagerly await the real facts. What we need now is for both the state and federal governments to prove that they have the ability to apply an impromptu crisis management plan to solve the gas problem. I propose that the Commonwealth government work in conjunction with the WA state government to enact emergency legislation to force Woodside and its partners to divert some of its exports to the local market at the same price as the gas not supplied. I also put forward that, in order to prevent such future emergencies from occurring, the two onshore oil and gas fields at Woodada and Dongara, north of Perth, be set aside as gas storage for future emergencies.
It is now glaringly obvious that the state government has no crisis plan in place and that WA is in dire need of strategic gas reserves. This strategy is common in Europe and in the USA, with appropriate fiscal systems set up to reward the reservoir owners. Mr Carpenter does not have the vision or the commercial sense to see this. Mr Carpenter has allowed the havoc to continue in WA industry. The tourism crunch will come this weekend, as hotels are forced to shut down due to linen shortages, while Mr Carpenter sits around and advises people to switch off their lights. The Premier and his government are a disgrace and the people in Western Australia deserve better.
Kids of Macarthur Health Foundation
5492
5492
09:57:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—Last Saturday my wife, Bernadette, and I had the pleasure of attending the annual Kids of Macarthur Health Foundation Ball. It was not the first time that I have attended this particular ball. As a matter of fact, Bernadette reliably tells me that I have been five times—with her, of course! This night, like the others, was an enormous success; on this particular night they raised $175,000 for that charity. This event, however, is only one of the activities of the Kids of Macarthur Health Foundation. This organisation, which was started in 2000 and which comprises many of our leading local businesspeople such as our paediatricians and our local health providers, very much runs with a businesslike approach to raising funds for the charity.
The charity seeks, as the name implies, to develop all the necessary medical and technical support to assist the paediatric treatment of kids in Macarthur. Astonishingly, since 2004 the Kids of Macarthur Health Foundation has bought over $1 million worth of medical equipment to enhance the level of health care offered to local children being treated in Campbelltown and Camden hospitals. In addition, it continues to support numerous other children’s community health programs and to conduct research and establish preventative programs for children’s health issues, specifically in Macarthur. As a result of the outstanding work of the Kids of Macarthur Health Foundation, quite frankly the need for local parents to transport sick kids for medical treatment anywhere outside our region has been significantly lessened. This has been the fantastic contribution that this particular charity has made to the welfare of the children of the Macarthur region.
The Kids of Macarthur Health Foundation is creating opportunities to enhance the quality of life of children in Macarthur, and I believe it is building a better future for everyone. This is the premier charity within our region. Like all other charities, it is supported by amazing people, and without those people it would not be anywhere near as successful. I mention Paul Sinclair, who has been a local pharmacist for the last 21 years. He is chair of the board of Kids of Macarthur and he is also chair of Myrtle Cottage, which provides care for the frail and aged, as well as providing respite care for families with dementia sufferers. Denise McGrath is the CEO of Kids of Macarthur; apart from having a very bubbly personality, her dedication and drive underpin the success of this organisation. On behalf of my community, I say thank you to these amazing people. (Time expired)
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members’ statements has concluded.
AUSTRALIAN ENERGY MARKET AMENDMENT (MINOR AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
5492
Bills
R2949
Second Reading
5492
Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson:
That this bill be now read a second time.
5492
10:00:00
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
0
0
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—I am pleased to rise today to speak on the Australian Energy Market Amendment (Minor Amendments) Bill 2008, as it is a bill that was prepared by me in the previous government. Energy market reform is a key area in terms of not only future investment but also ensuring that the market provides confidence for those investments that will need to be made. This bill will make minor amendments to the existing Commonwealth legislation that underpins the national regime for the regulation of gas pipeline infrastructure. Specifically, the bill will amend the Australian Energy Market Act 2004, the Australian Energy Market Amendment (Gas Legislation) Act 2007, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977—the AD(JR) Act—and the Trade Practices Act 1974, or TPA, to correct the year of enactment of South Australian and Western Australian legislation from 2007 to 2008. Can I just say in regard to that that, whilst the delay in the enactment of that state legislation is disappointing, it should not be seen in any way as a lack of commitment by those states to this important reform and to energy market reform as a whole.
The new legislative regime will apply to the National Gas Law and the National Gas Rules in all participating jurisdictions to create a harmonised national gas access regime. The Commonwealth and all states and territories, with the exception of Western Australia, have agreed to introduce legislation known as the applications act to apply to the National Gas Law as law in their own jurisdictions. Western Australia will pass complementary legislation to give effect to the NGL. The Commonwealth applications act is the Australian Energy Market Act 2004, the AEM Act. It was amended in 2007 to apply, among other things, the National Gas Law in the Commonwealth’s offshore jurisdiction through reference to the anticipated South Australian and Western Australian legislation. The South Australian lead legislation implementing the NGL, and the WA complementary legislation, will be passed in 2008 rather than 2007.
The Ministerial Council on Energy has, in the main, worked cooperatively and effectively since it was established by the coalition government in 2001. There are always a number of issues to be thrashed out when bringing together ministers from different states and, on occasions, of different political persuasions. I am referring here not just to the Liberal-Labor divide or the parochialism of states and territories but, rather, to the personalities involved. Over the time that I chaired the MCE—some six years, with each meeting an interesting experience, to say the least—it is fair to say that there was an eclectic mix of personalities round the table. The first few meetings probably took the cake. One would wonder how, from those first meetings, we ever succeeded to take this issue so far so successfully. We saw a commitment from the ministers involved—perhaps with one exception; I do not think Kim Yeadon ever saw it as anything other than an opportunity to score points, firstly, off the Commonwealth and then off his Labor colleagues. I would probably suggest that without his confrontationist attitude energy market reform may have got off to a better start. Kim aside, I think every minister who came to that table came, yes, with state interests in mind but certainly with a view that energy market reform is something that needs to be pursued, and that, as we see from this legislation, is continuing to make progress.
I must take this opportunity to lament the highly politicised nature of energy market reform in New South Wales. I guess it comes from that state not making some hard decisions earlier on. But I do hope that the reform in that state continues, because if it does not the sort of investment we need to see in the energy industry—not only in New South Wales but in Queensland, Victoria and of course right around Australia—will simply not happen. There is no role for government in the ownership and operation of energy assets. That is a thing of the last century. That is a way of operation when there is market failure. Energy market reform is a critical factor in ensuring that Australia provides a sound economic environment for companies and corporations to make investments in energy that will not only enable them to make a return but also, of course, see the investments made in such a way that we will have the energy security that we need in the future.
There is probably no better time to talk about energy security than now, when we see the disaster that has beset Western Australia. In the main, it was due to an accident, but I am not going to delve into the wheres and whys of that. But it does highlight a couple of issues. It highlights, firstly, that Western Australia has allowed, through this current Carpenter government, a situation to arise where it has no alternative supplies of domestic gas. The way you encourage supplies of domestic gas is the same way you encourage alternative sources of electricity or power stations—that is, you allow the market to work. You allow the price to reflect demand and, in the case of gas, you allow the price to reflect the world price. Interference in that market by the Carpenter government has certainly caused a lack of investment in domestic gas supply in Western Australia in the last three years, and there are lessons to be learned from that by the federal government.
This current proposal of the Minister for the Environment to interfere in the normal commercial development of gas fields insisting that there be only one gas hub in the northern Western Australian Kimberley region again puts in danger the commercial and normal development of energy resources in Australia. I urge the government to take stock of that position and realise that, wherever government has interfered in the energy market, whether it was in the 20th century or now in the 21st century, disaster has inevitably followed. There are bad investment decisions and there is the requirement for taxpayers to pick up the tab. This is certainly an area which, if left to its own means, can make the right decisions to ensure that Australia has the right energy solutions. Energy market reform is very much a part of that.
The ministerial council, as I said, was focused, over the six years that I chaired it—and I understand under the current Minister for Resources and Energy it has continued along that path—on developing a framework for an efficient and effective national energy market in Australia. I say in conclusion that the opposition will be cooperating with the government to assist in strengthening the energy market program under the ministerial council and delivering the economic gains that are available from such reforms. Without those reforms, the energy market in Australia and the infrastructure and investment we need to sustain it will simply not happen.
5494
10:09:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
1
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—The Australian Energy Market Amendment (Minor Amendments) Bill 2008 before the committee is one element of the National Gas Law. The National Gas Law is a significant piece of cooperative economic reform that will bring the economic regulation of gas transmission and distribution pipelines under the national energy market governance arrangements. It also implements reforms contained in the Ministerial Council on Energy’s response to a 2004 Productivity Commission review of the gas access regime. The National Gas Law will reduce the regulatory burden on industry, improve service provider certainty and protect the long-term interests of consumers by introducing a new light-handed form of regulation that regulators may apply by empowering the Australian Energy Regulator, as the national regulator for gas access, to improve the consistency of regulatory decision making by allowing for merits review by the Australian Competition Tribunal of key regulatory decisions, by introducing strict requirements for timely regulatory decisions and by increasing information transparency. It will also maintain greenfields incentives for new pipelines, incentives which were established by the Ministerial Council on Energy in June 2006.
The Ministerial Council on Energy is seeking to achieve a truly national gas access regime by enacting the National Gas Law by 1 July this year. So that the National Gas Law can correctly commence at that time, it is necessary for this bill to be passed in the winter sitting. I note that at the last Ministerial Council on Energy meeting the Minister for Resources and Energy strongly emphasised the need for the reform program to proceed expeditiously. Since that meeting we can see that the government has made significant progress on energy market reform. The National Gas Law is before the South Australian parliament—I think passage is expected in coming days—and this will see gas pipelines brought under national regulatory arrangements, improving the climate for investment in the sector.
The government is also well into the process of establishing the Australian Energy Market Operator with responsibility for electricity and gas. This Labor government recognises that energy security is paramount to the continued wellbeing of all Australians. The government is putting in place arrangements that will guide the strategic decisions we need to make and prepare us for threats to our energy security. It is also clear that adequate, reliable and affordable provision of energy requires vigilance against threats. While appropriately focused investment will improve energy system resilience, we also need to manage the implications of accidental, environmental or intentional disruptions.
At the start of this week I had the opportunity, along with the minister and others, to receive a briefing from the Shell company concerning energy futures. The material that they put forward was very challenging. I will just point out to the House a couple of extracts from their publication Shell energy scenarios to 2050. In the foreword it states:
Never before has humanity faced such a challenging outlook for energy and the planet. This can be summed up in five words: “more energy, less carbon dioxide”.
And, in the introduction:
How can I prepare for, or even shape, the dramatic developments in the global energy system that will emerge in the coming years?
This question should be on the mind of every responsible leader in government, business and civil society. It should be a concern of every citizen.
Shell’s analysis is essentially that the world can no longer avoid three hard truths about energy supply and demand. The background, as they point out, is that the world population has more than doubled since 1950—it has more than doubled in my lifetime—and is set to increase by 40 per cent by 2050. The Shell publication continues:
History has shown that as people become richer they use more energy. Population and GDP will grow strongly in non-OECD countries and China and India are just starting their journey on the energy ladder.
The three hard truths are: firstly, a dramatic change, a step-change, in energy use. The Shell publication states:
Developing nations—
such as China and India—
are entering their most energy-intensive phase of economic growth as they industrialise, build infrastructure, and increase their use of transportation.
So we have demand going up. Secondly, supply will struggle to keep pace. Shell states:
By 2015, growth in the production of easily accessible oil and gas will not match the projected rate of demand growth. While abundant coal exists in many parts of the world, transportation difficulties and environmental degradation ultimately pose limits to its growth. Meanwhile, alternative energy sources such as biofuels may become a more significant part of the energy mix—but there is no “silver bullet” that will completely resolve supply-demand tensions.
The third point they make—the third hard truth—is that environmental stresses are increasing. They say:
Even if it were possible for fossil fuels to maintain their current share of the energy mix and respond to increase demand, C02 emissions would then be on a pathway that could severely threaten human well-being. Even with the moderation of fossil fuel use and effective C02 management, the path forward is still highly challenging, remaining within desirable levels of C02 concentration in the atmosphere will become increasingly difficult.
The issue confronting us all, and Shell posed this for those of us who are policymakers, is how we meet such a monumental challenge. I want to encourage the government to put energy and endeavour into the issue of feed-in tariffs. We have been having a bit of a discussion this morning about the gas explosion in Western Australia and the security challenges that that encompasses. One of the things that I think is necessary for us in terms of our being able to secure energy supplies in the future is greater production by distributed energy as opposed to centralised energy arrangements, which are more vulnerable to attack or to breakdown.
One of the elements coming out of the Ministerial Council on Energy is the issue of smart meter rollout. The Ministerial Council on Energy has made available a cost-benefit analysis and regulatory impact statement for smart meter rollout. They are available for public comment. A communique from the Ministerial Council on Energy, which was held on 13 June—so, very recently—said:
Ministers are committed to development of a consistent national framework for smart meters in the National Electricity Market, supporting distributors to be responsible for the rollout of smart meters. Ministers noted there continue to be some uncertainties about the costs and benefits of smart meters in some jurisdictions and that different staged approaches are being taken to support the further development of smart meters. Smart meters are to be rolled out in Victoria and NSW, with over five million smart meters expected to be deployed before 2017. Queensland and some other states and territories will undertake extensive pilots and business cases prior to a further national review of deployment timelines in 2012.
So that is the background. This bill is about energy market security. I think the recent Western Australian explosion should be concentrating our minds on this issue.
In relation to my view that there needs to be greater consideration given to the idea of feed-in tariffs, let me point out to the House that present non-renewable power producers are being subsidised by society and the environment, which is paying the costs of global warming via drought and other extreme weather events. Feed-in tariffs can reflect the real cost of carbon. They can be based on either so-called avoided costs of non-renewable power producers or the electricity price charged to the end user, supplemented by a bonus or a premium in order to account for the social or environmental benefits of renewable energy.
The intention is to encourage individual homes, factories and building sites to become mini power plants, meeting their own power needs through the production of renewable energy which does not emit global warming emissions. The vision I have is of communities where energy production is distributed rather than centralised and is therefore genuinely sustainable indefinitely. Renewable energy targets are important. They encourage large investments in renewable energy by companies, but they do not encourage localised distributed energy systems in the way a feed-in tariff does.
A study of the summer, peaking electricity systems of California noted that power from PVs is produced disproportionately, at times when the value of electricity is high. Evaluation of solar PV electricity production that uses only the average wholesale cost of electricity will tend to undervalue the power, so the benefits to the owners of solar PV in reduced electricity bills do not reflect the true, time-varying value of the power that the panels produce. I think that a feed-in tariff will build community awareness. It will answer the question so many families ask: what can I do? It will drive the cost of solar PV down. Solar PV generates power when it is most needed. It evens out the power load, it reduces the extreme peaks of the hot summers, and PV output over summer peak load weeks has been shown to correspond well to system load at regional nodes in Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales.
Solar PV also avoids transmission losses and avoids the need for poles and wires infrastructure. There is, for example, information from the Electricity Supply Association that $24 billion of electricity network and generation infrastructure is required to meet Australia’s growing power needs over the next five years. Anything we can do to reduce the need for that infrastructure is clearly worth while. Infrastructure costs are being driven by the need to meet demand peaks. In that respect, I think a lot of the talk about the need for baseload electricity is misleading. We need to provide economically rational signals to customers, and sometimes this does not happen.
The Queensland government estimates that, for every air conditioner installed, the electricity industry has to spend an extra $13,000 on more poles and wires to manage the load. Clearly, we can do better than that. It is also something that generates jobs. Ten years ago Germany had a solar PV industry of a similar scale to Australia’s. Now Germany has an industry of 110,000 jobs, generating 15,000 megawatts of solar PV power. Australia has fallen behind. It is estimated that in 2005 the solar PV industry here was responsible for just 1,300 jobs. So there is plenty that we can do in this area to do better than we have been doing in the past.
There are design issues, of course. There is the question of price, the question of duration, the question of means of metering and the question of degression rate. I commend to the House some of the work that has been done by organisations like the Moreland Energy Foundation in my own electorate and by BP Solar in New South Wales. In the ACT we have a private member’s bill from Mick Gentleman, and indeed the states have been looking at various arrangements in relation to feed-in tariffs. I think one of the things needed and one of the things that the government recognises is that there is a need for a national system, rather than different states going in different directions. But if we are to provide energy security in future, if we are to meet challenges like the gas explosion which has occurred in Western Australia, if we are to seriously tackle greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, then things like feed-in tariffs and encouraging people to meet their own electricity through the production of distributed energy are very important. I commend the bill to the House.
5497
10:22:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
0
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—Certainly the Australian Energy Market Amendment (Minor Amendments) Bill 2008 has been brought into clear focus by the events that have occurred in Western Australia. These events show quite clearly how dependent any modern nation is on energy, how fragile our energy supply can be and the potential for knock-on effects throughout the entire economy.
In Australia we spend around $50 billion a year on energy. Our energy exports are worth some $24 billion per annum. These figures take into account coal, oil, natural gas, electricity, renewables and other forms of energy. As a society we require ever-increasing amounts of energy to maintain our high quality of life. By 2020, domestic demand for energy is expected to increase by some 50 per cent.
In 2002, a report entitled Towards a truly national and efficient energy market was handed down to the COAG Ministerial Council on Energy. The report found that Australia’s energy markets could benefit from greater national consistency of governance and regulation. The ministers agreed that further reform to the sector would lead to greater investment in Australian energy needs by lowering the cost and complexity of regulation and by providing investors with greater certainty about regulation. The council also found that reforming the energy system would lead to greater competition between providers and would encourage the further development of natural gas and renewable energy sources. It was envisaged that the proposed reforms would also help to address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector.
To replace the variety of governing bodies and regulators that control Australia’s energy markets, two new statutory bodies were created. The Australian Energy Market Commission has the responsibility for rule making and market development. The Australian Energy Regulator, or AER, has the responsibility for market regulation. The AER is a constituent part of the ACCC but operates as a separate legal entity.
Initially, the reforms were applied to the national electricity market, but they are now being expanded to include national gas infrastructure. The latest round of reforms will bring gas access regulation into line with the regulation of the electricity sector. As a part of the reforms to the gas access regime, the industry has put forward a proposal for a bulletin board that will provide information about gas services and assist in response to emergencies—a very timely notion at this point in our history. The bulletin board will be an important step in creating greater transparency within the market.
These reforms have been planned with the cooperation of the energy sector, the state governments and the Commonwealth, and advice and input have been received from the ACCC and the Productivity Commission. These changes have not been advanced without detailed and careful consideration, and I believe they will make a difference to Australia’s energy future. As we move towards a carbon constrained economy, gas will play a vital role in the provision of our energy needs. The Australian energy market reform process will provide incentives for investment in this important area. Companies will benefit from a light-handed regulatory system, regulatory certainty and improvements to the rules around cost recovery for investment in expanding existing gas infrastructure capacity.
Although the reform process will be of benefit to the companies involved, I should note that the Rudd government has taken steps to discourage investment and exploration in Australia’s gas fields by introducing an excise on condensate. Condensate is created as a result of pressure and temperature changes brought about by the pumping of natural gas from a gas field. Gas reserves are generally more profitable if they contain a mix of gas and condensate. The Howard government worked hard to secure an additional 2.5 million square kilometres of seabed for oil and gas exploration, and this tax grab by the Rudd government can only discourage potential investors from exploring this new territory. You must always be careful to observe what this government does, rather than listen to what it says. Natural gas is a vital component in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions. It is inconsistent that the government would introduce a tax that will discourage exploration for this resource.
The main objectives of the gas market reform are enshrined in the National Gas Law. Underpinning the National Gas Law are six principles that will guide the development of the regulation framework for gas pipeline access. The first principle is that a service provider should have reasonable opportunity to recover the costs brought about by complying with a regulatory obligation or requirement. This is essential to ensuring that service providers will continue to undertake further investment in gas infrastructure. The second principle is that service providers should be provided with effective incentives to promote economically efficient investment in and provision and use of pipeline services. The third principle ensures that the regulator takes into account previous determinations by the ACCC about existing pipeline infrastructure. This ensures that a company’s previous investment in pipeline infrastructure is recognised and taken into account when making regulatory decisions. The fourth principle ensures that prices and charges for the provision of a specified service allow for a return in line with the risk taken to provide that service. The fifth principle ensures that the Australian Energy Regulator will take into account the cost and risk of over- or under-investment by a service provider in the network. The final principle ensures that the regulator will take into account the possibility of over- or under-utilisation of a service provider’s network. These principles will guide the development of the regulatory framework and ensure that service providers are not disadvantaged by the reform process.
At the heart of these reforms is the consumer. A key objective of the Australian energy market reform is the promotion of the long-term interests of energy consumers. As the effects of the market reform begin to flow through to consumers, we should see improvements in the price, quality, reliability and security of supply of natural gas. Although these reforms are primarily economic in nature, if the gas market and access to pipeline services are economically efficient, the flow-on effects will undoubtedly be positive for consumers.
In keeping with the goal of providing improved consumer outcomes, the National Gas Law will permit the Australian Energy Regulator to publish regular reports on the financial and operational performance of service providers. This will add transparency to the industry and will be of great benefit to gas users and consumers. In order to safeguard the reputation of service providers, the providers will have the opportunity to do a review of the performance reports before they are released to the public and to request changes to the reports, based on factual evidence.
Australia has large reserves of natural gas. This resource will become more and more important to our energy security as we move towards a carbon constrained society. Gas generally produces fewer carbon emissions than coal or oil based energy production methods. As such, it is essential in the fight against climate change. Making gas more accessible and attractive for consumers and encouraging further gas exploration are important objectives, and these reforms will help meet those goals.
The legislation under debate today is a minor technical amendment which reflects changes in the timing of the implementation of this legislation. I believe that these energy market reforms will have a positive impact on the energy sector and I offer no objection to the passage of this legislation.
5500
10:31:00
Cheeseman, Darren, MP
HW7
Corangamite
ALP
1
0
Mr CHEESEMAN
—The amendments in this legislation are another important step in the creation of a modern Australian energy market. Whilst the Australian Energy Market Amendment (Minor Amendments) Bill 2008 goes specifically to the regulatory issues on gas energy, it is worth reflecting on where Australia has come from and where it is going in relation to the creation of a national energy market.
It is also worth commenting, first of all, on the importance of our national energy market. The creation of a national energy market is of importance to every single Australian. Australia must have an efficient, integrated, properly regulated, transparent energy market. The energy industry affects every other industry. It affects, in one way or another, every Australian job. It affects our homes and our lives. It will affect significantly the future of our climate and our environment.
We have come a long way from the time when there was relatively little regulation over our energy industries. And, as an aside, I have to say that the regulation of our industries is a clear case of where some of the rhetoric coming from the other side is exposed. It is an example of where the rhetoric from the other side is exposed as nonsense. The flat-earth free marketeers on the other side are always saying how we should do away with government regulation and let everything flow free, uninhibited. I think clear, detailed and comprehensive regulation such as that we are developing today is just what the energy industry needs in Australia today. This multilevel regulatory environment is what will make our energy production, distribution and retailing much more efficient, safe, environmentally friendly, and equitable. In my view this sort of detailed and clear regulation is critical to the future of our planet. Energy is the key determinant of Australia’s future economic growth and prosperity, yet global warming threatens to change all aspects of life on earth. It is a conundrum that must be regulated. We must come a long way from the days when there was only regulation around government monopolies. We are moving into a new world where there is a comprehensive framework of regulation to create a national Australian energy market.
The Ministerial Council on Energy is at the moment developing a cooperative legislative regime to regulate access to gas pipelines on a national basis under national regulatory and rule-making bodies.The Australian Energy Market Agreement commits all Australian jurisdictions to developing and applying legislation as a part of that regime. The linchpin of the new system will be the National Gas Law. The National Gas Law will be established in South Australia and then applied through application acts in all other participating jurisdictions. Western Australia will pass complementary legislation too. The development of gas industries through this legislation is reaching a point of maturity, and I welcome this.
Australia is indeed a lucky country when it comes to gas. We have very significant reserves. It is very important to our industries and it provides a more environmentally friendly alternative energy source. I think Australians are just coming to understand the importance of gas to our industries, and our growing reliance on it.
What is happening right now in Western Australia is making us all take note. The gas plant explosion and fire on 3 June has cut 30 per cent of WA’s domestic gas supply, leading to thousands of workers being laid off. Perth’s skyscrapers and shops have shut down their lifts and turned off lights in an effort to save energy. The Royal Australian Navy has been called on to hand over 16 million litres of diesel for emergency electricity generation. This situation will have a flow-through to our national economy. That would surprise many; it certainly made me sit up and take notice. In fact, what has happened in Western Australia has made everyone sit up and take notice. I think it says that we should be taking the legislation before us very seriously and that perhaps we need to look more closely at assessing the financial and human risks of this burgeoning industry. I think that will happen and that in the future we will see much more robust risk assessment and new, best practice risk mitigation measures to protect this industry and related industries.
Australia’s gas resources and reserves are very, very significant. We are still discovering how extensive they are. Just within my region, in Bass Strait and the Otway Basin, discoveries are still being made. If we play our cards right—if we get the legislative regime right, if we get the regulation right, if we get the investment right—this industry has enormous potential. Our gas resources mean we can become an international leader in R&D in the methane economy. I note that the CSIRO are doing an enormous amount of work in this area, partnering with industry in a number of gas related production areas that hold considerable promise. The CSIRO are trying to work through technical issues and form future strategies on converting gas to liquids, on converting hydrogen from natural gas, on gas processing and on syngas manufacture. The CSIRO have developed networks, companies and research bodies across Australia and around the world. So the gas industry has a very big future in Australia, and it is important to get the regulatory environment right.
Under the Australian Energy Market Agreement, the Commonwealth parliament has to pass laws to apply the National Gas Law in the offshore area and external territories. More importantly, the Commonwealth has to consent in legislation to the conferral under state law of functions such as those of the National Gas Law on three Commonwealth bodies: the Australian Energy Regulator, the National Competition Council and the Australian Competition Tribunal. This is done through the Australian Energy Market Amendment (Gas Legislation) Act 2007.
I want to say a few words about the National Gas Law, which I have previously mentioned. The Gas Law is a critical bit of cooperative economic reform that will bring the economic regulation of gas transmission and distribution pipelines under the national energy market governance arrangements. The National Gas Law provides a clear, transparent and certain regulatory environment for the industry. It will better protect the interests of consumers. Not only are we coming up with good regulatory reform for our energy sector but we are getting on with the job of implementing it. The National Gas Law is now before the South Australian parliament, with passage expected in coming weeks. This will see the first gas pipelines brought under national regulatory arrangements.
We are getting on with reform and creating the national energy market at a pace. The Ministerial Council on Energy has achieved a significant milestone in the government’s energy market reform agenda through amendments to the national electricity law; the rules and regulations for this come into force on 1 January 2008. The regulation of electricity distribution now operates under a truly national framework administered by the Australian Energy Regulator. We have also achieved significant progress in addressing barriers to renewable investment and demand-side management in the national electricity markets. COAG is developing a national framework for transmission reliable standards. The government are putting in place arrangements that will guide the strategic decisions we need to make and prepare us for any threat to our energy security. I am sure the volatility of the Western Australian suppliers will add food for thought. In short, our Labor government are planning and implementing a reliable, affordable and more environmentally sustainable energy sector. We are looking ahead to see how we can develop a framework that will enable us to make decisions about our energy usage to grow our industries, create jobs, build stronger communities and at the same time take into account the pressing imperatives of climate change. This bill is another important step along this path, and I commend the bill to the House and congratulate the minister for his foresight.
5502
10:42:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
0
Mr WINDSOR
—It is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the Australian Energy Market Amendment (Minor Amendments) Bill 2008. In doing so I congratulate both the current minister and the Ministerial Council on Energy on coming together to put in place a national system. Even though in the minister’s speech he said that there are only minor changes in the bill, these are significant for energy across the nation. But I also recognise the former minister, the member for Groom, who led that committee for something like six years, for the work that he too put in on this national scheme. I think this is very important. Obviously gas is going to be an important ingredient in our future. I am pleased to see the member for Parkes here as well because our electorates are next door to each other and there is currently natural gas being found in certain localities. Santos has an exploration licence, the first for that company in New South Wales, and they will be drilling some pilot holes in locations in our electorates. So there could be substantial resources of gas as well.
I was also involved some years ago with the formation of what was called the central ranges gas pipeline committee, which looked at how to get natural gas from Dubbo to Tamworth. That has been successfully achieved. It took quite some time, as most things do, and there were some difficulties in terms of competition policy. I think this legislation goes some way to addressing this. In some areas of the nation there is not massive competition between various pipeline authorities or private sector investors. That was a problem with both the state based IPART, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales, and the National Competition Council in relation to what could be charged by the provider of the pipeline. But, having said that, that pipeline is in place now and it is proposed that another pipeline come out of Queensland. There are various exploration activities going on. Eastern Star Gas is pumping gas near Narrabri as we speak.
The importance of this legislation is that it creates in a sense a national law, and that is a good thing. I think it is very important for the future of this nation, particularly moving into the carbon trading era and global warming, that we establish some national guidelines. There is one thing that the current government has to come to grips with if it is serious about global warming and some of its policy initiatives: it has to stop sending mixed messages to the electorate in terms of what the agenda really is. I will give two examples, one more recent than the other.
The first example is the change of heart over the rebate for investment in solar energy panels. I listened intently to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts in question time a couple of weeks ago when he said that the market was overheated, that it was going better than we thought it would and that therefore we had to means-test the provision of the rebate. I think that is an appalling message to send to the wider electorate. It says: ‘Look, we think it’s a good idea and we’d like to encourage you to do it, but don’t take us too seriously because Treasury runs the place and it is not as concerned about global warming as maybe the minister, the Prime Minister or others are.’ It is a mixed message to the community.
The other mixed message is one that I have been noting for quite some time. The previous government set up a sort of grandfathered arrangement in terms of renewable energy. It failed, in my view, particularly in terms of biofuels. We have this absurd statute—which is still there; the current government has not removed it—where in 2011, I think, if you are a biofuel producer in this nation, you will be taxed as though you were a fossil fuel producer. Is the message that ‘we are trying to encourage renewable energy’—is that the message we are trying to get out to the broader community? Alternatively, is the message that ‘if you produce a renewable energy source’—in this case, biodiesel or ethanol in certain blends—‘we will see you as a source of revenue’?
I have heard the absurd argument—and the former Treasurer used this argument a number of times—that to remove a fossil fuel tax from a biofuel would be seen as a subsidy to the renewable energy marketplace. What an extraordinary use of economic language to come out with that sort of nonsense. Are we trying to encourage renewable energy—wind, wave, solar and biofuels? I think the previous speaker spoke about the fact that there would have to be a whole range of contributors if we are to deal with the issues that we are told global warming represents. If we are concerned, we have to stop sending these mixed messages to the community. The government says—and the words sound nice—‘We’re serious. We want renewable energy. But if you do that then we will tax you, so we do not really want it.’
We saw a similar farce go on in terms of superannuation—‘it is a good idea—save for your retirement’. It was encouraged by all, and then it was utilised by various governments, of both persuasions, as three sources of taxation—as a source of revenue. The original intent was for people to save for retirement, which the punters could see quite clearly. I think this is a great idea. Let us have national legislation on a whole range of these issues, particularly with an emissions trading scheme around the corner, but let us have consistency of the message. Do not mix the messages.
I would like to reflect on this in relation to the emissions trading arrangements that are being contemplated by the government. There is a degree of confusion—and it is in some cases deliberate—between those who purport to represent renewable fuels. I am very pleased to see my colleague the member for Ryan enter the Main Committee. I know he is very interested in renewable fuels. Most people would know that the people of Ryan are extremely interested in renewable fuels—hopefully at lower prices. There has been a mixed message in the energy versus fuel debate. There have been food riots in various countries of the world. What role does Australia have to play? What can we do? Should we be using agricultural land for the production of biofuels, for instance? Is that moral? Overlaying that—and this is what I would like to talk about today—is the imminent carbon emissions trading scheme. We are not quite sure how that will work. We are not quite sure how that will allow or not allow for agriculture because of the purported emissions of agriculture. It is a conundrum that we really need to address.
I will use an example, and a few members have heard this example before. Walgett is in the electorate of the member for Parkes, but the Walgett wheat grower is a very good example of agricultural production in Australia. It is roughly 500 kilometres from a port. It produces prime hard wheat, which requires nitrogen. We are told that nitrous oxide is part of the problem in greenhouse gas emissions. High rates of nitrogen are required to get the protein for that food grain to enter the food chain and to get a global price premium. That is the marketplace today. If you overlay an emissions trading scheme, a number of things will happen. I think the parliament needs to look at the implications. The Walgett wheat grower under an emissions trading scheme will leave a carbon footprint. Due to climate change, the Walgett wheat grower in recent years has made a massive change in farming technology. The member for Parkes would be aware of the no-till techniques that are used now. I spoke to the Prime Minister about this a few weeks back. That represents an enormous adaptation to reduced rainfall. We are being told that there is going to be reduced rainfall in parts of Australia, and that could have an impact on our productive capacity.
There have been similar changes in some of the grazing technologies across Australia, where similar benefits can accrue. That change means for the Walgett wheat grower effectively 150 to 200 millimetres more rainfall. That has been proven by the Department of Primary Industries and the CSIRO. It is available moisture to the plant. The old techniques of cropping used at Walgett, when it was highly marginal, meant that cultivation would take place continually and moisture would be released into the atmosphere. You would then be waiting for rain, and you would cultivate and let a portion of it go. By having a protective mulch of the previous crop’s residue on the surface, you keep the moisture in the ground. That has a whole range of other microbial and moisture infiltration impacts. Also, it impacts on the capacity to naturally sequest carbon in our soils. In some of our soils—that is, not all of our soils and not all at the same rate—it could have a significant impact. The Walgett wheat grower’s carbon footprint is much reduced on 20 years ago; nonetheless, he is still using energy to produce his crop. He leaves a footprint when he takes his crop from the farm to the silo. We have just been through the wheat marketing debate. He leaves another footprint when the train picks up the wheat from the Walgett silo and takes it to the Newcastle port. Then he will leave another footprint when the wheat goes in a boat from the Newcastle port to, say, Egypt—where we will attempt to feed the starving millions. So there are a number of footprints.
I do not know how that process is going to be treated in an emissions trading scheme. I do not think we are fully aware of how commodities traded internationally are going to be treated—bearing in mind that part of the grain in that boat is carbon in the form of starch. So what does all that mean in terms of those issues? We have an oversupply in grain and we sell it overseas because we cannot consume it here. We exchange some of that money for another boatload of oil to bring back to Newcastle which is then put on a train or a truck to be taken back to the Walgett wheat grower so that he can go around in circles again and produce the trading arrangements to buy the energy, the oil.
Surely—and people have heard me on this topic a number of times—we have to send a consistent message about this and look at other options to the absurdity of doing that. We need to look at ways of converting grain into energy sources at source rather than creating all these carbon footprints, particularly when the grower will be landed with the cost of that footprint. The international trade component may have some special dealing with that, but the transport movements cannot. If we are going to have a carbon footprint or an emissions trading scheme, we have to include transport. It is ridiculous for us not to. It makes a nonsense of the message we are trying to send.
I would urge the government to look very closely at those issues. Now, some would say, ‘Yes, but we need to provide for the world.’ Australia produces 1¾ per cent of the world’s grain trade in a good year. So we are not the big player. We cannot feed the world. We are not the big player that people make us out to be. We are big in the wheat export market, but we are very small in terms of the total grain production in the world.
The other policy implication that relates directly to energy and to carbon, if we are going to have carbon credits et cetera in the system, is land use. Let us say the Walgett wheat grower changed his land use to growing species of pasture, for instance, where the cellulose in the perennial grasses—that is, they are not planted every year—is not cultivated at all and it emits lower rates of nitrogen, which we are told is part of the problem in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and he harvests that material. This is what they are looking at doing in the United States with a plant called switchgrass. The grass is converted at very good rates from the cellulosic material into cellulosic ethanol. That immediately removes the food versus fuel argument, because it is not a food product that you are converting into an energy product, but you still have the land use issue. By doing that you remove all of the transport movements, the various carbon footprints that they would have in terms of emissions, but you also potentially have a massive impact on the capacity to sequester carbon into the soil and convert it into humus and organic matter. Switchgrass has a very deep root system. It has been shown that it was the natural grass of the American prairies.
How serious are people who are arguing in this food-fuel thing about returning to nature if they are going to keep imposing a fossil fuel tax on the production of a renewable fuel? I get back to that point that I made earlier that we have to get serious about the mixed messages that are here.
Another point that I have raised in the other place a couple of times is: what about the starving millions? What do we do to help them? One of the things we could do to help them is sell the technology or give the technology that the Walgett wheat grower has been developing over the last 20 years. When I say Walgett, he could be in a whole range of places: Western Australia, South Australia, on the Darling Downs, or the central tablelands of Queensland—but give that technology to those people in those dryland farming areas.
I have previously used the example of the country of Sudan, which is at war with itself. It has 100 million acres of land similar to that at Walgett. It has the capacity to produce six times the grain that Australia produces. There is no need to have this farcical transporting of food across the world when we can teach these people to produce their own food through modern technologies. If we are serious about global warming, and I think most of us are, we have to make sure that the message we send is consistent.
The other issue I raised with the Prime Minister recently was for more research to be done into the measurement and retention of soil carbon under different cropping and grazing technologies. There may well be a way of developing systems where natural sequestration of carbon is part of the emissions program. Benefits may or may not go back to farmers in terms of some of the pricing or stewardship arrangements, but there would be real recognition of the contribution that agriculture could make, not only to the energy debate, through biofuels, but through soil health and soil sequestration. I think there is a role for agriculture. Those who are involved in agriculture say: ‘Under the first blush of Kyoto, agriculture is not in the deal. So let’s hope it will always stay out.’ They are kidding themselves; it will be part of the deal at some stage. Rather than, in a sense, being taxed on the negatives, I think we have to do more homework on the potential positives and put agriculture in a pre-eminent position. (Time expired.)
5506
11:02:00
Bidgood, James, MP
HVM
Dawson
ALP
1
0
Mr BIDGOOD
—I speak today in favour of the Australian Energy Market Amendment (Minor Amendments) Bill 2008. This bill makes minor technical amendments to the Australian Energy Market Act 2004, the Australian Energy Market Amendment (Gas Legislation) Act 2007, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and the Trade Practices Act 1974. This legislation finalises a cooperative legislative regime that regulates access to gas pipelines on a national basis. Under national regulatory and rule-making bodies the Australian Energy Market Agreement commits all Australian jurisdictions, state and federal, to developing and applying legislation as part of this regime. This bill will ensure that the necessary Commonwealth legislation is in place to give effect to the National Gas Law. This process has the full support of the Ministerial Council on Energy and represents a bipartisan, cooperative and natural approach to regulating access to gas pipeline infrastructure.
The Natural Gas Law will reduce the regulatory burden on industry, improve service provider certainty and protect the long-term interests of consumers by (i) introducing a new light-handed form of regulation that regulators may apply, (ii) empowering the Australian Energy Regulator as the national regulator for gas access to improve the consistency of regulatory decision making, (iii) allowing for merits review by the Australian Competition Tribunal of key regulatory decisions, (iv) introducing strict requirements for timely regulatory decisions, (v) increasing information transparency and (vi) maintaining the greenfields incentives for new pipelines established by the MCE in June 2006.
This is all about ending the blame game. We are entering into a new phase with a new government with new ideas and new ways of doing business. We are moving away from the old federalism of: ‘It’s not our fault; it’s their fault’. We are moving into a new era. We are moving into a new era of cooperation—of consensus between federal and state governments. This is ending the blame game, which was definitely a hallmark of the last 11 years of the coalition government. So that is coming to an end.
I can honestly say that I have worked well in my time previous to this on Mackay city council and enjoyed good working relationships with people on both sides of the political spectrum. We always looked for consensus and outcome and were outcome driven. When it comes to energy, this is all in the national interest. We have to look at the common good and we cannot have self-interested parties involved here. We have to work for the common good of the whole nation in our energy needs, and that is particularly so here as well. Something that I experienced in my role in Mackay city council was working with state members Tim Mulherin, the member for Mackay, and also Jan Jarratt, the state member for Whitsunday. We had excellent working relationships with those state members.
But, unfortunately, the National Party member who held the seat of Dawson prior to me was obstructionist, quite frankly, and consistently so over the last 11 years. It was like trying to drag a horse to water and make it drink. There was just total non-cooperation. That is why the people of Dawson decided to vote for change. They decided to vote for new ideas, and they are looking for outcomes and results for the common good of all people, regardless of political persuasion. People on the other side need to remember that 10.2 per cent is in no way a safe seat when such obstructionist behaviour is taking place. I thought I would remind the member for Fadden of that.
I would like to mention Col Meng, the current mayor of the new Mackay Regional Council, which has taken in two other councils—the council of Sarina and the council of Mirani—and is now a regional council of over 100,000 people. I am looking forward in the upcoming weeks, on 29 June, to meeting with Col Meng, the new Mackay regional councillor. He will be hosting part of the community cabinet. Kevin Rudd and the cabinet will be coming to Mackay, and we will be meeting together with the local regional council and the state members and their representatives and we will be working together for the common good of all in all outcomes. That includes new ideas on energy.
The seat of Dawson is an exciting place to be. We have some great prospects, particularly with resources and mining. For example, the Queensland Resources Council has said that by 2015 we will need an extra 15,000 resource workers in Queensland, and one in four of those will be in the seat of Dawson. Bowen is halfway between Mackay and Townsville. My seat stretches from South Mackay to southern Townsville; it goes right up to the Ross River, and right in the middle is Bowen. Bowen is a town which is going to boom into a great city. There are a lot of good things going on for Bowen at the moment. Just 20 kilometres north of Bowen is a port called Abbot Point. It is one of the few natural deep water ports around the coast of Australia. Currently we are exporting 21 million tonnes of coal out of there. The Queensland ports corporation has briefed me, and we are looking forward to expanding that from 21 million tonnes a year to a goal per year of 50 million tonnes in the foreseeable future and long term 110 million tonnes.
This is going to add to the bottom line of this nation. We are exporting our resources, our energy-producing fuels. That is good news for Bowen because there is an accommodation crisis, as there is around the nation, and people are coming in, workers are coming in, and we are having to build. It is good for the economy of Bowen, good for the economy of Dawson and good, very good, for the bottom line of this nation. This Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, understands that basic key infrastructure is essential in facilitating the movement of these resources out of our country as a major export across the seas to China, Japan and India, to name but a few.
I want to focus on Bowen, because it has actually been used as the site of part of Baz Luhrmann’s film Australia, which will be released in November of this year. That is going to add value to the whole nation as well, and Bowen is going to be showcased because a lot of the film was actually shot there. That is going to add to international tourism. International tourism is going to come into Mackay, the Whitsunday Islands and Bowen. So Bowen has an exciting future—right in the centre, right in the heart, of my seat of Dawson.
Another thing that is going to be going well for Bowen is that I am lobbying the Prime Minister, all the cabinet and my fellow MPs hard and advocating the need for the Aluminium Company of China to come and set up at Abbot Point. It is the ideal place to have an aluminium refinery. The reason? It is 20 kilometres to the nearest residential town of Bowen, so there is a natural buffer zone where these activities can take place. So I continue to lobby; I continue to advocate. I have spoken to representatives from the Chinese embassy and have made it very clear that they are welcome and we would love to have them at Abbot Point. I want to make that very clear and put it on the record here today.
These things do not happen unless there is cooperation, unless there is consensus and agreement—one thing I have made very clear. The previous mayor of Bowen, Mike Brunker, happens to be the new mayor of the new Whitsunday Regional Council, which now takes in what was the old Bowen council. Mike is absolutely passionate about Bowen because he has been connected with the mines in Collinsville and his family are in the mining industry. He is passionate about having a baseload subpower station somewhere between Bowen and Collinsville, which is about an hour west of Bowen. Again, we need a baseload power station and from the research and background reading I have done on the science innovation committee, I suggest, that hot rock thermal power is the most highly sustainable energy supply which can go up to baseload subpower station levels. Solar, wind and wave power just cannot reach those levels without absolutely massive saturation of whatever is being put forward; whether it is wind propellers or wave motion, it takes an incredible amount of set-up. But we have hot rock thermal in abundance in this country. I am pleased to say that it is possible between Bowen and Collinsville. We need that baseload power station not just for all the energy industries that are going to come in to North Queensland but to power up North Queensland.
I know the member for Kennedy, Bob Katter; I have to say I have had some very fruitful discussions with the member for Kennedy.
An opposition member—A good member.
HVM
Bidgood, James, MP
Mr BIDGOOD
—He is a very good member indeed. He believes passionately in powering up North Queensland. When he heard me in my first speech in parliament say, ‘We need a baseload power station to power up North Queensland,’ he came to see me straightaway and he said, ‘Thank God we’ve finally got someone with vision who’s passionate about making these things happen’—like him. This is going to happen across the political divide, and this is my point. The previous government did not have the spirit of cooperation that this new government has. We are committed to being outcome driven for the common good of all people. That is the big difference, they are the new ideas and this is the new consensus
That is why this country, over the decades ahead, will benefit from a great Labor government. Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister is a visionary and he is forward thinking. That is why he has brought down such a fantastic budget, which builds on infrastructure. Because basic key infrastructure has been totally ignored for the last 11 years, it has been left to this government to fix up the failings of the previous government—because you have to have good basic roads and you have to have good basic rail in order to transport—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
Georganas, Steve (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr S Georganas)—Order! The member deserves to be heard in silence.
HVM
Bidgood, James, MP
Mr BIDGOOD
—our resources, our coal, to the ports and make it a major export for this country. That is going to deliver to the bottom line of the economy of this country. Once we get the basics fixed up, which the other mob failed to do over 11 years, and get that income stream going, then we can invest in better health, better education and much better overall sustainability for our energy industry. It is when a government has vision that people thrive. It is when there is no vision that the people perish. You should never forget that, whatever side of politics you are on. You must have vision. You must have a goal as to where you are going.
I would just like to say that Bowen is an exciting place to be, right in the heart of the seat of Dawson. But, as you look to the north, you look to towns like Ayr, for example, a major sugar town in the Burdekin. Again across the political divide, I have spoken to the state member, Rosemary Menkens. I actually had a meeting with her and our Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, whom I took to Ayr. I rang up local community leaders—who are not on our side of politics—and I said, ‘Come and have a chat, because we need to talk about key things to do with sugar and how we can add value.’ Do you know what? There was consensus. Consensus works; it works. Those people said, ‘Wow! We thought that now that you were in government you’d just exclude us.’ I said: ‘No. We’re going to be inclusive, we’re going to be outcome driven and we are going to be consensus driven for the common good of all. We’re not going to be divisive. We’re going to build this nation. We’re a party of nation builders. That is what we are about.’ We have exciting plans in Ayr.
People came to the minister, Tony Burke, and we had had a discussion with about 25 people. We had farmers there who are farming 500,000 acres of sugarcane. They were saying, ‘Look, with the world prices for fuels and everything, we’ve got systems which we’ve seen working in Brazil and we could convert this sugar into ethanol.’ There are other plans, for bioenergies coming out of sugar and for cogeneration, particularly at the racecourse mill in Mackay, where the member for Capricornia, Kirsten Livermore, and I have been briefed. They have been working on a plan for 10 years, a feasibility study, but it was not viable until this last year, when global energy prices rocketed through the roof beyond the control of any national government. Now we in the seat of Dawson are well placed to add value to sugar and to meet energy needs. Cogeneration at the racecourse mill in Mackay is now a real possibility. It is a real possibility because the government are listening. The government are saying: ‘How can we help you? How can we make this happen?’ We now have a plan that is viable, and it is going to be an exciting time as I look forward to those mills presenting their cases to this government. I am excited about it because they are going to add value again to the bottom line. They are going to meet the energy needs of the local community as well. All these things are very important.
We have spoken about how we can add value to sugar in terms of energy and ethanol, cogeneration and bioenergies. We have spoken about that in Mackay and in Ayr. We have also spoken about that in southern Townsville, in Oonoonba, Stuart and Idalia. Also, Xstrata have been saying to me, ‘We need basic upgrades in port facilities, in road and rail infrastructure.’ It is this government which has come on board, having made a promise during the election. It is beginning to deliver, as the budget outcome, $95 million for the Townsville port access road. That is guaranteed, and in this financial year it is delivering the first $20 million to get the project started. That is basic infrastructure which is going to help with energy and access to the global market for exports, adding to our bottom line.
In conclusion, I speak in favour of this bill. Things like this only happen and work when you have a new vision for the country, a new vision with new federalism in mind, away from the old divisive ways of divide and rule and the blame game. We are moving forward to add to the bottom line of this nation, to the economy and to the energy needs of not just this country but also the world.
5510
11:21:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
0
0
Mr JOHNSON
—I am pleased to speak in the parliament today on the Australian Energy Market Amendment (Minor Amendments) Bill 2008. This is essentially a technical bill. It aims to make minor amendments to existing Commonwealth legislation that will underpin the national regime for the regulation of gas pipeline infrastructure. The bill will amend the Australian Energy Market Act 2004, the Australian Energy Market Amendment (Gas Legislation) Act 2007, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and the Trade Practices Act 1974 to correct the year of enactment of South Australian and Western Australian legislation from 2007 to 2008. The federal opposition supports these minor technical amendments to enable the implementation of the cooperative energy reform agenda between the Commonwealth, the states and all stakeholders. It is a bill that goes to technical provisions but the concept or theme at the heart of it is energy security.
I know the people of Ryan that I represent will be interested in aspects of energy and some of the statistics on energy, given that they are Australians who want to make a contribution to the environmental solution and at the same time ensure they have living standards and opportunities for themselves and their families. So in the context of this bill I want to talk a bit about the nature of energy. Energy is the fuel of life. It makes plants grow. It keeps animals alive. And in our modern world it drives devices ranging from medical equipment that sustains life to sophisticated technology that takes space shuttles up into space. That is in a sense what energy is all about. Today, of course, people around the world exploit energy in many different forms. Essentially, fossil fuels—that is, oil, coal, natural gas—account for around four-fifths or 80 per cent of our total energy consumption. That is a significant share that has largely been unchanged for the last century or so. These fossil fuels dominate because they are seen to be cheap and abundant and they are able to be transported from their source into homes and businesses around the world, so the means of transportation of these sources of energy also makes them economically efficient.
Different energy sources are used in different sectors. Motorised transport, for instance, is fuelled pretty much by oil and, as we know, when the price of a barrel of oil goes up it has ramifications throughout the world, from the most advanced economies and the most sophisticated cities to the developing economies and the most remote villages in those developing countries. So it is very timely that the leading ministers and governments of the world can come together at this time to discuss how we might address the rising price of oil.
The energy used for heating is a mixture: gas, oil, wood, coal and other sources. For electricity generation, fossil fuels provide around 60 per cent of the global total, while nuclear and hydro-electricity contribute 15 per cent and 16 per cent respectively. On the other hand, renewable electricity sources, such as solar, geothermal and wind, are growing fast but still constitute only a small percentage—about two per cent—of the global total. Of course, all of us would like to see renewable energy sources increase, and I will be pleased to touch on that a little later in this presentation. Around 1.5 billion people still cook and heat their homes using traditional biomass sources such as wood and animal dung, so we must not forget that biomass still has a space in this energy debate for so many people around the world. Indeed, it is a source of life itself for so many of our fellow human beings, especially in developing economies where so many people still live in villages in remote parts of those countries.
Let us ask about the consumption of energy. I am sure that the constituents I represent in Ryan will be interested to know the make-up of energy consumption. Whether energy comes from fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro or renewables, we use it in three broad sectors: industry, transport and buildings. Industrial uses such as mining, manufacturing and construction consume around 30 per cent of the global total; personal and commercial transportation consumes some 20 per cent; and residential and commercial buildings take up some 16 per cent for heating and cooling, lighting, appliances and the provision of water and sewerage services. Interestingly, a significant 27 per cent of the energy generated across the world is lost during generation and transmission, so we do not really get the most out of the energy sources that we have available to us.
In my view, energy security, or the lack of energy security, is going to be one of the biggest issues of our times. Energy security for people around the world is right up there as an issue for the great leaders of this century to address. I foresee energy security, affordability, diversity and reliability as one of the top handful of issues that have the potential to cause serious, indeed profound, geopolitical challenges for the leadership of the major countries of the world. I think it is incumbent upon all of us now at the beginning of the 21st century, when we still have time, to lay down the architecture of an affordable, secure, reliable and indeed diverse energy system that will address varying demands—from those of the most sophisticated cities, such as New York, Sydney, Shanghai and London, to those of the emerging cities of the world whose energy demands will increase as their populations grow and become more prosperous. The world as we know it cannot go on at the rate and pace of Western energy consumption today. Our voracious appetite for all things that are energy intensive, from big cars to big houses to big boats and to big planes, cannot be sustained.
I think that all of us deep down know this, and yet for many of us collectively as a society, as a community, whilst we know this, we still choose to ignore it. Indeed, some of us choose to bury our heads in the sand at the mounting challenge that is coming our way in terms of adjusting our lifestyle and the way that we use our energy for our day-to-day purposes.
Yet, equally, I do want to say very strongly that in the world as we know it we cannot just switch off all our lights, and we cannot just stop using our motor cars, and we cannot go on strike against planes and we cannot stop flying. Doing these things is simply not on the cards for our 21st century world of business, commerce, enterprise and global interaction. We cannot be Luddites. We live in a world where opportunity, prosperity, technology and the brilliance of our scientists and our engineers will surely be able to provide a way forward that achieves a balance between sustaining our community and environment whilst at the same time providing an appropriate level of lifestyle where we can enjoy nature and its opportunities and not live in darkness.
We cannot turn the clock back. We cannot all go and live in caves, as some of the extreme environmental groups would have us do. In fact I do not even call those who advocate such things environment groups, such is their intellectual bankruptcy and extremism. The bottom line is that energy supply, security, affordability and diversity is a very complex issue and this is why, going to the theme of energy and energy sustainability, I want to express great dismay at the way that the new Labor government has approached a source of energy which I think can go a long way, in the years and decades ahead, towards bringing about that balance and that sustainability that we all must try to achieve.
I want to talk in this context about solar energy. We all know that the budget that was recently delivered by the Rudd Labor government delivered a real blow to the solar industry, to renewable energy, and certainly it delivered a blow to the constituents of Ryan, who very much want to make a contribution to the environment and energy debate by taking up solar. Before I go into some of the details of that budget and the government’s attitude, I want to make a statement about solar, and I quote from a book produced by a renewable energy company that manufactures solar panels, Suntech. It has got a very interesting quote there which I find to be profoundly interesting and insightful. I quote from its production entitled Powering a Green Future, where it says on page 30:
The sun delivers enough energy in one hour to meet global energy needs for an entire year.
I would have thought that that is an eye-opener for sceptics about solar and, indeed, for those who think that solar can in no way make an impact on our renewable energy diversity mix. It is a very interesting quote. As an aside, Suntech is an innovative company that is manufacturing solar panels, and its chairman and CEO, a Chinese Australian by the name of Dr Zhengrong Shi, is at the forefront of the international debate on renewable energy and of course, in particular, solar.
The energy received from the sun has enormous potential, and somehow we must get the greatest minds in our country and from around the world to find a way to channel that vast source of energy into a form where it can be used substantially beyond its already significant contribution in the homes and businesses across our country. As I said earlier, I think the federal budget really showed the true colours of the Rudd Labor government on the energy diversity mix and trying to contribute to the energy debate across this country. As everyone will know—and certainly everyone in my electorate of Ryan now knows—the government’s policy was to make it more difficult for many people to access the solar panel rebate the Howard government brought in during its time. I know that it is not fashionable to think highly of the Howard government when it comes to environmental initiatives. Interestingly enough, the solar panel rebate, which was very popular—and certainly very popular in Ryan—has been kept by the Rudd Labor government yet it seeks to exclude so many Australians from it.
The Howard government encouraged the people of Ryan to take up solar panels with this $8,000 rebate. The Rudd government, after it came to office, decided in the budget that any household on a collective income of $100,000 was deemed to be rich and therefore in a financial position not to need the rebate. So many, many residents not only of Ryan but from across the suburbs of the electorates of this country felt that they were being singled out and excluded from making a contribution. I want to say very strongly that those in the Ryan electorate on $100,000 would not consider themselves wealthy by any means; they are struggling like their fellow Australians around the country to pay for petrol and groceries and child care. So the decision to means test the solar rebate was only going to be an additional burden and force them to prioritise this below the essentials of putting petrol in their car and buying groceries for their evening meals.
So, in other words, the Rudd government’s decision to implement this threshold of $100,000 is a very retrograde step. It is not consistent with its election campaign commitment to very strongly promote the solar industry. I think that really highlights the hypocrisy. We heard a campaign commitment to a 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020. This was to be achieved by significantly boosting Australia’s solar, wind and geothermal energy industries. But that was put in its place by a budget measure on solar that smacks people in the face.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The member for Ryan is straying significantly from the bill. I have allowed him to do so, but I would really like him to come back to the bill before the House.
00AMX
Johnson, Michael, MP
Mr JOHNSON
—Madam Deputy Speaker, I am speaking about the theme of energy. This bill is about energy.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—It is on the theme of energy, yes. It is a minor amendment to national gas laws.
00AMX
Johnson, Michael, MP
Mr JOHNSON
—If you are saying that solar is not part of the energy mix and diversity of our country, I would find that dramatic and astonishing. Solar is part of the energy mix, wind is part of the energy mix and geothermal is part of the energy mix—no less than gas; no more than gas. It is all part of the energy mix. Oil—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Yes, but I would say that we are debating a bill for an act to amend the law relating to gas and for related purposes. I have allowed you quite a lot of leniency and I would like you to come back to the bill before the House.
00AMX
Johnson, Michael, MP
Mr JOHNSON
—This is a very technical bill. The federal opposition supports it. Underlying it is energy, and I am not going to take a backwards step when it comes to representing the interests of the Ryan electorate and the people of Ryan—who I have the great honour of representing here in parliament for the third occasion—and their participating in contributing to and engaging in the energy debate.
We all know that so many of the world’s population are excluded from a full and fruitful lifestyle because, really, of fate. If we in the developing world can contribute in some large or small way then we should do that. I should say in concluding my remarks that, interestingly enough, some 30 per cent of the world’s population still live without electricity. Of the global population only one in six has access to the energy necessary for the high standards of living that we in this country enjoy. A billion people use over half the world’s energy and, by contrast, the billion poorest use only four per cent. We, in a very rich and prosperous country with a $22 billion budget surplus left by the Howard government, must surely be in a position where we can invest in technology and provide rebates and incentives that send a very strong public message and contribute to renewable energies that make our world a better place.
5513
11:41:00
Trevor, Chris, MP
HVU
Flynn
ALP
1
0
Mr TREVOR
—I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill today. The specific bill is the Australian Energy Market Amendment (Minor Amendments) Bill 2008. From the technical side of things, under the Australian Energy Market Amendment (Minor Amendments) Bill the Commonwealth government must pass legislation to apply the National Gas Law in the offshore area and external territories. Of greater importance is the need for the Commonwealth to consent in legislation to the conferral of functions under a state law on three Commonwealth bodies—that is to say, the Australian Energy Regulator, the National Competition Council and the Australian Competition Tribunal. This was perfected by the Australian Energy Market Amendment (Gas Legislation) Bill 2007, which meets the Commonwealth’s obligations under the AEMA by amending the Australian Energy Market Act 2004 to make it the Commonwealth’s application act for the NGL regime and amending the Trade Practices Act of 1974 on the conferral of powers on Commonwealth bodies by state laws as part of the NGL regime. This act also amended the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to provide for judicial review of decisions made under the NGL. The Australian Energy Market Amendment (Minor Amendments) Bill 2008 is a mechanical bill to achieve this purpose.
In addition to progressing the National Gas Law, the Rudd Labor government, in a new era of cooperative reform with the states, has already made significant advances in implementing its plans for energy market reform and energy infrastructure. Only recently the Hon. Martin Ferguson MP, Minister for Resources and Energy, and I had the great privilege of announcing budget funding of more than $200 million to a Central Queensland clean coal demonstration project. The funding provides $206 million for the Callide-A oxy-fuel demonstration project in Biloela—a three-stage demonstration of carbon capture and storage technologies. The project involves a retrofit of technology to a 30mw unit at Callide A power station in Biloela that will allow capture and storage of approximately 17,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year for up to three years. CCS involves capturing greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly from coal fired power stations, before they are released into the atmosphere—with the gas then injected and stored deep under the ground in geological formations similar to those which have stored oil and gas for millions of years.
CCS is essential for the long-term sustainability of coal fired power generation. With 83 per cent of Australia’s electricity generated from coal, no serious response to climate change can ignore the need to clean up our coal. This project aims to demonstrate a complete and integrated process of carbon capture and storage at an operating electricity generator, and it is vitally important to the long-term future of the Central Queensland coal industry. This project will yield detailed engineering design and costing data and operational experience to underpin the commercial development and deployment of new and retrofit carbon capture technology for electricity generation. In addition, it will produce detailed geotechnical design and costing data and operational experience to support the development of geological storage projects with capacities in excess of one million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
The commitment of the Rudd Labor government to this clean coal project in Biloela combines the government’s commitment to tackling climate change with ensuring the energy and industry security of Central Queensland, where I live. There are also a number of major industrial developments under construction or investigation which will see my electorate of Flynn, in particular, and the Central Queensland area boom. The sleeping giant is awakening. Some of these developments include but are not limited to: Belvedere Coal in the Banana Shire; the Xstrata Coal seam in Wandoan; Anglo Coal in the Dawson Valley; the Monto coal mining project; Alinta Limited; coal seam gas producer Sunshine Gas Ltd, teaming with Japan’s Sojitz Corporation to develop a $570 million liquefied natural gas plant at Gladstone; the LNG International and Arrow Energy coal seam gas to liquid plant; BG; and seam gas Anglo Coal, a development program for the Mungi coal seam gas field in the Moura area within the central Bowen Basin—just to name a few.
The Rudd Labor government recognises that energy security for the electorate of Flynn, for Central Queensland and for all Australians is absolutely paramount to their continued wellbeing. This bill, I am proud to say, represents the government’s unswerving commitment to addressing climate change and to the energy industry of Flynn, Central Queensland and Australia generally. As the member representing the powerhouse of the nation, I wholeheartedly commend the bill to the House.
5515
11:48:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism
1
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—in reply—In concluding the debate on the Australian Energy Market Amendment (Minor Amendments) Bill 2008, I firstly thank the member for Flynn for not only his informative contribution in the context of the issues currently before the chair but also what is clearly his view about the potential development of the area in which he lives and that he represents. I agree that Gladstone has a very bright future because of not only the importance of a range of industries such as coal and aluminium but also, all of a sudden, the issue of LNG. It is no longer just a west coast consideration; it is potentially a major industry for the east coast of Australia. In the very near future we could see key developments in the Gladstone region and in the Surat Basin, including the development of an LNG industry based on coal seam methane. That will be potentially exceptionally important for the east coast from the point of view of not only domestic gas but also exporting to the region in which we live—which is crying out for energy capacity at the moment. As the minister, I am pleased that we have a member representing this key industrial area of Australia who not only well appreciates the challenges to his own region to meet these demands for development but also realises the importance of them for the nation at large and the global community.
On that note, I brought this bill to the parliament on behalf of the government with the support of my colleagues on the Ministerial Council on Energy. The council desires that we continue our progress towards an efficient and effective national regime for the regulation of gas pipeline services. By passing the bill, the Commonwealth parliament will play a key role in facilitating the Ministerial Council on Energy’s cooperative gas access regime. This is not only of national importance; it is also about ongoing microeconomic reform in Australia—something which was the cornerstone of the Keating and Hawke Labor governments. It is about improvements in productivity and guaranteeing that Australian industry is competitive, especially in a very tough global community. This regime will be underpinned by lead legislation enacted in the South Australian parliament, to which the National Gas Law will be a schedule. The National Gas Law will then be applied by all remaining jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth but excluding Western Australia, through legislation known as the application acts. Western Australia will pass complementary legislation with contents similar to the National Gas Law, rather than apply the National Gas Law established by South Australian law.
This bill makes minor amendments to the Commonwealth’s application act, the Australian Energy Market Act 2004; the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977; and the Trade Practices Act 1974 to correct references to the South Australian lead legislation and to the Western Australian government’s complementary legislation. These amendments are required to ensure that the Commonwealth application legislation correctly applies South Australian and Western Australian legislation in the offshore area, and correctly empowers the Commonwealth bodies under the regime. The National Gas Law has been subject to a rigorous consultative process engaging all relevant stakeholders. The final legislation has taken into account issues raised by stakeholders. I appreciate the assistance of stakeholders in finalising this legislative package. Passage of the bill will make minor technical amendments to the Commonwealth’s application act, which will allow the smooth implementation of the cooperative energy reform agenda. These issues were also subject to further discussion and report at the Ministerial Council on Energy meeting held in Canberra last Friday. I can inform the House that the bill has the full support of all my state and territory colleagues on the Ministerial Council on Energy.
I would like to thank all those members who have contributed to this debate. It might seem a minor bill in the minds of some people, but I regard it as a significant economic bill in terms of where we are going on the all-important energy front. I appreciate the contributions of the member for Groom, the former Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, who prior to the last election had responsibility for this area of government activity; the member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson; the member for Flynn, Chris Trevor, who I have already referred to; the member for Dawson, James Bidgood, a very good local member; the member for Corangamite, Darren Cheeseman, a fellow Victorian; and also the members for Cowper, Ryan and New England. I note and appreciate the member for Groom’s support as the former minister, and I would also like to place on record my appreciation of his work as Chairman of the Ministerial Council on Energy over several years. I now appreciate, as the new chairperson of that organisation, just how tough it is herding eight state and territory ministers together to get a uniform, common national outcome, and I give him credit for sustaining that process over a number of years. I also note his remarks in relation to the development of gas and other energy resources in Australia and his warnings that government should not interfere in the normal operations of the market—views which I share.
I note the member for Cowper’s remarks in relation to the removal of the excise exemption on condensate, and his unwarranted claim that this will have a disincentive effect on exploration. However, I simply say that, in my mind, the member understands the real situation on the ground. The recent budget changes which are currently before the Senate relate to excise payable on condensate and are only applicable to the North West Shelf. They will therefore have no impact on the taxation regime applying in areas yet to be explored. Therefore—and I stress this—the budget changes represent no disincentive to further exploration.
I also note the member for New England’s remarks in relation to biofuels. I appreciate that he has been a constructive contributor to this complex debate over many years but I reject his suggestion that the government is sending mixed messages to the community in relation to support for renewables. The government has consistently recognised that biofuels—in particular, second generation biofuels—are part of a suite of technologies to mitigate climate change and address Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The government is wholehearted in its support both for renewable technologies, including the renewable energy target and the emissions trading scheme, and for carbon capture and storage technologies. I note the member’s comments regarding the emissions trading scheme and urge him to put his views forward in response to the government’s green paper on the emissions trading system, which the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, will release for public discussion and consideration in July.
The member for Ryan made comments about support for solar activities. I simply say in response that the member should more thoroughly examine the recent budget papers and the commitments given by the government. There is a renewable energy fund of $500 million. There is also the $150 million Energy Innovation Fund, $100 million of which will be allocated for solar PV and thermal research and development, which is a very significant contribution. I would also remind him that, in terms of the development of solar and other renewables, he should not just have regard for government programs and potential grants, which will be allocated on a merit basis. He should also pay more attention to the potential impact on the renewable energy industry, and the encouragement it will receive as a result, of the introduction of the emissions trading scheme and the renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020. It is a package of climate change programs, and changes to the method of operation of the Australian community, which will be of considerable long-term benefit to the renewable industry. If anything, this package will be a world-first and provide leading-edge encouragement to the renewable energy industry.
Finally, I thank the member for Dawson for his comments on tourism, and I wholeheartedly support his enthusiasm for Film Australia. I appreciate the contributions of other members on both sides of the House. I think these debates are exceptionally important because they raise a range of issues of not only national importance but also local and regional importance to communities around Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
ADJOURNMENT
5517
Adjournment
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
(Batman
—Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism)
11:59:00
—I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
Crime
5517
5517
11:59:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
0
0
Mr KEENAN
—I rise to talk about the No. 1 concern of people in my electorate of Stirling: crime. I know from talking to local families that there is an immense sense of frustration within my community about what people perceive as uncontrolled crime rates. The reality is that it is actually very difficult to get a clear picture of the statistics in relation to crime in my electorate, because the WA state Labor government are very tricky in the way that they publish crime statistics. It is very difficult to get an accurate picture of what is actually happening with crime.
However, there is one thing I can say: there is absolutely no doubt that it is extraordinarily difficult to get a police response when you require one. This is not because the police are not dedicated—they do an extraordinarily good job; it is because they are extremely underresourced, particularly in the west metro police district, which covers my electorate. Police officers are leaving the police force at a greater rate than they can be recruited, and this remains a very serious problem. At any given time in my electorate of Stirling, the police are approximately 20 per cent undermanned. This makes it virtually impossible for these hardworking police officers to do the job they are required to do.
Traditionally, crime is the responsibility of the state government, but I have never found that people are terribly interested in those sorts of distinctions; they expect the federal government to be involved and doing something about this problem. The former coalition government was extremely proactive in fighting crime. It created the highly successful National Community Crime Prevention Program, which funded projects across the country that made a real difference. Sadly, this program was scrapped by Labor in its recent budget. This decision has been a huge loss to my community. In my electorate the National Community Crime Prevention Program funded closed circuit television projects in Mirrabooka, Nollamara and the Corrigin skate park as well as some other successful local initiatives to the tune of more than $480,000.
A shocking pickaxe attack on an ATM user last year at one of my local shopping centres, the Nollamara shopping centre, brought some of this unacceptable behaviour to light. I was very pleased to secure $85,000 for a CCTV system to be implemented in conjunction with the City of Stirling to make the Nollamara shopping centre a safer place and a more profitable location for its business owners—who, quite frankly, have felt as though they have been under siege from local criminal activity. This project is now well underway, with engineering works already begun. The system will be fully operational by the end of this month—that is certainly my hope. The new system will help make the centre safer for elderly families and shop staff as well as make it easier for police to catch criminals. Local residents have told me that they just do not feel safe when they visit that shopping centre. This is because of incidents of crime—often very violent crime—antisocial behaviour, graffiti and hooning. And, of course, there are some very serious incidents, including robberies on local businesses. The CCTV system will allow local police to use footage of crime as evidence in order to identify and catch criminals and vandals. Not only will this ensure that arrests are made but also, hopefully, it will act as a deterrent to people committing crime or engaging in crime in the first place.
Labor have replaced the National Community Crime Prevention Program with what they have termed the safer suburbs program. This program will provide only $15 million of funding over three years. Five million dollars a year to fight crime, I believe, is completely and utterly inadequate. It is a good indication of the way this government operate: they always want to be seen to be doing something as opposed to actually doing something. Five million dollars a year across Australia is just an extraordinarily pitiful amount for what is an extraordinarily serious problem.
I am still determined though that the electorate of Stirling will see some of this money and I have been working in coordination with the City of Stirling on a $1.6 million safer suburbs plan. The proposal is now with the Attorney-General’s Department for approval. This plan includes personal alarms for residents and four extra security officers for patrols to be carried out by the City of Stirling—and this will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
I would very much like to place on record that the $1.6 million safer suburbs plan is going to be extraordinarily worth while for my community. I am confident that it will make a very big difference. I have been campaigning very hard to ensure that this $1.6 million is allocated to my community. In pursuit of this, I will be meeting with the Mayor and the CEO of the City of Stirling in Canberra next week to discuss the details. (Time expired)
Calwell Electorate: Bridgewater Aged Care Facility
5518
5518
12:04:00
Vamvakinou, Maria, MP
00AMT
Calwell
ALP
1
0
Ms VAMVAKINOU
—I want to speak today about the residents and staff at the Bridgewater Aged Care Facility in Roxburgh Park, which is in my electorate of Calwell. In particular, I want to acknowledge the resilience and courage they have shown over the last few weeks during what has been a very difficult time for them and their families. On 20 May, Bridgewater Aged Care Facility went into administration, leaving its 98 residents and approximately 156 staff facing a very uncertain future. Late last year, I had the opportunity to visit Bridgewater; it was the third or fourth visit I had made to that facility in the last couple of years. During my visit last year, I had morning tea and conversation with many of the residents and staff at the facility. I even tried, albeit somewhat unsuccessfully, to play a bit of bocce, which is one of their favourite indoor games.
The staff and the residents at the Bridgewater Aged Care Facility are very generous people. They were generous with their time and their hospitality. They were just simply delightful and very kind. What impressed me the most during my visit was the sense of community that existed between residents and staff and the strong bonds of friendship that they shared. There was certainly no indication of the financial troubles to come. Indeed, when the news first emerged that the facility had gone into administration, it came as a shock not only to me but also to the local community—to the residents and the staff at the Bridgewater Aged Care Facility.
What makes this news all the more troubling is that, when it comes to the Bridgewater Aged Care Facility, we are not just talking about a company or business; we are also talking about people’s homes and their place of work. We are talking about the close friendships that residents have forged with each other over the years, about a sense of belonging and of being at home and among friends that residents at this facility share.
And we are talking about the livelihoods of those who work at Bridgewater. In late May many of the staff at the facility were still owed wages dating back to the period before Bridgewater actually went into administration. Yet, despite this, they continued to work and care for its residents. Their dedication and commitment need to be recognised and should be applauded.
The Rudd Labor government and the Department of Health and Ageing are doing all that they can to ensure that residents at Bridgewater receive ongoing appropriate care and that staff are looked after during this difficult time. My primary concern is for the welfare of Bridgewater’s residents and staff, and I know that this is a concern shared by the Minister for Ageing. The government has appointed and is funding a clinical nurse adviser team to help the administrator of Bridgewater ensure that residents receive ongoing and quality care. Unpaid staff wages that were owed from the time before Bridgewater went into administration are being covered by the Department of Health and Ageing, which has also brought forward monthly resident subsidy payments so that staff can be paid on time by the administrator. This is in addition to the nearly $314,000 in monthly resident subsidy payments that the department has been paying to the home to care for its residents. The department has also set up a dedicated telephone number for family members and residents to call for further information and assistance, and departmental case managers have been assigned to individual families. In the worst-case scenario, additional help to cover staff entitlements may be available under the Australian government’s General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme, should Bridgewater become insolvent. The department, in negotiation with the administrators, has drawn up contingency plans to find alternative and appropriate accommodation for residents. We are all hoping, of course, that it does not come to that.
Just how the Bridgewater Aged Care Facility got to this position is now the subject of an investigation, and I do not want to pre-empt the findings of that investigation in any way here today. What I will say is that this has been a very difficult time for residents at the facility and their families and has been equally trying for Bridgewater staff as well. I have written to them and have spoken about their plight in some of our local newspapers and I know that the Minister for Ageing has also been very vocal on this issue.
I can report to the committee that negotiations between the Department of Health and Ageing and Bridgewater’s administrators are ongoing. This is of course a very delicate situation and I do hope that a solution can be found. Between now and then, however, I intend to continue doing all that I can to make sure that the needs and interests of residents and staff at Bridgewater are met. They are first and foremost in our thoughts. I would like to say that we are doing everything we can to assist them. I admire their patience and I admire their wisdom—in particular, the wisdom that they have shown over the last few weeks. They are a wonderful group of people and I hope that I am able to see them remain in my electorate. I look forward to future visits to the Bridgewater Aged Care Facility.
Flinders Electorate: Desalination Plant
5520
5520
12:09:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—I want to raise an issue which I have raised in this Committee previously—indeed, today—and that is the implications of the desalination plant which is currently being proposed in the Wonthaggi area, specifically on the edge of Kilcunda. I have said that the priority for Victoria for water must be to recycle the 150 billion litres a year which is currently dumped off the coast at Gunnamatta, on the Mornington Peninsular. Firstly, this is waste water which pollutes the coast. Secondly, it has a health effect. Thirdly, it is a monumental waste of water which could be recycled for industry and agriculture.
The state is not doing that. It is not working on this recycling plan. It has failed on that front. Instead, it has proposed a desalination plant at Kilcunda. I have talked today about the Your Water Your Say Action Group, which is subject of a costs order which is likely to drive some of them to bankruptcy. But a second element, which has been drawn to my attention in the past week, is the impact on local farmers who have only just been told that they are about to have a major, high-voltage powerline run through the middle of their farms. This line has suddenly emerged. It was not mentioned previously, was not mentioned prior to the last state election, was not mentioned in any of the discussions or community consultation and was not mentioned by successive Victorian premiers in any public advertisements.
It brings to my mind four major concerns. The first of those is the value of the land and the livelihood of the farmers themselves. I spoke this week with John and Wilma Coleman of Yannathan, who are dairy farmers. Part of their land is leased out to a farmer who leases and runs a dairy project as well. They have found that these powerlines will go right through the middle of their property. But they are not alone. Vegetable farmers have got the same problem. Dairy farmers up and down this scenic landscape will also have a massive new power line—never announced, never contemplated, never discussed—and it has been sprung upon them at this last minute. The impact will be quite devastating for their property values. I know in the case of the Colemans that any land which they may have contemplated excising to provide for their future retirement will now be almost worthless.
That leads to a second element: the loss of productivity. It comes in two forms. Firstly, planes will not be able to spray crops between the pylons. It affects a very large area. Of course, if you are flying near high-voltage pylons there has to be a very large clearance, and that will have a huge impact on the way in which land is sprayed. Secondly, I am advised the way irrigation equipment can be used will also be dramatically restricted. That has an impact on the productivity of the land—that is, the capacity of the land to produce and therefore to produce a return—and it twins with the outright drop in property values for the simple reason that people do not want to live in the shadow of extremely high-voltage powerlines. It is just a reality and a fact of property valuation in Australia.
This brings me to the third point, and that is the landscape values that are at risk and are to be lost. A major powerline through the Bass Coast and potentially through Cardinia shire will run through some of the most beautiful land in Victoria. This land potentially includes the Korumburra Hills. The powerline will have to cross the hills. It will be a visual blight in an area which is famous for its landscapes and famous for its tourism and which borders and protects Melbourne from the spread of high-density living. It will do enormous damage. It was never announced, never proposed and never foreshadowed. This brings me, finally, to the fourth element, and that is the fundamental breach of the promise that we would have a plant which, if powered at all, would be powered by renewable energy. All of these promises have been broken. It is a bad proposal. Farmers such as the Colemans need to be protected. (Time expired)
Battle of Crete
5521
5521
12:14:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
1
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—I rise to draw the House’s attention to the recent anniversary of the Battle of Crete, an anniversary that commemorates the heroic efforts of Australian defence forces and the local community of Crete in 1941. The battle took place three weeks after the Allies’ loss of mainland Greece to Germany. Commencing 20 May 1941, the Battle of Crete lasted 10 days. Allied forces consisted of three British battalions, two New Zealander brigades, eight Greek battalions and six Australian battalions. The invasion was the largest German airborne operation of the war. The Germans parachuted 8,100 men onto the island of Crete. The German parachute forces suffered appalling casualties. The casualties amongst German parachutists were acute, with nearly 4,000 being killed or lost, leading to Crete being subsequently dubbed the graveyard of the German parachutists. Initially, allied advantage was lost with the Maleme airfield in Western Crete falling to the Germans, enabling sufficient reinforcements to land and overwhelm the allied forces. The battle was significant on a number of fronts. But the civil resistance of the local population was, in itself, highly significant—in the spirit of resistance to the Nazi domination and in the bond that was forged between the people of Greece and Australia.
Local men and women, and even children, became involved in the battle proper. But, when the allied withdrawal commenced and the many thousands of troops were scrambling to evade capture, the local population put itself at extreme risk in assisting allied forces and Australian soldiers that were left behind. It is my belief that through this period of adversity a bond was formed between the peoples of Greece and Australia. Many Australian soldiers who were left behind were harboured by locals in villages. For every Australian soldier who was caught by the Nazis whole villages were executed in response and to give the message that this was not on with the Nazis. This did not stop the local community. They continued to harbour Australians and others from the allied forces to ensure their safety, and the resistance continued. We know that a bond was forged between the peoples of Greece and Australia through a shared desire to prevail against an invading Nazi force that proved to be a disaster for the local population.
Through the theatre of battle and the desperate avoidance of capture, Greeks and Australians sacrificed much and suffered terribly, in unison, side by side, in the defence of the island. I am sure that the ongoing pain and loss endured by the local population throughout the period of Nazi occupation was not lost on the allied forces, which failed to maintain the security of the island to protect the people. The gallantry and the loss were recently commemorated and remembered at many ceremonies around Australia, including in my home state of South Australia. The Battle of Crete and those who perished as a consequence of war were formally honoured through the laying of wreaths all around Australia. I know for a fact that the battle is remembered by many thousands of people around Australia through local ceremonies, informal gatherings and personal reflections.
Many of those who themselves pay special attention to the anniversary braved occupation within Greece—that is, many of the veterans whom I have met over the years. They can take great pride in the resilience of the Greek people and the Australian soldiers that was so evident in those dark days and in the bond that they have continued to develop with Australia, their adoptive country, which tried valiantly to defend Greece from invasion and persecution in its hour of need. I hope we continue to acknowledge the important contributions of Australian forces, the Greek soldiers and the Greek civilians in the defence of Crete against the 20 May 1941 German invasion. I hope we also continue the annual commemoration of the Battle of Crete within Australia as an event of national significance and encourage the reflection of the shared experiences of Australians and Greek nationals through the Battle of Crete, the bond forged between our two nations in a time of war and the evolution of Australian-Greek relations within the post-war period.
Landcare
5522
5522
12:19:00
Ley, Sussan, MP
00AMN
Farrer
LP
0
0
Ms LEY
—I rise today to alert this chamber and the House to the concerns in my electorate for the future of Landcare. Landcare is a 20-year-old community driven program with an international reputation for real and measurable environmental restoration. In fact, I was secretary of my local Landcare branch more years ago than I care to remember when Landcare was just starting off and it went through a long series of teething and education issues. We have, I think, developed in rural Australia one of the best programs there is that helps farmers manage their land in a sustainable way with a view both to the environment and to their own profitability. So I am concerned that, with the new Rudd government, we are going to be throwing a lot away with the cuts that we are now seeing to the Landcare program.
Landcare mobilised hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians to work for the environment. It was just a concept no-one had ever considered when it came about. Groups of farmers would get together and talk about what they could do for their entire mini-ecosystem and region and, as time went on, the groups got larger and larger and people got much more of a regional perspective with their Landcare activities. This was something new. This was quite innovative. But now it is accepted and there are so many really, really good examples of what it has achieved.
The last budget slashed the budget for Landcare by over 20 per cent and there were no forward estimates published by the program beyond 2008-09. Nine years ago catchment management agencies were developed across all states to deliver and monitor the coalition’s Natural Heritage Trust, NHT, and national action plan for salinity and water projects on the ground. I know that Minister Garrett has replaced a lot of our NHT and NAP funding with a program called Caring for Our Country, but it has involved cuts to catchment management bodies of 40 per cent. The recent Audit Office review of CMAs identifies that, without additional funding, some of these bodies would go to the wall. I do not want to see that happen and I honestly do not believe that the Rudd government wants to see that happen.
We have unique and special environmental needs along the Murray. The role of the Landcare facilitators is under threat and I have received correspondence from Landcare groups telling me how they will lose their facilitators. They are absolutely essential. It is terrific for a catchment management authority to develop programs to link in with the latest science to understand farming practices, but if you do not have any extension activities, if you do not get out there and show farmers and have field days on farms and talk to farmers—this is the work of extension and I am a great supporter of it—the work you are doing in your little hub in the office in town is really quite wasted. Of course the cuts to the CMAs are going to mean that the volume of incentives shrinks quite dramatically and farmers stressed by the drought are going to have to dip into their own pockets. That is not a bad thing—I am not saying that farmers should not pay—but the balance was just right. There was enough incentive and enough farmer contribution, often in labour effort and management, to make this program work.
I have received correspondence from the Corowa and District Landcare group from Bronwyn Thomas. She reminds us of the significant environmental work that group has undertaken since it was established in 1996. It is currently the most active Landcare group in the catchment. They have employed a Landcare officer. They have worked throughout the shire. With their coordinator they have managed 18 projects supported through almost $580,000 of government funding and $650,000 of community and in-kind support. It is all under threat. The Green Gully Landcare Association wrote—and these organisations have all written to Minister Garrett—‘We are seeking assistance in having our funding within our land and water management plans reinstated.’ That is from the Green Gully Landcare Association. Of course it is reflected by the Murray Valley Community Action Group which talks about those same land and water management plans in the vital irrigation districts of the Murray.
The Rangeland Management Action Plan, which is in Western New South Wales, has said:
How are people in remote and rural communities meant to keep going to be able to access funding under Landcare without a coordinator? What are we to tell our staff in terms of job security as June 2008 comes up? What are we to tell landholders in planning for projects with the uncertainty of Landcare? If Landcare is such a critical element of Caring for Our Country, how can it be achieved without a local coordinator?
I appreciate that ministers like to start again and create whole new priorities, but the work has been done, Minister Garrett. It is all there on the table through lots of hard tough years. Please support our Landcare coordinators. Please consider reinstating the funding so that we can keep going with our valuable extension work.
Renewable Energy
5523
5523
12:24:00
Symon, Mike, MP
HW8
Deakin
ALP
1
0
Mr SYMON
—I speak today in support of the Rudd government’s initiatives in the renewable energy and solar industries. Here we have a government that has a real and abiding interest in promoting the use of renewable energy through the implementation of a 20 per cent mandatory renewable energy target by 2020. In electrical energy terms, that is a target of 45,000 gigawatt hours. We must be serious with renewable energy initiatives if we are to achieve a 60 per cent cut in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Renewable energy will play a critical role in achieving these cuts, as well as providing substantial employment opportunities, particularly in regional Australia.
The 2008-09 federal budget includes many measures to support the renewable energy industry and sustainable homes and communities. These include budget measures such as a the Renewable Energy Fund, which provides $500 million over seven years to specifically expand and accelerate the development, commercialisation and deployment of a range of renewable technologies in Australia, and budget measures such as the Energy Innovation Fund, which will invest $150 million over four years to focus on developing clean energy research and development capabilities in Australia. Of that amount, $100 million will be allocated for solar thermal and photovoltaic research and development, including the establishment of an Australian Solar Institute, and $50 million will be committed for research into clean energy technologies in areas such as energy efficiency, energy storage and hydrogen transport fuels.
Support for sustainable communities comes from a commitment of more than $500 million for schools and communities to encourage them to reduce their impact on the environment, including through actions to reduce emissions. The government is supporting practical action in our schools to tackle climate change by providing grants of up to $50,000 for schools to install a wide variety of energy and water-saving measures. In fact, the Rudd government has allocated $480.6 million over eight years to ensure all schools can become solar schools. That is over 9,000 schools that will benefit from reduced energy and water bills. I am certain this initiative will play an important role in raising awareness of clean energy technologies in our children at school and in the wider community.
Under the Solar Cities program, $18.8 million is being provided to develop new Solar Cities trials in Perth and in my home state of Victoria, at Coburg. Solar Cities will also demonstrate how new approaches to energy efficiency, such as solar power and smart meters, can combine to provide a sustainable energy future in urban Australia. Importantly, the Solar Cities projects will demonstrate the advantages of solar energy to those low-income households that are not able to afford an investment in other forms of energy-saving measures.
Support for sustainable homes is backed up by the government’s election commitment to provide rebates for the installation of solar power systems in up to 3,000 households per year over five years. But demand for the solar rebate has been so strong since it was doubled last year that the government has decided to double the number of rebates to be paid in 2008-09. It is now up to 6,000 rebates. Our total commitment of $150 million remains unchanged and, in fact, we have brought forward $25.6 million in this budget for the Solar Homes and Communities Plan to achieve in three years what the previous government set out to achieve in five years. We are rolling out low-interest green loans over the next five years of up to $10,000 for up to 200,000 families to install solar, water and energy efficient products in their homes, and we are providing rebates of up to $500 to install energy efficient insulation in up to 300,000 rental homes. These measures come on top of support for existing programs, including a $1,000 rebate for households to switch to climate-friendly hot water.
If we are going to get serious about tackling climate change, we have to take energy and water efficiency into the mainstream and enable households to reduce emissions at least cost. Government support for the solar power industry is at record levels. In addition to funding for 6,000 rebates over the next year, we will start putting solar power systems on every primary and secondary school roof in Australia through the National Solar Schools Program. That will drive a significant amount of demand for solar installations across the country. There are more than 9,000 schools, as I said, where a two-kilowatt solar system is a minimum. That will start on 1 July this year. Given the size of the government’s support for the renewable energy industry, including the solar power industry, I believe that the outlook for solar and renewable energy across the board has never been brighter.
Question agreed to.
5525
13:29:00
Main Committee adjourned at 12.29 pm
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
5526
Questions in Writing
Churches
5526
5526
111
5526
Gibbons, Steve, MP
83X
Bendigo
ALP
1
Mr Gibbons
asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 26 May 2008:
Over the last 15 years, what Commonwealth funds have been made available for renovation or refurbishment to Catholic and Anglican churches across Australia.
5526
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
Mr Garrett
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I can advise the honourable member that in the last 5 years the Australian Government has made available just under $24.5million to Anglican and Catholic places of worship for restoration and/or conservation works. Approximately $500 000 of this amount was granted under the National Heritage Investment Initiative, with the remainder being provided through special appropriations by the former Government. While additional funding has been provided for these purposes in the preceding 10 years, this funding came from a range of programs and details are difficult to readily access.
Commonwealth Seniors Health Care Card
5526
5526
116
5526
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
0
Mr Abbott
asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 3 June 2008
:
In respect of the Budget decision to tighten eligibility for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Care Card: (a) how many people currently have this card; and (b) what is the financial total in benefits to these card holders.
5526
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
Ms Macklin
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
There are currently around 277,000 holders of the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.
-
The total in benefits for a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card holder may vary due to a range of factors. These include the number of prescription medicines or Medicare services they require and whether they have a home internet connection for Telephone Allowance purposes. Some State and Territory Governments and third party concession providers may offer additional concessions to these card holders.
The Australian Government’s main purpose in issuing concession cards is to provide access to concession rate Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescription medicines and certain Medicare services, at a cheaper rate. Holders of the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card can receive Seniors Concession Allowance of $500 a year and Telephone Allowance of $88 a year, plus a further $44 a year if they have a home internet connection.