2010-06-03
42
1
8
REPS
0
0
2010-06-03
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers.
PRIVILEGE
5145
Privilege
5145
09:01:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—On Monday the Leader of the House raised a matter of privilege relating to reports that the member for Ryan had complained to police authorities that he had been subject to undue pressure and to intimidation ‘to resign from parliament’. The Leader of the House suggested that the alleged actions could constitute a contempt as an improper interference with the free performance by the member of his duties as a member. The Leader of the House presented copies of two newspaper articles to which he had referred. Yesterday the honourable member for Ryan informed the House of his support for the consideration of the issue as a matter of privilege and provided some detail of the actions that had been of concern to him.
I have considered the comments by the Leader of the House and the member for Ryan and I have had regard to relevant precedents. House of Representatives Practice states that an attempt to influence a member in his or her conduct as a member by threats is a contempt, as is any conduct having a tendency to impair a member’s independence in the future. To be an offence against the House, conduct has to be found to amount to, or to be intended or likely to amount to, an improper interference. Complaints of breach of privilege relating to matters arising within political parties have been raised in the House before, although no cases have been referred to the Committee of Privileges.
In responding to these complaints former Speakers have noted, using precedents from the United Kingdom, that arrangements made within political parties were unlikely to give rise to matters of privilege or contempt. It has been noted that the raising of the complaint by a third party may not be a good foundation for action to be taken in this area. The view has been expressed, however, that if any member sought the protection of the House in such matters the House ought to seek the advice of the Committee of Privileges as to the proper course.
Although no reference of such matters has been made by the House, the Senate Committee of Privileges has reported on a case involving party processes. In this case, involving Senator Tambling, who had been disendorsed by his party, the committee found that a penalty had been imposed on him on account of his vote on a certain matter and that, although the actions of the party were ‘reckless and ill judged’, on balance, and in light of certain developments, a contempt could not be found.
It is worth referring briefly to a case in New Zealand in 1993. In this case the High Court considered a matter involving the disendorsement of a member of parliament from the political party of which he had been a longstanding member. The court noted there must be no question of discipline or coercion which could in some way influence the manner in which a member of parliament goes about his or her business. However, the judgment went on to note that this had nothing to do with choosing candidates to promote for election, and so did not involve matters of privilege.
While the matters I have referred to are not directly comparable, they illustrate that questions relating to the operation of political parties can present particular issues in relation to privilege. There seems to be a recognised role for political parties in dealing with matters of internal discipline and the endorsement of candidates. Such actions may at times be quite robust without being improper. However, it is the case that action taken within a political party could potentially amount to an improper interference with the free performance by a member of his or her duties.
The question of whether such action would be found to amount to a contempt would be dependent on the particular circumstances. The following points are relevant to my consideration of this matter:
-
intimidating a member with a view to influencing the behaviour of a member in relation to his or her duties is a very serious matter;
-
the member concerned in this case has supported the initial complaint and provided some detail;
-
the matters complained of are focused on activities within a political party and are related to questions of the endorsement of a member as a candidate for a political party; and
-
the member has confirmed that he has referred his concerns to the police.
The allegations raised are serious and go to the ability of a member to be able to perform his duties freely and without improper interference. The fact that they have occurred within the context of a political party does not make them immune from considerations of possible improper interference.
These are areas in which the House does not have precedents of its own to guide it. This matter is distinguished from earlier cases in the House because the member concerned has spoken in support of the complaint and has provided details of his concerns that he has been subjected to intimidation.
Whilst I note that the matter has been referred to the police, my role is to consider the matter in terms of parliamentary law and practice. Having regard to the material before me, I am willing to allow precedence to a motion. This complaint may allow the House to receive advice in an area in which it has not had the benefit of informed consideration.
5146
09:07:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests: having regard to the matters raised in the House on 31 May by the Leader of the House and referred to in the House on 2 June by the Member for Ryan, whether the Member for Ryan has been subject to improper interference, or attempted improper interference, with the free performance of his duties as a Member, and, if so, whether a contempt has been committed.
Mr Speaker, I move this motion in accordance with your granting of precedence for it. It would not be appropriate for me to comment in great detail except to refer to the member for Ryan’s statement to the parliament yesterday, which I think raised some grave matters—some matters are the business of this House; clearly other matters are the appropriate business of the Australian Federal Police. The fact that this is alleged to go to such senior levels, including the allegations about the President of the Liberal National Party in Queensland but also the Federal Director of the Liberal Party, I think should be of real concern to all members of the House. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT (AVIATION FUEL) BILL 2010
5146
Bills
R4382
First Reading
5146
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
5146
5146
09:09:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill seeks to establish in legislation an increase in the excise applying to aviation fuel.
On 11 May 2010, the Treasurer, the Hon. Wayne Swan, announced as part of the federal budget that the excise on aviation fuel would increase by 0.702c per litre on and from 1 July 2010. This will see the excise on aviation gasoline and aviation kerosene rise from 2.854c per litre to 3.556c per litre. The excise equivalent customs duty on comparable imported aviation fuel will be increased by the same amount.
All the funds raised through this levy will go directly to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Australia’s aviation safety regulator.
The legislation that I introduce today will bring the increase in excise into effect and, together with the Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010, will provide an extra $89.9 million over four years to fund critically important safety activities.
The funds will be used to recruit almost 100 additional front-line safety staff including safety specialists, safety analysts and airworthiness inspectors. This will allow CASA to expand its surveillance activities and fulfil its increasingly complex regulatory responsibilities.
This long-term funding will also ensure that CASA can continue random testing for alcohol and other drugs within the aviation industry; invest in the development and maintenance of safety standards; and provide expanded and ongoing training for its staff.
Full details of the Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Wood) adjourned.
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (AVIATION FUEL) BILL 2010
5147
Bills
R4383
First Reading
5147
Bill presented by Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
5147
5147
09:12:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 is the second of the related bills, which gives effect to increased rates of duty for aviation fuel.
This bill will increase the rates of excise equivalent customs duty for imported aviation gasoline and aviation kerosene, by 0.702c per litre, to 3.556c per litre. The increased rates of customs duty will apply to aviation fuel imported from all countries, including aviation fuel imported under any of Australia’s free trade agreements.
These increases are complementary to the amendments contained in the Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel) Bill 2010 and will ensure that the rates of customs duty on imported aviation fuel are the same as the rates of excise duty on aviation fuel, when produced in Australia.
The increased revenue from imported aviation fuel will contribute to an increase in funding for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority that will enable the authority to meet its core safety responsibilities.
As with the amendments to the excise applying to aviation fuel, the amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 will take effect from 1 July 2010. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Wood) adjourned.
COMMITTEES
5148
Committees
Public Works Committee
5148
Reference
5148
5148
09:14:00
Kelly, Mike, MP
HRI
Eden-Monaro
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support and Parliamentary Secretary for Water
1
0
Dr KELLY
—I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: HMAS Penguin and Pittwater Annex Redevelopment, Mosman and Clareville, New South Wales.
HMAS Penguin is the home of the Royal Australian Navy diving school, the Army dive wing, the recompression chamber facility and the Submarine and Underwater Medicine Unit. The proposed works will provide to the Navy upgraded operational and training facilities at HMAS Penguin and the Pittwater Annex to enable the Navy to meet its training commitments. The proposed works, estimated to cost $63.34 million plus GST, will include redevelopment of the waterfront site, civil works and the upgrade of base services infrastructure at HMAS Penguin, along with an internal refurbishment of the Pittwater Annex. Refurbishment of two historic waterfront buildings at HMAS Penguin will preserve them for future generations. Traffic management will be improved on Middle Head Road with proposed changes to the base entry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to commence in early 2011 and is expected to be completed in 2013. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
TERRITORIES LAW REFORM BILL 2010
5148
Bills
R4332
Correction to the Explanatory Memorandum
5148
5148
09:16:00
Kelly, Mike, MP
HRI
Eden-Monaro
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support and Parliamentary Secretary for Water
1
0
Dr KELLY
—Mr Speaker, for the information of honourable members, I present a correction to the explanatory memorandum for the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010.
COMMITTEES
5148
Committees
Publications Committee
5148
Report
5148
5148
09:16:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—I present the report from the Publications Committee. Copies of the report are being placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
FAMILY ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CHILD CARE BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2010
5148
Bills
R4370
Second Reading
5148
Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Ms Kate Ellis:
That this bill be now read a second time.
5148
09:17:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
1
0
Ms LIVERMORE
—I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010 and to talk about the achievements of this Labor government in the area of child care, and early childhood development and education more broadly. They are achievements that we are very proud of, and they are built on an unprecedented level of investment by any federal government in child care and early childhood education. Overall, the Rudd government is providing more than $17.1 billion over the next four years for early childhood development and support for child care.
Ensuring that children and their families have access to high-quality, affordable child care is a key part of the government’s objective of building a stronger, fairer and more productive Australia. Access to affordable child care is important so that families can maximise their employment and training opportunities. And the national focus on early child development and education in all settings, including childcare centres, family day care, kindergartens and schools, is vital if our children are to get the start in life they deserve and a chance to participate fully in the future success of Australia.
So first to the bill, which makes some changes to the childcare rebate. The first thing to remember is the change, the great improvement that this government made to the affordability of child care for working families across Australia. The previous government gave families a childcare rebate equal to 30 per cent of their out-of-pocket childcare expenses. Families could claim that rebate up to an amount of $4,354 per year. In 2007 we promised, and introduced on coming to government, a substantial increase in the childcare rebate. Families using child care are now able to claim a childcare rebate of 50 per cent of their out-of-pocket childcare expenses and, consequently, we increased the maximum amount of rebate claimable for each child in care to $7,500 a year. That is a big jump in assistance to families for a vital service that can really put pressure on their budget. In fact the maximum limit is 72 per cent higher than it was under the Howard government.
The Labor government also took steps early in its term to make the payment of the childcare rebate back to families more frequently than had been the case under the Howard government. In our first budget in 2008 we honoured our election commitment to increase the childcare rebate and also made it possible for families to receive the rebate payment quarterly rather than annually as it had been under the previous government.
Of course we all remember the situation under Peter Costello when the rebate was first introduced by the Howard government and families were told that they would be waiting 18 months to receive their first payment back from the government. We acted quickly in government to address that and the rebate is now more generous and paid to families when they need it every quarter. That is a big jump in the assistance the government gives to families to help them meet the costs of the child care that they rely on so much to make their family life and their family finances work. We understand the pressures that families are under and have acted to make child care more affordable for them through these measures: the increase in the childcare rebate and the move to pay the rebate quarterly.
It was good to see those changes reflected in the most recent data on childcare availability and affordability. The report released on 22 April this year—the State of child care in Australia—showed that out-of-pocket costs to families have fallen across all income levels. For example, in 2004 families earning $55,000 spent 13 per cent of their disposable income on child care. This has fallen to seven per cent in 2009.
This bill before the House implements a budget measure that will make a change to the childcare rebate affecting a small number of families. From 1 July 2010 the childcare rebate annual cap will be set at $7,500 per child per year. There is no change to that cap, but there is a change to the indexation arrangements. Indexation of the maximum rate of childcare rebate will not occur for four years and therefore the annual cap of $7,500 will continue unchanged until 30 June 2014.
The change in this bill needs to be understood in the context of our overall approach to the budget this year. This measure to keep the childcare rebate annual cap at $7,500 for the next four years delivers $86.3 million in savings. At the time the government put in place the package of stimulus spending and projects to protect our economy from recession in 2009, we made a commitment to fiscal discipline and a budget framework to ensure a return to surplus when normal growth recovered. This budget required the government to stick to those rules we set for ourselves, and that meant finding savings to offset new spending measures. In this instance, the projected savings of $86 million from this measure will go towards some important new initiatives also announced in the budget. First of all, there is $59.4 million to improve the quality of 142 budget-based funded early childhood services in rural and remote Australia. This funding will help those centres to improve infrastructure and staff qualifications and will benefit some of our most isolated and disadvantaged children.
In addition we have announced $81.9 million to implement the new national quality standards. This includes the first national ratings system for child care and early education services so parents have the information they need to make those important decisions about the best care for their child. There is also $1.9 million to support new regulatory measures to help achieve ongoing stability in the childcare sector in the wake of the ABC Learning crisis. This includes developing measures that require large childcare providers in the market to prove their financial viability—something that no-one would argue against after we saw what happened with ABC Learning not so long ago. Since taking government we have taken steps to improve the affordability of child care through assistance to families. Now we also need to continue our work with the sector on standards and quality. These three budget initiatives progress that quality agenda.
It is fair to ask what effect the change in this bill to hold the annual cap to $7,500 until 2014 will have on the affordability of child care. The vast majority of families receiving childcare rebate—an estimated 760,000 or around 97 per cent of families—will not be impacted by this change in the year following its introduction. On average, families use only 26 hours of care per child per week. This measure will mostly impact on the small number of families who use care for much longer periods, such as 50 hours per week, or those who use more expensive child care. Those families who are affected by this change will on average have a reduction in childcare benefit of an estimated $5 per week, or $266 per year. Compared to that very small proportion of families who will be minimally affected by this change all families are benefiting, and will continue to benefit, from the significant lift in the childcare rebate cap introduced by the government. As an example, a family earning $80,000 with one child in full-time care would have received a childcare rebate of $3,359 under the Howard government. Under this government that same family receives $5,598 in childcare rebate. They are better off by $2,239 under our more generous system.
We came to government with substantial commitments to improve the affordability of child care and we have delivered on that commitment. Not long after coming into office we were also faced with a crisis of viability in the sector. The collapse of ABC Learning at the end of 2008 threatened the closure of hundreds of centres across Australia. There was a very real prospect of families losing access to care for their children and thousands of childcare workers losing their jobs and entitlements. The collapse of ABC Learning was very much the product of the company’s unsustainable business model but it can also be attributed to the Howard government’s hands-off, let the market rip approach to the childcare sector.
The Howard government did not care that child care was effectively an essential service for the families that relied on their childcare centre. It did nothing to ensure the ongoing viability of the whole sector, preferring to leave it to the market and those who sought to exploit opportunities while the going was good. It was left to the Rudd government to clean up the mess when ABC Learning fell over. We worked with the receivers and provided funding to ensure that the doors of ABC Learning centres stayed open, giving families assurance that their children could continue to receive care. Had we not acted quickly, over 62,000 families would have had to find alternative care or potentially give up work.
There was good news for many of those ABC Learning families and childcare workers this week with the formal transfer of 570 childcare centres from ABC Learning to GoodStart, the not-for-profit company set up by Mission Australia, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Benevolent Society and Social Ventures Australia. Three of the GoodStart centres are in my electorate, at Rockhampton, Walkerston and Gracemere. Parents and staff can now be confident that these centres are in safe hands and their future is assured with their new owners. I am particularly happy to know that Mary and her team at the Campbell Street centre in Rockhampton can rest easy and get on with the great job they do for the kids in their care. They look after my daughter one day each week and I know she loves the time she spends with them. I am sure that is the case for the children at all three of these centres. I am pleased that the government has been able to play such a positive role in steering this potentially disastrous collapse of ABC Learning to a conclusion that gives assurance to parents and strengthens the sector by creating a better balance between private and not-for-profit providers.
The recent report about the state of child care in Australia shows that, two years into office, child care is more accessible and affordable under this government. The other aspect of child care that is just as important, and which this Labor government has really put on the agenda, is quality. Quality in child care—whether that is achieved through better staff to child ratios, improved staff qualifications or the early years learning framework—is part of our drive for improved developmental and educational outcomes for children.
Despite all the evidence that tells us how important the first five years of a child’s life are in their overall development, for many years the federal government has not been seriously involved in policy or funding in this crucial area. This neglect was showing up in all kinds of indicators telling us that young children in Australia were being short-changed—that not enough attention was being given to their needs and there was not enough investment in quality child care and educational opportunities for children under five. Too many children were starting school, and are still starting school, without having a chance to participate in activities that promote their development and get them ready to learn. We want to turn that around and the government has put massive funding towards improving the opportunities for children and in turn their educational and developmental outcomes. Our total investment in early childhood education and child care will be $17 billion over the next four years.
One of our priorities has been to work with the states and territories to achieve universal access to early childhood education. Our commitment is that by 2013 every child will be able to access a quality early childhood education program in the year before they begin formal schooling. This will be a play based learning and development program for 15 hours a week, taught by four-year university qualified early childhood teachers. It will be available across a range of settings, including childcare centres and family day care so that it fits in with parents’ arrangements. I am pleased to say that the Queensland government has already responded by promising to build over 200 new kindergartens across the state because we have a lot of catching up to do in this area of early childhood education.
For too long the federal government has had a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ attitude to early childhood education and development. The previous government did not see it as their responsibility at all. They were content to just take pot shots at the states whenever it suited them to blame the states for any perceived shortcomings. It was never anything to do with the federal government, of course. We have a different approach. We want to know exactly what is going on with our children—the good and the bad—so that we know where extra support and investment is needed. We are doing that through the Australian Early Development Index, which asks teachers to answer a series of questions about the children in their class in their first year of school. The data that is compiled is broken down region by region and will help communities to better understand how their children are doing by the time they start formal schooling. The data shows that there is a lot of work to do in my electorate to bridge the gap that exists in children’s experience of preschool education. While children in Central Queensland scored around the average for things like their wellbeing and readiness to be at school, the measures that rely on some formal educational experience showed the lack of access to preschool education for many children in the area.
I welcomed the announcement by the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth a few weeks ago that the government is going to fund local champions in the places where the Australian Early Development Index data indicated a higher than average number of children were developmentally vulnerable. I believe that there are certainly places in my electorate where that is the case and I will be urging the minister to allocate a number of those local champions to communities in Central Queensland. The local champions program will support nominated people or organisations with local experience and expertise to work with communities to make the best use of their AEDI results and ensure that children in those places can start school as happy and confident learners.
The need is certainly there in Central Queensland for this extra assistance. That has already been identified by the federal government through its investment in the HIPPY program in Mount Morgan. HIPPY stands for Home Interaction Program for Parents and Youngsters. It is a home based program that provides home tutors, books and other educational resources to help parents prepare their child for school. By helping parents to improve their child’s readiness for school, the program offers preschool students a better start in life. The program only started in Mount Morgan this year. It is great to know that parents are being given this support to get actively involved in their child’s education. The town of Mount Morgan has had many setbacks over the years and that can lead to a sense of disadvantage and loss of motivation, but these kids should not have to carry that burden. Instead, this kind of program, with the right support from parents, can have kids starting school and being ready to make the most of their educational opportunities.
These investments in child care and early childhood education and development are necessary and urgent if we are to achieve our goals of a fair and prosperous country. They increase the value of investments in other parts of our education and training system, because we know that every dollar spent on a child before the age of five has a cascading effect throughout the rest of their education and beyond. I am proud to be part of a government that places such value on children through these measures. We also realise that valuing children means supporting their parents. Our time in government has seen child care become more affordable and accessible and we will continue to support families by giving them the assurances they need about quality and the means to make reliable decisions about the best child care for their children. The changes proposed in this bill will create funding to go towards those measures and it has my support.
5153
09:35:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010 is extremely important legislation. It is a timely reminder of the Rudd government’s commitment to child care and to working families across Australia, particularly in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland. We have many fine childcare centres in my electorate—wonderful community centres such as Cribb Street Child Care Centre at Sadliers Crossing, which has been there for a long time; the childcare centre in inner-city Ipswich, which I know is struggling for numbers because of the demographic changes in the area; and the One Mile Community Child Care Centre in Leichhardt, which is staffed by very strong communitarian people and is devoted to the children in that community.
There are for-profit childcare centres such as Bush Kidz. Why do I mention Bush Kidz, which runs the childcare centre at Brassall? Because Bush Kidz took over the ABC Learning centre at Brassall in the electorate of Blair. Brassall is the largest suburb in Ipswich in the electorate of Blair and, as a result of the debacle of the ABC Learning collapse under the watch of the previous government and the let-the-market-rip attitude that was permitted, ABC Learning centres across Ipswich were in dire need of support and assistance. Hundreds of young people were in a position where child care was at risk, which meant pressure on families across Ipswich. The reality is that the coalition government took little opportunity to provide for child care for working families. The truth is that, when it comes to child care, they saw no responsibility on the part of the federal government. Their attitude was: ‘It’s not our responsibility. We should take no action. We should let the market operate.’ That allowed one particular company to develop into an oligopolistic position in the market. When that company fell into receivership and liquidation then the consequences to about 62,000 families across the country was dire, including in the electorate of Blair—in Ipswich and the rural areas outside.
The truth is that the coalition has never been a friend of the childcare sector. The truth is that the coalition harks back to some sort of 1950s mythical, nostalgic moment when women had no choice—or by economic necessity did not have to work. It was a sort of ‘leave it to Beaver’ attitude that infests and operates on those opposite. The truth is that, because of the economic circumstances of families across my electorate and across the country and by reason of women wanting to fulfil their potential in life, women actually engage in the workforce. Those opposite, for nearly 12 years, let this sector down. That is the truth. In 2006 Australia was one of the worst ranking countries in terms of public expenditure on early childhood education—13th out of 14 in the OECD.
The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Curtin, the then education minister, had this to say. She admitted it was:
… unacceptable in a country with Australia’s relatively small population to have a fractured and inconsistent system that can change dramatically between States.
What a disgrace, what a failure, what a fiasco. The attitude of the coalition when it came to child care was: do nothing, say nothing, let it go, and blame others—claim child care was the responsibility of the states and territories and claim there was no national responsibility. We know adequate, accessible, affordable child care does not just benefit families, particularly those with young children, but it helps business. It is good for business. It is particularly good for small business and the nearly four million people who work in 2.4 million small businesses across the country. The coalition do not get it when it comes to child care. They claim they support small business, but if they did they would support child care and would have done so for nearly 12 years. Instead, they did very little indeed.
I heard the member for Murray talking about this matter yesterday. It was 30 minutes of hyperbole, hysteria and hypocrisy on this topic. This is the mob that refused to bring in paid parental leave. Their current leader said in 2002 it would be brought in over his dead body. They have this mythical, fictional policy at the moment that they are never sure when they can do it. At some stage in the dim, distant future they might do it. That is their policy. I have read it. I have read the transcripts of what their leader has said and their spokesperson, the member for Murray, has said. It is esoteric, it is obtuse, and it is vague—it is just nonsense. No-one could possibly believe they would ever be committed to this stuff. They certainly never in 12 years brought in paid parental leave in this country—not understanding how important the link was with child care; not understanding at all.
That is the legacy of the coalition government. They thought perhaps when it comes to child care a nanny might do, a babysitter might do. That is their attitude—without realising how important education is to the development of a child. We were spending one-fifth of what our OECD partners were on early childhood education. That is the legacy of the coalition government. That is why we have invested massively when it comes to early childhood education. Giving a young person a chance in life in those very young developmental years is so crucial to educational attainment in primary school, high school and tertiary education. They did not understand that. It is not just about equality of opportunity; they also did not get the link with business, and they claim they are the party that supports business. They did not understand that as well. That is the legacy of those opposite.
The new reports which the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth, who I see is at the table, welcomed on 22 April this year, the Child care vacancies quarterly snapshot and the State of child care in Australia, demonstrate that we are making progress. We are catching up after the failures of the coalition government. We are dealing with the apathy and the inaction of those opposite. We are seeing more affordable, accessible, stable and high-quality child care in the Australian community. It is good for business and good for families.
The State of child care in Australia report makes it very clear. It undertook a statistical analysis of the Australian childcare market over the past five years. We have been in power for 2½ of those years, so it is a snapshot of us and them. What did it find? Amongst other things, out-of-pocket costs for families have fallen across all income levels. In 2004, families earning $55,000 a year—the average Australian would probably think that is a middle-class family—spent 13 per cent of its disposable income on child care. That had fallen to seven per cent by 2009. That is pretty clear: it fell by nearly half. So we are making progress. It is painstaking, but we are making progress. The report found that the Australian government’s funding for child care more than doubled in the past four years, up from $1.7 billion in 2004-05 to $3.7 billion in 2008-09.
That is clear, independent analysis of the achievements of the Rudd Labor government. It is not from a body or report of an internal Labor Party mechanism or organisation; it is independent analysis of the childcare sector and of the government’s commitment and the previous government’s lack of commitment when it comes to child care. We committed $114.5 million to deliver 38 early learning centres and care centres in the 2008-09 year, and we have provided that in my electorate. We have fulfilled our commitment. Recently the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth was in my electorate and we opened the Early Learning and Care Centre at Yamanto. I am pleased to say that that is the fulfilment of a commitment that we made at the last election. We invested $1.6 million in this new facility. It is a great facility. The minister and I were there, reading about the Billy Goats Gruff and all kinds of things and entertaining the children. I am not sure whether they were entertained more by me than by the stories. One little boy, Sam, had the good sense to be a Broncos supporter and was wearing a Broncos outfit. The Brisbane Broncos are a great team. Sam was there and said hello to us as we both walked in. It was great to see the delight on the children’s faces.
That is part of a new education precinct at Yamanto. We fulfilled our election commitments to the people on the south side of Ipswich—around Yamanto, Amberley, Walloon and Flinders View—when we said we would transfer Amberley District State School over to the Yamanto and Amberley District site. We said that it was up to the state government to determine the actual location. We paid nearly $28 million to the Queensland government while undertaking the expansion of the RAAF base at Amberley and for the relocation of Amberley State School to that site. We also said that we would provide sufficient money to relocate the C&K located at Amberley, and we have done that. In addition to that, Amberley District State School got BER funding. We are talking about an education precinct there at Yamanto—Amberley District State School—which received well above $30 million of federal government money to be built, and it is a wonderful facility. Numbers in the school have gone up from the low-300s to nearly 500. That is an indication that people are prepared to support the new school. There has been a very small reduction in the number of students just up the road at Churchill State School—only 12. There has been no loss of teachers there. So the alarmism and the criticism of my predecessor and some in the LNP in Queensland have not proved to be accurate.
The Early Learning and Care Centre at Yamanto is simply a fantastic facility. It cares well for babies and toddlers and will help them progress all the way to primary school by just going next door in the same precinct. I congratulate the C&K Amberley family. They have been passionate about their support of child care in their area. With their advocacy and the listening ear of the Rudd Labor government, they have facilitated a wonderful community resource which has been highly prized and valued by local families and, of course, their children. I am very confident that that facility at Amberley District State School will continue to educate our young people very well in the Ipswich community.
Government is about making some hard decisions. I know that this legislation before the House sets a cap on the amount of the childcare rebate—an annual maximum cap of $7,000 to $7,500 per child per year. But this government fulfilled its commitment by increasing the CCR from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. The member for Capricornia accurately stated what that increase means to families across the country—thousands of dollars per year on average. This budgetary measure saves $86.3 million across the forward estimates. This government is committed to economic discipline and responsibility. Those opposite talk about that stuff, but we have seen nothing except gutting Roads to Recovery Program funding, gutting computers in schools, getting rid of trade training centres and getting rid of the National Broadband Network, and there are so many more things that they would do if they sat opposite. We are about making sure that we bring the budget back into surplus. We have a good and steady record with respect to child care. It stands in direct contrast to that of those opposite, who should hang their heads in shame for their apathy, inaction and procrastination in this area for so many years.
5156
09:51:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport
1
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—in reply—I would like to take the opportunity to thank all the speakers who have contributed to this debate. I particularly acknowledge the previous speaker, the member for Blair, who I did have the good fortune to visit and to open the new childcare centre at Yamanto which was the honouring of an election commitment and see firsthand that the member for Blair does the finest ‘troll under the bridge’ voice of the Billy Goats Gruff. He amused the children out there whilst also delivering on a very important election commitment. I would like to thank all of the previous speakers.
We know that the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget Measures) Bill 2010
In relation to affordability, we have also delivered on our election commitment to increase the childcare rebate from 30 to 50 per cent of parents’ out-of-pocket expenses. We know that last some 670,00 Australian families benefited from our significant reforms, which enabled them to claim back half of their out-of-pocket childcare costs where they spent up to $15,000 a year for each child in care. We have also delivered upon our commitment to change the payment of the childcare rebate from an annual payment under the previous government to quarterly payments under our government, giving parents assistance closer to the time when they incur their childcare costs.
In total, we are proud that our government will provide $14.4 billion over four years in financial support to parents with the cost of their child care and to help them manage the family budget. This is some $8 billion more than the Howard government provided in childcare fee assistance in their last years, which you may not have picked up on from the shadow minister’s contribution to this debate. Understandably, they are not trying to highlight the fact that we have more than doubled our commitment to helping parents with the affordability of their child care. We on this side have shown time and time again that we are committed to affordable and high-quality child care and that we are putting our money where our mouth is when it comes to delivering this. It is also really important to note that the majority of Australian families using child care—some 760,000 families—will not be impacted by this change. This is because the average claim for the childcare rebate is less than $2,000 per year per child which is obviously a long way off the $7,500 cap.
Our government has a strong commitment to early childhood education and child care with a record investment of $17.1 billion over the next four years, some $10 billion more than that provided in the last four years of the Howard government. We are proud of this record; we will continue to get on with the job of working to deliver affordable, quality and stable child care. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
5157
Ms KATE ELLIS
(Adelaide
—Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport)
09:56:00
—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2010 BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2010
5157
Bills
R4375
Second Reading
5157
Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Griffin:
That this bill be now read a second time.
5157
09:57:00
Markus, Louise, MP
E07
Greenway
LP
0
0
Mrs MARKUS
—I rise to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010. I am particularly pleased to have this opportunity to place on the record the coalition’s views about the measures announced by the Rudd Labor government in this year’s federal budget. Beyond being a budget built on a house of cards, this budget has not met tests for all of Labor’s pre-election promises. Before addressing the key provisions of this bill, which the coalition will not oppose, I would like to talk about some of the areas where the veteran community is still waiting for answers and action.
Labor’s budget does not deliver on commitments made to deal with the cost of pharmaceuticals for war caused disabilities. Page 12 of Labor’s plan for Veterans’ Affairs from the last election reads:
Labor commits to reviewing this matter in the first term of Government and to establishing, in consultation with the ex-service community, a fair solution that relieves the burden on veterans of the cost of medications to treat their war caused disabilities.
So far Labor has released a discussion paper following a $500,000 in-house review, a review which took 30 months to materialise, but there is no detail to the two options in the paper. Both options potentially exclude some ex-service personnel who are severely injured but who do not have qualifying service. More will be said between now and the election on this issue.
I will continue to consult with the ex-service community on this important issue, an area where Labor has dropped the ball and will not meet its full commitment ahead of the election. Also outstanding is Labor’s delayed review of advocacy funding for ex-service organisations due for release in the first quarter of this year. The largely volunteer ex-service community does not know the fate of the key review into funding for their organisations. Many ESOs have been anxious about the findings. This year’s funding round, including a delayed application date, has created considerable angst among the veteran community.
Early analysis shows that Victoria’s veteran and ex-service community value-adds almost $23 million in volunteer hours to the repatriation system throughout the network of veterans’ advocates and welfare and pensions officers. This cannot be overlooked. I call on the minister to immediately release the findings of the ESO funding review to enable the ex-service community and the coalition an opportunity to chart the best course forward in the area of advocacy funding.
The minister cannot criticise the former government for keeping reports hidden when he does the same thing. Yesterday in another debate the minister criticised the former coalition government for not releasing a report into military superannuation when it was received by the then minister. The Podger review arrived on the former minister’s desk in July 2007. The election was held in November of that same year and the government changed. The new government released the Podger review on Christmas Eve, 24 December 2007. For no more than six months was the report held from public view. Yet this minister forgets that until only recently he sat on the re-review of the Clarke review for 15 months and continues to sit on the findings of the review of advocacy funding.
There is a re-review of the re-review of the Clarke review into the BCOF veterans’ service, with no timetable for delivery. The Rudd Labor government took some 11 months to respond to the parliamentary inquiry into the F111 reseal-deseal issue. It is indeed odd that the minister criticises actions that he condones through his own behaviour.
Also ongoing is the review of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. A couple of weeks ago at the RSL state congress the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel, in a particularly partisan attack, criticised the coalition for not supporting this review. This is not correct. Since becoming shadow minister in September 2008, I have supported this review. It is an important review into a key piece of legislation introduced by the previous coalition government. This review is critical to ensuring the act continues to meet the needs of the people it is designed to assist, veterans and their families. However, our support for the review is reliant on the minister being upfront about the timeline for the review. I was happy to support the review carrying on beyond the 31 March 2010 deadline. Nevertheless, the ex-service community and the coalition hope to have some indication from the minister or the government that this review will be concluded either before or after the election.
Veterans’ affairs legislation has been a largely bipartisan area of policy in this country for nearly 100 years. I hope that the minister and the government will not use this review to partisan politics in the lead-up to the election. The review needs to be on the table for both sides of politics and indeed the ex-service community to scrutinise ahead of an election.
This legislation enacts five measures by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Minister for Defence Personnel in the budget. The measures relate to the government’s long-awaited re-review of the Clarke review of veterans’ entitlements commissioned by the previous coalition government. The re-review, focusing on 45 unimplemented recommendations of the report, will accept only an additional four recommendations, with three being re-reviewed for a second time.
Schedule 1 of this bill creates a new classification of service in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The new classification, to be known as British nuclear test defence service, will provide additional benefits to former Defence personnel associated with the British nuclear testing in Western Australia and South Australia during the 1950s and 1960s. The new classification will provide eligible ex-service personnel with access to disability pensions and their spouse access to a war widow or widowers pension and, in some cases, access to the repatriation health card for all conditions—the gold card. Approximately 2,300 ex-service personnel will benefit from this new classification, at a cost of $24 million over the forward estimates.
Earlier this year, I met with some individuals who were involved in the nuclear testing here in Australia. Their stories were truly shocking. Moreover, the impact of this testing on their lives and that of their families is something that many would find hard to believe. I heard stories of personnel entering the fallout zone within hours of the detonation taking place. I heard of Navy divers scouring the floor of the ocean off Western Australia in similar circumstances. Quite often, personnel working in the dry and dusty Outback had little protective equipment or clothing to protect them from the effects of the radiation on their bodies.
The previous coalition government undertook in the wake of the recommendations of the Clarke review to conduct a cancer and mortality study. In spite of the recommendations of this study, which continue to be disputed by veterans, their families and some experts in this area, the previous government introduced the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Testing Treatment Bill 2006. The bill provided a repatriation health card for specific conditions and the white card for all cancer treatments for all former military personnel and civilians involved in the testing. The card was provided without the need for a person involved in the testing to prove that their cancer was caused by their service. More than 9,000 people benefited from this scheme.
This new schedule extends further entitlements to former Defence personnel in line with a recommendation of the Clarke review. Although I am disappointed that it has taken until the 11th hour of the life of this parliament for the government to deliver on its commitment, I know that it will be welcome by the ex-service personnel involved in nuclear testing and their families. Importantly, the legislation enacted by the previous coalition government will still enable civilians involved in the testing to access cancer treatment at no cost to them.
Schedule 2 of the bill will alter the classification of submarine special operations at operational and qualifying service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. Between 1978 and 1992, Australian submariners participated in special operations. Little is known of the specifics of these missions. Their covert nature means that the specifics cannot be discussed. Nevertheless, these submariners were potentially placed in dangerous conditions. As a result, the government has decided to reclassify their service and provide additional entitlements to the veterans involved and their families.
Under the change, up to 890 personnel will benefit from access to the service pension, disability pensions, war widower pensions and the gold card once they reach 70 years of age. With ‘qualifying’ and ‘operational’ service, these individuals will be entitled to veteran status under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. I recently spoke to the President of the Naval Association of Australia, Les Dwyer. Les, I may say, is a great bloke. He warmly welcomes the extension of entitlements to the men who served in these missions. Les has written a very detailed article for the next issue of the White Ensign magazine in which he welcomes the government’s announcement.
At this point I would like to remind the House of a motion moved by my colleague, the honourable member for Fairfax and the Chief Opposition Whip, in February last year, which called on the reclassification of this service. Alex Somlyay’s commitment to the reclassification of special operations service was widely welcomed in the veteran community. Together with a former minister for defence, Dr Brendan Nelson, a former minister for veterans’ affairs, the member for Maranoa, Bruce Scott MP, and a former parliamentary secretary for defence, the member for Herbert, Peter Lindsay MP, the coalition moved and supported the call to reclassify this service. I am pleased with this amendment, and I pay tribute to my colleagues who pursued this issue in the parliament.
The third schedule in this bill deals with service at Ubon in north-east Thailand between 31 May 1962 and 27 July 1962 inclusive. This change is brought about by a ‘nature of service’ review by the Department of Defence, which considers that there is sufficient new evidence to upgrade the status of service at Ubon at the beginning of the RAAF deployment there in 1962.
The history of Australia’s involvement in the stability of South-East Asia during the 1950s and 1960s is perhaps not well understood by many Australians. Following the involvement of Australian defence personnel in the Malayan Emergency, and the Indonesian Confrontation, RAAF personnel were deployed to the Ubon region of north-east Thailand to protect the territorial integrity of Thailand.
Ubon, located close to the Thai-Laotian border, was seen as a strategically important location in the protection of Thailand and other South-East Asian nations from the threat of communism. At the time, the domino theory—of communism sweeping southwards through Asia, one country at a time—prompted the Australian government to be involved in the protection of stable democracies and governments throughout the region. This deployment was sanctioned by the South East Asian Treaty Organisation, SEATO.
In May 1962, the Australian government authorised the deployment of 79 Squadron to the Ubon region. According to a recollection by retired Air Vic Marshall Ray Trebilco, at Ubon:
There was a 5,000 foot strip, a small American radar unit called Lion which was training the Royal Thai Air Force personnel, a non-directional beacon, jet fuel facilities and a control tower of sorts, but that was all.
He goes on:
We understood that the governor of the province and some of the local dignitaries would be flying in from Korat together with the Australian Ambassador and the press to meet our Sabres on arrival. We were also told there would be little crowd control at the air field and that … interested locals and even cattle could all present problems in having a clear runway to land on.
The modest nature of the facilities during the early deployment could have put personnel deployed there at risk. The explanatory memorandum states:
Service in Ubon … is to be re-classified as ‘qualifying service’ due to the potential risk from the activities of hostile forces and dissident elements.
Activities at Ubon continued until 1970. From 1965, personnel at Ubon had their service classified as ‘warlike’ given the increased activity in the area due to the Vietnam War. However, service between 28 July 1962 and 1965 will continue to be considered ‘operational service’ under the VE Act. Principally, personnel who worked at Ubon during the period specified by this amendment will have access to a service pension and, when they turn 70 years of age, the gold card, over and above what they can already access by way of disability pensions and the war widow/widower pension for their spouse upon death resulting from their war-caused disability.
Schedule 4 of the bill corrects an anomaly in the VE Act regarding domiciled status for 18- to 21-year-old Commonwealth or allied veterans with eligible service under the VE Act. Under the VE Act, British Commonwealth and allied veterans may be eligible for pensions and other benefits if they have eligible service with a Commonwealth or allied defence force and if they had Australian domicile immediately prior to their enlistment in that defence force. This policy was intended to cover those Australians who were travelling or studying overseas at the time World War II broke out and who could not return to Australia to enlist in the Australian Defence Force.
In the absence of the legal concept of Australian citizenship until 1949, the domicile concept was adopted as a means of determining whether a British, Commonwealth or allied veteran could be regarded as an Australian at the time of enlistment. However, persons under 21 at the time of their enlistment in a Commonwealth or allied defence force could not establish a domicile of choice, as the common law rules that applied at that time meant that a person could not assume a domicile of choice before the age of 21.
The Domicile Act 1982 has since lowered the age at which a person can claim independent domicile from 21 to 18 years of age. However this act does not apply to circumstances that occurred before the commencement of the act, and thus the common-law rules continue to apply in those circumstances. This amendment, a recommendation of the Clarke review, which was not implemented in 2004, will enable those veterans who were between 18 and 20 and unable to nominate Australia as their domicile of choice to gain eligibility under the VE Act for their service as Australian veterans providing they meet the other domicile and service eligibility requirements.
The final schedule of the act relates to a loophole affecting war widows and widowers. This provision will close a loophole in the act which enables a war widower or widow living in a de facto relationship to claim a war widows or widowers pension after they enter the relationship. This is not consistent with the law relating to married or re-married war widow or widowers, who cannot claim the pension after marrying or re-marrying.
I have a particular interest in this measure. As the daughter and grand-daughter of war widows, I am determined to ensure future war widows and widowers do not come up against the same challenges that my mother, in particular, did. It took my mother more than 30 years to access a war widows pension, because her first application was refused and it took an advocate, 30 years later, to convince my mother that she was indeed eligible for a war widows pension and to re-apply.
People do not live neat, tidy lives. This measure, which is prospective and will not affect, we are told, any war widow or widowers living in a marriage-like relationship who claim their pension before 30 September 2010, risks disenfranchising future war widows or widowers. At a time of grief and bereavement, the last thing anyone wants to be doing is filling in a form. Some widows may not be aware that they are indeed entitled to such a pension. Equally, people’s circumstances change; they may enter more difficult times or unwittingly enter a relationship, denying themselves access to a pension in future years. I am concerned about this measure. Whilst I understand it closes a loophole in the existing legislation, I am concerned about the impact this will have on future war widows and widowers. I again make the point that people’s lives do not necessarily reflect an ideal, or perfect, image. Community standards have changed.
Of course, in 2001, the previous coalition government widened an earlier change to the legislation regarding war widows and widowers. Under the 2001 changes, war widows or widowers who remarried after claiming their war widow or widower pension and who lost their pension upon remarriage had their pension reinstated. However, this only applied to those widows or widowers who lost their pension after remarrying; it did not extend to people who had not claimed their pension before remarriage.
My office has been contacted by one woman from Queensland who is in this situation. This individual remarried after the death of her veteran husband because of an economic need and the cultural and social norms of the time. She was not aware that the war widow pension existed—let alone that she was entitled to access it. When she discovered, after the death of her second husband, that she might be eligible for a pension, she was denied it because she had not applied for the pension before she remarried. What we need to aim for, ideally, is to ensure that war widows and widowers in the generations ahead are not in any way disadvantaged because they did not fill out a form upon the death of their veteran spouse.
In conclusion, the coalition will not oppose the measures in this bill. While I do have concerns about the provisions of schedule 5, the other four measures of this bill are of benefit to the affected individuals and their families.
5162
10:18:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—I rise to lend my support to the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010, which will go some way to improving the wellbeing of Australia’s veterans and the wider ex-services community. It was only last week that I, together with many, rose in this place to speak on another bill that was introduced. This one actually made minor technical amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. Nevertheless, they were amendments that were designed to further align the veterans law with social security law and were another step in making improvements to conditions for our ex-service personnel, our veterans. During my contribution I spoke about what the veterans community can expect under this government and how our efforts will address a range of veterans issues, particularly around entitlements, services, wellbeing and recognition. This bill is another step in building better services for the Australian veterans community.
I have on many occasions had the opportunity to acknowledge the veterans community organisations that operate tirelessly in my area, the south-west of Sydney, such as the Macarthur veterans recreational centre, the Vietnam Veterans Association, the Ingleburn, Campbelltown and Liverpool RSL clubs and the Cabra-Vale Diggers. I should mention Mr Ron Brown of the National Servicemen’s Association. Last time I mentioned him, a number of members of the opposition approached me to tell me how active he was in organisations in their electorates in pursuing the very just causes of national servicemen.
Their hard work and devotion to improving the wellbeing of Australian veterans and the wider ex-services community particularly impresses me. On behalf of a very grateful community, I give thanks for their efforts. I know much of their effort goes unrecognised, but, without that assistance, the veterans community would not have the voice that it has today. Despite all the well-meaning commitment of others to their cause, we need those veterans associations to ensure that veterans have a proper and unfettered voice in determining their needs.
I have also had the opportunity on a couple of occasions to take Minister Alan Griffin out to my electorate. As I said, we have a very active veterans community there. Formerly, the Ingleburn Army Camp was plumb in the middle of my electorate, and a lot of people, after they demobbed from the service, stayed in the area. It is easy to understand why Werriwa is home to a lot of ex-servicemen. The minister has been very good with his time, coming out and addressing those issues with the local veterans community. I think he has a very clear understanding of the issues of the veterans community, certainly as it applies to my region, and I genuinely thank him for spending time with our local veterans.
Veterans can be assured that, under this government, their interests will always be a priority. One of the things the previous speaker, my colleague from Greenway, had to leave out of her contribution to the House, for obvious reasons, was that in their 11 years they were very slow to act on improvements for veterans. I do welcome a degree of bipartisanship when it comes to these bills, however, to improve clearly and decisively the conditions of veterans across the nation. I am confident that working more closely with our ex-services community will allow us to be more responsive to the needs of veterans and be prepared to meet the future challenges of our ex-services personnel and, importantly, their families. The introduction of this bill I think is an example of that.
Only this week I had the opportunity of welcoming to Parliament House Greg Brassil and Ian Fulton from the local army cadets operating in my region. They spent time with the office of the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, Mike Kelly, because of some concerns they had. They also spent some time talking with the Deputy Prime Minister. I should indicate what these people are doing in an area of great need. They have a base operating in Rosemeadow in south-west Sydney. You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that was the location of considerable social upheaval last year with riots in the 3M estate. The area very clearly is social disadvantaged and many of the families within that community do not have positive role models. What these two gentlemen have done is set up an army cadet base where they are actively providing very positive role models for younger people in the community. I know the juvenile justice services are working very closely with them now by referring young people to the army cadets.
On a very positive note, over the last five years this one unit in the south-west of Sydney has been getting between 10 and 12 recruits into the ADF per year. Young people have decided to stay with the army cadets, finish high school and then apply to our military forces as a consequence. So I am certainly unashamed in introducing both these gentlemen to Colonel Mike Kelly’s office and to the Deputy Prime Minister and in telling people what they do. They are without doubt doing a very good job in the community. But what I see them doing through their local cadet unit, in assisting recruitment of personnel into the ADF, I think is extraordinary.
This bill will give effect to a number of veterans’ affairs budget measures that I would like to take just a little time to go through. First, the bill will create a new category of service of eligibility under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, to be known as defence service. It will importantly provide participants of that program in Australia with access to compensation and healthcare benefits for conditions accepted as related to the British nuclear test service. Currently, former personnel who participated in the British nuclear tests program have access to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 for any related period of their service. However, the Clarke review, in 2003, recommended—but it was not acted upon—that these people be considered for acceptance into the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. It was recommended that participation by defence personnel in the British nuclear test program in Australia be deemed non-warlike hazardous service and, therefore, the legislation be amended to ensure that the declaration can have effect in extending Veterans’ Entitlements Act coverage. While the recommendation was not acted upon by the Howard government, I do appreciate that on this occasion it is now being supported by members in opposition. When this comes into law, it will have an effect for 2,700 former defence personnel, which is quite significant.
The second element of the bill is the reclassification of certain submarine operations between 1978 and 1992 as operationally and qualifying service. At present, this service is classified as peacetime service. In the 2003 review of veterans’ entitlements, conducted by Justice John Clarke, it was recommended that service on submarine special operations during this time be classified as non-warlike hazardous under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. As I understand it, over this period our submarines were equipped with special intelligence-gathering equipment and were deployed in covert operations. It was only fitting in that instance to accept the recommendation of Justice John Clarke that this be regarded as non-warlike, but nevertheless hazardous, for persons qualifying under the Veterans’ Entitlements ct. In 2009, Defence recommended that service on these operations and deployment on those submarines did meet the criteria for allotment of duty, the qualifying service requirement that applied at the time of those operations. Consequently, this measure will provide relevant members of the Australian Defence Force with qualifying service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, which will provide a service pension at age 60 and, importantly, an automatic gold card at age 70. I understand that, whilst this is long overdue, it is nevertheless very welcomed by the ADF and will affect 890 members as a consequence.
The third measure in this bill I wish to discuss relates to RAAF service in Ubon, Thailand as qualifying service for the purposes of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. After a review was undertaken by Defence, it was determined that the initial deployment between 31 May 1962 and 27 July 1962 mirrored the readiness of the RAAF presence in Ubon between June 1965 and August 1968. By the way, that later service is already deemed to qualify for the purposes of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.
This bill seeks to recognise that those RAAF air crews and ground crews, from which there were some 60 members on base in Ubon, were exposed to the potential risk of hostile activities and that as a consequence they should be treated as falling within the definitions in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. It is the right thing to do. It recognises that the outbreak of fighting against the Pathet Lao forces along the Thai border with Laos and Cambodia was considered—and is still considered, when the history is looked at—a very real and imminent possibility which would have impacted on our forces. As a consequence, the period between May 1962 and July 1962 will be treated in the same way as the later occasion in 1968 in that the earlier of the two periods of service will qualify and be recognised under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act.
Another measure in the bill will lower the age of domicile of choice from 21 to 18 for the purposes of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. I know a small number of British, Commonwealth and allied forces veterans have not been able to access the compensatory benefits under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act because they were between the ages of 18 and 21 when they enrolled in the forces and, because of their age, were automatically determined to be domiciled in the same country as their father or, if their father was not alive, that of their mother. This was an automatic default position, and men who enlisted between the ages of 18 and 21 are directly impacted by it as a consequence. I doubt whether this affects many, but it is certainly an injustice to many of those who fought alongside Australian servicemen, who were part of the British, Commonwealth and allied forces at that time. It is almost anachronistic to us these days that an 18 year-old person could go to war and vote in this country but not have his place of residence acknowledged as valid when making an application to join the services.
This bill corrects an anomaly that has long been a bugbear for a number of people, though I know that it does not affect many. One person it has affected, albeit in a slightly different way, is my father-in-law. He was 20 when he disembarked from a British Navy ship in Sydney, so he had his discharge papers signed here. He went through his whole working life, and it was not until sometime well into the future that issues were discovered, because his point of engagement on the British ship was in Scotland. We had to work a number of things through for him, but the measures in this bill will help a number of people in the same age group as my father-in-law who joined the services outside Australia.
It should be known that under this bill all other aspects of the domicile rules still need to be met. The condition of residency in Australia—including the intention to reside, the length of the period of residency et cetera—still needs to be met. So it is not just a matter of the point in time that the individual in question made application to join the service.
I turn to the final aspect of this bill that I wish to mention. An amendment in this bill will end the eligibility for the war widows pension and the war widowers pension of war widows and widowers who enter into a de facto relationship prior to claiming the war widows pension or the war widowers pension. This seeks to provide equal treatment for partners who enter into a de facto relationship and those who enter into a marriage or a form of marriage-like arrangement which is registered. The amendment will apply only to claims made from 1 October 2010 or where there is an automatic grant of a widows pension or a widowers pension in relation to a death that occurs on or after 1 October 2010. So importantly, no existing widow’s or widower’s pension will be affected by this measure.
In conclusion, this government will ensure that the ex-servicemen’s community and our veterans get a fair go. I think this bill goes some way to improving the existing arrangements for veterans. Australians are justifiably proud of their veterans and their ex-service community. This government believes that the provision of robust services and support for our ex-service community is a sincere way to show our gratitude in recognition of the bravery and sacrifice of these Australian men and women in a time of need in this country. As the Prime Minister said on 13 August 2007:
There is perhaps no greater duty that we as a nation and as a parliament have than to honour, remember and express our gratitude to those Australians who have served in the defence of our nation in times of war, because our security and liberty have not come without a price.
I commend the bill to the House.
5166
10:37:00
Baldwin, Robert, MP
LL6
Paterson
LP
0
0
Mr BALDWIN
—I rise today to speak on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010. In essence, this bill will address a number of election commitments made by Labor during the 2007 election campaign. It is no surprise that these changes are only now being introduced, three years later, in the run-up to the 2010 election. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs regularly stands up in this House and says, ‘You had 12 years to do something,’ and I accept that, but this government has been in place for nearly three years and only now are we finally seeing action. So let there be no doubt that the only thing that spurs this government into action is bad press or bad polls.
The first measure contained within this bill concerns ex-defence personnel who have service relating to the British nuclear tests and is in line with the recommendation of the Clarke review. This measure seeks to insert a new classification within the Veterans’ Entitlement Act titled ‘British nuclear test defence service’ and will provide ex-defence personnel with additional entitlements. These entitlements will be equivalent to the existing entitlements contained within the Veterans’ Entitlements Act for hazardous or non-warlike service. Those persons who qualify under this definition will be eligible to access disability pensions, war widow/widower pensions and, in some cases, the gold card. Importantly, the reverse criminal standard of proof will be used to asses a person’s eligibility to claim benefits under this measure.
The next measure contained within this bill relates to service undertaken while on submarine special operations. This measure will reclassify service as operational and qualifying under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. This change applies only to service undertaken on submarine special operations between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1992, whereby some Royal Australian Navy submarines were engaged in special operations and intelligence operations to the north and west of Australia. The benefits available to qualifying and eligible persons are the service pension, the disability pension, the war widow/widower pension and a gold card from age 70. Eligibility for this entitlement will again be determined by applying the reverse criminal standard of proof and will be determined on service during the periods I previously specified, as well as on the basis that a member is entitled to be awarded with the Australian Service Medal with a ‘Special Ops’ clasp.
The next measure contained within this bill concerns service rendered by ADF personnel in Thailand—specifically service rendered at Ubon between 21 May 1962 and 27 July 1962. Currently, service at Ubon during this time is classified as operational; however, this amendment seeks to reclassify that service as qualifying service in light of the fact that those deployed at Ubon during the aforementioned period were exposed to potential risks arising from the activities of hostile forces and dissident elements. However, it is important to note that this amendment does not affect the classification of service rendered throughout the rest of the north-east of Thailand during this period and, as such, this service will remain classified as operational service. This amendment will grant eligible persons access to the service pension, the disability pension, the war widow/widower pension and the gold card from age 70.
The fourth amendment put forward under this legislation relates to the legal concept of a domicile of choice. By way of a short historical explanation, in the absence of the legal concept of Australian citizenship until 1949, the domicile of choice concept was used to determine whether a British, Commonwealth or allied veteran could be regarded as an Australian at the time of enlistment. That is, if a person was deemed, under common-law rules that applied at the time, as living in a residence located in Australia, they were regarded as a resident at the time of enlistment. However, a problem arose with this construct as a person aged under 21 years at the time of their enlistment could not establish a domicile of choice due to the common-law rules as they applied at the time. To correct this situation, the Domicile Act 1982 lowered the age at which a person could be legally regarded as establishing a domicile of choice from 21 to 18 years. However, the legislation did not apply to those cases arising before the commencement of that act. This amendment seeks to enable those British, Commonwealth or allied veterans aged between 18 and 21 at the time of enlistment to access Australian pensions and other benefits, provided that other common-law tests used in determining the domicile of choice are met.
The final amendment contained within this bill seeks to remove a so-called loophole which allows a widow/widower to claim a war widow/widower pension even if they enter into a de facto relationship prior to claiming the war widow/widower pension. By way of contrast, a widow/widower who marries or remarries before claiming the war widow/widower pension is not eligible for that pension. This legislation effectively means that the provisions for claiming a war widow/widower pension will now apply equally to those who are married or in a de facto relationship. Importantly, this amendment is prospective and will not affect any claim for a pension made before 30 September 2010.
While the measures contained within this bill meet with the recommendations contained within the Clarke review, and I note they also have the broad support of the veterans community, it is important to note the timing of the introduction of this legislation. It is quite obvious that the Rudd Labor government has chosen to introduce this legislation during the time immediately preceding the election campaign proper. This point has not been lost on the veterans community. While they may be supportive of the changes I have just outlined, I am confident that they will also be cognisant of the fact that the timing of this bill is, to put it nicely, suspect. Take, for instance, the recommendations of the review of the Clarke report. These recommendations were delivered to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Mr Griffin, in February 2009. It has taken Minister Griffin 15 months from the time he received the report for any action—at all—to occur on the recommendations of the review of the Clarke review. Yet only today in this House, Mr Griffin had the audacity to criticise the former coalition government for a three-month turnaround time on the Podger review.
I put it to you, Minister Griffin: what are you going to do with the Podger review? You have had it for 2½ years and you have done nothing with it. Committing to release it says nothing about what you intend to do with its recommendations. It is just more talk, no action. The veterans community simply does not buy the line that because you said you would release it, and did, that you have discharged your responsibility on this matter. And I am here to remind you that you have a long way to go before anyone would consider that you have even come close to doing so.
This is just more spin from a government trying to deflect attention away from its own failings—and there are lots of them. For the minister to stand in this House and claim that three months was far too long a time for the release of the Podger review, only to take over 15 months to act on the Clarke review illustrates the utter hypocrisy of this minister. And let us not forget that for all the fanfare made by the Rudd Labor government about ‘correcting’ the service of BCOF veterans, some 30 months later it has decided to have the three recommendations reviewed again. So they are re-reviewing the re-reviewed recommendations! But that is the modus operandi of the Rudd Labor government: if it is too hard they will delay it, bury it or re-review it. Therefore, 2,700 aged veterans and their families are still waiting on the Rudd Labor government to fulfil their 2007 election commitments.
I note that the measures contained within this bill will be widely welcomed by the veterans community. But I also note that the Rudd Labor government, through the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Mr Griffin, has waited until the last possible moment to introduce this legislation, all so he can maximise the political impact of these new measures. This is the action of a desperate government, a government trying to regain momentum. This is an act of a government that puts its self-interest before the interests of those in the veterans community.
To conclude, veterans deserve a government that is upfront and honest with regard to its policies and promises, something that the current government has failed on both accounts. Veterans deserve a minister that will take action based on the interests of veterans, not the political interests of the Rudd Labor government. And finally, our service personnel, past and present, deserve to live out their lives in dignity and peace after giving so much to their nation. They deserve a government that will make the tough decisions and give veterans a sense of what is to come, instead of leaving them in limbo, waiting for answers on the important matter of their future financial and social security.
5168
10:47:00
Hale, Damian, MP
HWD
Solomon
ALP
1
0
Mr HALE
—I rise to make my contribution to the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010. It was an election commitment to look at the five areas that are in this bill. It is disappointing, to say the least, that the member for Paterson’s contribution was overshadowed by having a swipe at the government. The point was made by the minister earlier today, when introducing the bill, that the former government had ample opportunity to address these matters and failed to do so. We are addressing them now. But we have come to expect that from those opposite, that even when they do support a bill, they still find it very difficult to speak in a proper manner of support.
The bill will give effect to a number of Veterans’ Affairs budget measures. Firstly, it will create a new category of service eligibility under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to be known as the British nuclear test defence service; secondly, reclassify certain submarine special operations between 1978 and 1992 as operational and qualifying service; thirdly, reclassify certain service in Ubon in Thailand as qualifying service; fourthly, lower the age of domicile of choice from 21 to 18 for the purpose of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986; and, finally, cease eligibility for war widow and war widower pensions for widows or widowers who enter into a de facto relationship prior to claiming the war widow or war widower pension. I will look at each of these in some more detail.
The compensation for military participants in British nuclear testing is important because the British government conducted a series of nuclear weapons tests at Maralinga, Emu Field and Montebello Islands in the 1950s and 1960s and participants have long sought recognition and compensation under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 for conditions arising from their service. In reviewing recommendations of the 2003 Clarke review, the government has decided that former Defence Force personnel who participated in the British nuclear tests program will be provided with access to compensation and benefits under the VEA, as intended by the Clarke review. This will provide disability pensions and healthcare benefits to former Defence Force personnel who suffer from conditions accepted as related to the BNT service. It will also provide the war widow/war widower pension and gold card to the widows and widowers where the participant’s death is accepted as related to the BNT service. People who will benefit from this will be former Defence Force personnel who participated in the BNT program. It is estimated 2,700 surviving personnel will potentially benefit, at a cost of $24.2 million over five years.
The second item we have looked at is the domicile of choice. It is important that veterans who served with the British, Commonwealth and allied forces during the Second World War are able to access benefits under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 if they have served during the war and were domiciled in Australia prior to the war. A small number of these veterans, the BCAL veterans, have been able to access VEA compensation benefits because they were between 18 and 21, thus automatically determined to be domiciled in the same country as their father or their mother if their father was deceased. The Clarke review of veterans entitlements recommended that this discretionary treatment be removed by lowering the age of domicile of choice to 18 years, but this was not implemented. The government committed to reviewing the unimplemented recommendations of the Clarke review and is now implementing these recommendations.
The other aspects of the domicile rules still need to be met, such as integration into Australian society and residency in Australia including intention to reside and length of such residency. The BCAL veterans who enlisted aged between 18 and 21 and would have had Australia as their domicile had they been legally able to choose will benefit from this measure. It is estimated to affect only a handful of veterans and war widows but is an important point of principle. The cost of this amendment will be $700,000 over four years on the forward estimates.
As to the reclassification of certain submarine operations, the Clarke review of veterans entitlements recommended that certain submarine special operations between 1978 and 1992 be deemed non-warlike hazardous for the purposes of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. This recommendation was not accepted by the previous government. The government committed to reviewing the unimplemented recommendations of the Clarke review, and in 2009 the Vice Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Navy concluded that the special operations met the special criteria for qualifying service and operational service that applied at the time. The reclassification of the service to qualifying service and operational service will provide access to benefits under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, including access to disability pensions, the service pension at age 60 and automatic entitlement to the gold card at age 70 to all submariners who served on certain special operations between 1978 and 1992 and who are eligible for the award of Australian Service Medal with Special Operations Clasp for that service.
The beneficiaries of this amendment are some 890 former submariners and others who are eligible for the award of the Australian Service Medal with Special Operations Clasp for certain special submarine operations between 1978 and 1990. The government has committed $11.1 million over four years to fund this amendment.
The fourth part of the bill concerns the Defence-initiated nature of service review and the reclassification of service at RAAF Base Ubon in Thailand. The Clarke review of veterans entitlements recommended that the classification of service at RAAF Base Ubon in Thailand between 31 May 1962 and 24 June 1965 not be changed. This recommendation was accepted by the previous government. Although not part of the revisitation of the Clarke review recommendations, a recent separate Defence nature of service review recommended the classification of service between 31 May 1962 and 27 July 1962 as qualifying service. This reclassification will allow veterans to access further benefits under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 for this service, including a service pension at age 60 and automatic entitlement to the gold card at age 70.
Personnel who served at RAAF Base Ubon in Thailand between 31 May and 27 July 1962 will be the beneficiaries of this. About 60 of the estimated 215 surviving veterans with this service currently do not have access to these benefits. This will be funded by the government at a cost of $2.7 million over the next four years.
The Clarke review also recommended the removal of inequities in treatment of widows or widowers who marry or remarry as opposed to those who enter into a de facto relationship. Under this proposal, if a deceased veteran’s partner enters into a marriage-like relationship, they will no longer be eligible to claim the war widow or widowers pension, in the same way as those who marry or remarry are not eligible. This ineligibility will be permanent. Eligibility will not be reinstated if the de facto relationship ends. This removes the inequity in treatment of widows and widowers who marry or remarry as opposed to those who enter into a de facto relationship. This measure will ensure equal treatment of partners who marry or remarry and those who enter into a de facto relationship. This only applies to new claims. No current pensions are affected. There will be a saving to the government over four years of $1.4 million.
There is always a lot of passion in this House when we talk about our veterans. Our war veterans are often left behind, and I know the member for Dobell has many veterans in his community who have served their country. I look forward to being able to inform the veterans in my community of the amendments that have been made to this bill.
The 2010-11 budget delivers on key election commitments that the Rudd Labor government made to the veterans community—some $246 million worth of new initiatives, greater access to compensation and income support, preventing unnecessary hospital admissions from members of the veterans community, action on further recommendations of the Clarke review, better access to health care and compensation for the F111 workers. I have often spoken in this House about the F111 workers and how moving and gut wrenching that inquiry was. I was very happy to see that there was compensation for those people affected all those years ago. Some $55 million will be invested to give an additional 2,400 F111 aircraft fuel tank maintenance workers access to better health care and compensation. These workers include those known as pick and patch personnel, who were not deemed eligible under the previous scheme. This means that more than 3,000 F111 workers will now have access to benefits should they need them. That is very important, and I was glad to see that that compensation will be paid to those people who so thoroughly deserve it.
I know that people are now turning up in the chamber, but not to listen to me talk about this bill. That is being a bit harsh on myself, but I would like to add my congratulations to the member for Kooyong. As a new member here, he is somebody I have looked up to and respected. He took many different positions on issues within the former government. I certainly congratulate him on his contribution to this place, and I look forward to his valedictory speech.
In conclusion, David Hardy has worked for me for three years. He is going back to work in his previous job. David Hardy is a lifelong friend of mine. During the election campaign he took 13 weeks annual leave to help me campaign and then he took a $5,000 pay cut and lost his airfares to come to work for me. He has finally seen the light and is going back to the Northern Territory government. So, to David Hardy: thanks a lot. And, to Petro: congratulations, and I look forward to your speech. I commend the bill to the House.
5171
11:00:00
Georgiou, Petro, MP
HM5
Kooyong
LP
0
0
Mr GEORGIOU
—I was in the chamber to hear Kim Beazley’s brilliant valedictory speech. One of the distinctive things he did was to thank people at the beginning rather than at the end of the speech. Expressions of gratitude are too often truncated by time constraints, so I will emulate Kim’s example.
One of the nice things in my case about getting older is that the black list shrinks while the white list, the debts that cannot be repaid, grow. I thank my mother, Anastasia, and my late father, Costandino Georgiou, for their enormous affection and commitment to their children despite the pressures and anxieties of migration. I thank my children, Costandino and Alexia, who, while still very young, felt the impact of my involvement in politics. Dino is in the gallery today; Alexia has unfortunately been caught in the fog in Melbourne. They are admirable young people. I thank Roxanne, who is everything.
I thank my friends who have held me to my true compass through their support and by administering frequent and systematic beatings. I am grateful to have too many friends to thank them all individually, but they include Jo Szwarc, whose towering intellect has been totally committed to defending the vulnerable; Michael Kapel, a truly remarkable political talent; Ted Baillieu, whose devotion to the public good is unsurpassed. I also thank Alister Drysdale, Peter Wilkinson, Tony Staley, Giancarlo Martini-Piovano, Colin Rubenstein, Bret Walker, Brian Burdekin and Anna Cronin.
Friends embrace staff: Andrew Manton, whose enormous capacities helped me to survive my first years in parliament; Helen Morris, my long-suffering secretary, for whom I worked for 21 years; Eleanor McKinna; Kelly Sexton; and Tony Conheady. These people and all my other staff over the years have enabled me to perform far beyond my capacities.
I thank my colleagues in the coalition, the Independents, third parties and those on the other side of the House. I thank Russell Broadbent, Judi Moylan, Judith Troeth and Bruce Baird. We have lived through some interesting times together. I will miss seeing them regularly. They embody the Liberal Party’s traditions of strength, independent thinking and compassion.
There is a special portal in the parliament. It makes people patient, sensitive, trustworthy, objective advisers and true defenders of the parliament. Unfortunately, passage through that portal is restricted to the clerks of the House of Representatives. I thank all the clerks I have known over 35 years. I thank the Parliamentary Library, Parliament House staff and Comcar drivers. I thank them for their indefatigable efforts to make an unruly parliament work.
I thank the Liberal Party and the electorate of Kooyong. Kooyong is the birthplace of the Liberal Party. I have worked for the Liberal Party for most of my working life. As state director, as policy adviser and as a member of parliament, I have worked in pursuit of the Liberal Party values of enterprise, opportunity, incentive and social justice. I am grateful to the party in Kooyong for their support, and I thank Haddon Storey, Bill Clancy and Paula Davey for their work as my electorate chairs. The party in Kooyong is one of the powerhouses of liberalism and I wish it well.
I have been genuinely humbled by the support I have received from the Kooyong electorate. Occasionally, some try to dismiss Kooyong as one of the ‘leafy suburbs’, populated by doctors’ wives. I note in passing that leafy suburbs have been the backbone of the Liberal Party and that ‘doctors’ wives’ have always been at the heart of Australia’s rural and urban communities. Not to recognise this is to disregard our historic traditions and our current realities. Kooyong is an open-minded and forward-looking electorate. Our people are active and socially responsible, with real insights on local and national issues. They are forthcoming in expressing their views, needs and values. It has been a great honour and a great privilege to have been able to serve them as their parliamentary representative.
I would like to thank the press gallery. In the interests of transparency, I wish to disclose the following: my first media interview was with Laurie Oakes in, I think, 1975, for the Australian Playboy. I was a total novice. He was very fair to me. But I can truly say that I only bought Playboy for the articles.
Journos, like politicians, can be good, bad or indifferent. They face imperative challenges, deadlines, the complexity of material and occasional misbriefing by interested parties. The good ones are full of insight and have a capacity to communicate with Australians and make politicians accountable.
This is my 16th year in the parliament as the member for Kooyong and it is my 35th year in politics. I first sat on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1975 as an adviser to Malcolm Fraser, having brought some of the Khemlani telexes to Canberra as the coalition was blocking supply. Gough Whitlam’s brilliant parliamentary skills defending a government that was weakened was mesmerising, as was the remorselessness of Malcolm Fraser’s attacks. The fact that the supply crisis did not harm Australian democracy attests to the resilience of our political system. The fact that Gough and Malcolm reconciled years ago is a tribute to their stature as national leaders. To those who have sought to denigrate Malcolm Fraser, I just want to say one thing: Malcolm’s fusion of political toughness with compassion and social conscience is simply beyond their comprehension.
I have been enormously privileged to have worked personally for Liberal parliamentary leaders over the last 30 years: Malcolm Fraser, Andrew Peacock, Jeffrey Kennett and John Hewson. Some have broken through; others have not. My respect for their commitment to creating a better Australia is boundless. Nobody forces people to be leaders but, nonetheless, the responsibilities they volunteer to shoulder and the pressures they are subjected to are almost inconceivable. It is unfortunate that our political culture takes partisanship to the point of corrosiveness. I think our political leaders deserve more respect than we give them, regardless of which party they belong to.
I came into the parliament at the age of 47, having been at the sharp end of partisan politics and also having contributed to public policy through the establishment of SBS Television and the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. I was strong in my view of what the Liberal Party stood for and confident in the common sense and fair-mindedness of the Australian people. I believed that politics was a tough business. There were two dominant parties, they were in conflict, they had power and they had resources. They were strong and evenly matched. They punched and they counterpunched, and sometimes low blows were landed. In my view, however, scapegoating the vulnerable was never part of the political game. I still believe this.
Not all politics is confrontation. Main force clashes, negative advertising and attempts to score lethal blows at question time—all too often unlethal—do dominate. But there are some less confrontational arenas. In parliamentary committees, the focus is on working cooperatively to inquire into issues of national significance and to scrutinise the executive. In my time on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, for instance, the committee, which included Senator Robert Ray, whose knowledge of the electoral system is as legendary as his lack of political tender-mindedness, managed to bring down three unanimous reports on the electoral system. This sort of cooperation provides some relief from a political landscape that is, generally, bleakly partisan. It should be highlighted more often.
Eleven years of my term was as a member of the government under John Howard. With Peter Costello as Treasurer, its economic achievements were remarkable. We enjoyed strong economic prosperity and record low levels of unemployment, and Australia was left with an enormously strong economy. These achievements should not be belittled and I do not think that they can be denied.
During my time in parliament, a number of developments caused me grave concern. The emergence of the pernicious influence of Hansonism stirred up racial prejudice; multiculturalism, one of Australia’s unique accomplishments, was denigrated; asylum seekers were subjected to increasingly harsh measures; our civil liberties came under challenge after September 11; and the proud Australian tradition of inclusive citizenship was, without sound justification, reversed.
My experience in politics leads me to value party discipline highly. On some issues, however, I was unable to support the position of the party majority. A Liberal member of parliament has the right to do this. The Liberal Party has changed over the decades, but the right of Liberal parliamentarians to differ from the majority of their colleagues on matters of individual principle and conscience has endured. The belief that party discipline does not override individual principle is built into the very foundation of, and is the very reason for, our party’s existence. In recent months there has been efflorescence within the party of the right to dissent—dissent over climate change and alcopops spring to mind. I may have differed with my colleagues on their position, but I unequivocally endorse their right to dissent. Hopefully, we will never again hear a member of the federal parliamentary Liberal Party brand colleagues ‘political terrorists’ because they took a stand on principle.
I have not differed from the majority without considerable reflection and deliberation or without speaking with my colleagues and my party leader—and I have always known the consequences of my actions. Ultimately, however, being a member of parliament, especially a member of the federal parliamentary Liberal Party brings the responsibility of speaking with one’s own voice on matters of principle. I am grateful to the many members of the public, and in particular Liberal Party supporters, who have expressed their respect for my actions, even when they have disagreed.
It is my conviction that public policy is served when members of parliament feel able to speak publicly about deeply felt concerns, even when their views do not conform with those of the majority of their colleagues. I believe that the public good was promoted by the attempt by myself and others to have the Commonwealth intervene to override the Northern Territory laws which jailed children for minor infractions such as stealing a bottle of spring water—laws which fell particularly harshly on Indigenous children. We did not succeed in getting the laws overridden; we did achieve the establishment of diversionary programs which effectively displaced jail.
I believe that Australia benefited from the reforms that flowed from the attempt of a number of us to introduce private member’s bills reforming the treatment of asylum seekers. Children and families were taken out from behind razor wire. The Ombudsman was made responsible for publicly reporting on people being detained for prolonged periods. Thousands of people on temporary protection visas were given permanent protection.
I believe that the resistance to draconian aspects of the anti-terrorist laws and the introduction of a private member’s bill to establish an independent reviewer of terrorist laws—which was in essence taken up by the Labor government, with much reluctance—served liberal principles well. I do not pretend that our efforts had anything like total success. The Northern Territory laws were not struck down. The policy of mandatory detention was not abolished by either the Howard or the Rudd government. What happened, however, was that the compromises achieved made a significant difference to the lives of thousands of vulnerable men, women and children.
For most of my life I have believed in the inevitability of progress. The reality is that many of the things that I believed were embedded parts of our polity—multiculturalism, the inclusiveness of Australian citizenship and the protection of civil rights—have been rolled back. Also rolled back has been a more decent treatment of asylum seekers. Until a few months ago I believed that the reforms made by the Howard and the Rudd governments meant that we had irreversibly turned the corner. I wrote that we were closing a dark chapter in our history. This chapter had seen men and women who were seeking refuge in our country incarcerated. It had seen innocent people imprisoned for longer than convicted rapists, robbers and kidnappers. Escapees from persecution were demonised and detention centres traumatised—not just the detainees, but their guards.
This chapter, I am afraid, has been reopened. Regression has become the order of the day. With an increase in boat arrivals, asylum seekers are being subjected to increasingly virulent attacks. The Labor government has frozen the processing of Afghani and Sri Lankan asylum seekers and is reopening the Curtin detention centre. Historically, Curtin is the most notorious of the detention centres, which have all been places of despair and self-harm. Opposition policies would turn back boats, process asylum seekers in undisclosed third countries and restore the destructive temporary protection visas. These policies are cruel. They do not have my support.
This regression does not reflect credit on either side of federal politics. Vulnerable people are again being made into a football to be kicked around in the interests of partisan politics. This is despite the facts and the best values of our society. The fact is that Australia’s punitive approach did not deter people coming to Australia. Mandatory detention, the charging of asylum seekers for the costs of their detention, the introduction of temporary protection visas and the Pacific Solution did not deter them. After mandatory detention was introduced, boat arrivals increased. After temporary protection visas were introduced, boat arrivals increased. Most of the people subjected to the Pacific Solution were found to be genuine refugees and resettled in Australia and New Zealand.
I do not believe that we have lost control of our borders. I do not believe that people smugglers determine who comes into Australia and who does not. We can support orderly processes, we can warn people against people smugglers and we can warn them not to risk their lives on unseaworthy boats. We have to realise, however, that escaping from persecution is not an orderly process. Desperate people do take desperate measures. But beyond the arguments about deterrence, and what causes what, is a more fundamental point. It goes to our obligations. I believe that we have a fundamental obligation as a nation to, at the very least, not further harm those who bring themselves into our orbit of responsibility by seeking a safe haven. We should not, as Australians, compound the persecution of genuine refugees by delaying their processing, locking them up in unnamed third countries or keeping them in insecurity on temporary protection visas.
I once said to journalist Michael Gordon:
In life there are many things that you’d like to walk past and not notice. Lots. But sometimes you do notice and when you notice, you have to do something.
I have noticed some things, and I have tried not to walk past.
Progress is not inevitable. It requires commitment, and it requires effort. There are setbacks and there are regressions. But I leave this place still optimistic that Australians will seek and find in their representatives, declarations and deeds that elevate hope above fear, and tolerance above prejudice. I am optimistic that they may be proud of the laws made by their parliamentarians and the contribution they make to help build a fair, decent and civil society for quickly coming generations. We here each bear a responsibility for our nation’s calling and our nation’s standing.
It has been a profound honour to serve the nation as a member of the Australian Parliament. I am proud to have been part of this place during this time. Thank you.
5175
11:22:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
1
0
Mr ADAMS
—The Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010 addresses five parts of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act that require amendment and it includes service relating to British nuclear tests, service on submarine special operations, service in Thailand, domicile and effect of widows and widowers entering into de facto relationships, and requires further interpretation of the eligibility criteria. The Veterans’ Entitlements Act provides eligibility for pensions, treatment and other benefits on the basis of the type of service that the veteran or Defence Force member has rendered. The three main types of service are operational service, which includes non-warlike service, qualifying service and defence service. Service regarded as operational service provides eligibility for disability and war widow and war widower pensions, treatment and other benefits, and the more generous reverse criminal standard of proof is used to determine pension claims. Operational service is overseas service within defined areas and dates in a time of war or during warlike or non-warlike operations. Operational service also grants veteran status under the Veterans’ Entitlement Act.
Qualifying service provides eligibility for service pension and associated benefits. Post Second World War qualifying service generally requires a person to have been allotted for duty and to have served in an operational area listed in schedule 2 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act or to have rendered warlike service. The other main category of defence—defence service—provides eligibility for disability and war widow and war widower pensions, treatment and other benefits. Broadly, defence service is peacetime service of three years or more in the Defence Force between 7 December 1972 and the commencement of the Military Compensation Act 1994 on 7 April 1994 and any period of hazardous service. Pension claims relating to defence service only are determined on the balance of probabilities, unless the member has peacekeeping service or hazard service, in which case the generous reverse criminal standard of proof is applicable.
Then we have to look at those who were in defence forces during the series of British nuclear weapons tests which were conducted in Australia at the Monte Bello Islands off the coast of Western Australia and at Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia between October 1952 and October 1957. Minor trials were also conducted at Emu Field and Maralinga between 1953 and 1963. Both Australian and British personnel were involved in the tests and those involved included military and civilian participants but have yet to be included under this legislation.
Workers compensation coverage for participants who were at the time members of the Australian Defence Force or the Australian Public Service is provided under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and its predecessors. In 1986 the government created a like safety, rehabilitation and compensation act administrative scheme to provide compensation coverage for civilians, including pastoralists and Indigenous persons, who were at the test sites. This scheme is still open to claimants. The test participants also had access to a special administrative scheme and an act of grace scheme, both administered by the then Department of Science, Education and Training.
In 2006 the government enacted the British Nuclear Test (Treatment) Act to provide free testing and treatment for cancer for both military and non-military personnel who participated in the tests and related activities. The changes allowed a group of veterans who had been left out before to be included. As part of the 2010 budget, a new category of eligible service is to be created under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to provide former Australian Defence Force members who participated in the British nuclear tests and related activities with eligibility for benefits equivalent to those that are available to members with non-warlike or hazardous service. In addition, pension claims relating to British nuclear test defence service are to be determined under the more generous standard of proof of the reasonable hypothesis test under sections 120 and 120A of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. British nuclear test defence service is a distinct new category of service and is not non-warlike or hazardous service, although the benefits it will attract are equivalent to those for non-warlike or hazardous service or defence service.
To achieve this, the British nuclear test Defence service will be incorporated into part 4 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. The amendments will be made to sections 120 and 120A to ensure that pensions claimed relate to British nuclear test Defence service and are determined on the more generous reverse criminal standard of proof and reasonable hypothesis test. British nuclear test Defence service will be incorporated into part IV of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act by including British nuclear test Defence service in the definition of Defence service in part 4 item 4 of this schedule, including members of the British nuclear test Defence service in the definition of member of the forces in part IV item 5 of this schedule and applying part IV of the VEA to members with British nuclear test Defence service. This requires a new subsection, 69B, at item 6 of this schedule. It will also define the criteria a member must meet to have rendered British nuclear test Defence service.
Because of the incorporation of British nuclear test Defence service into part IV of the VEA, members will become eligible for disability and war widow and war widower pensions under part IV; treatment under part V by virtue of section 81 of part V; allowance and other benefits under part VI by virtue of section 96 of part VI; rehabilitation under part VIA; the Veterans’ Children Education Scheme under part VII; and the veterans’ supplement under part VIIA.
The second part of this legislation applies to certain submarine special operations, which will be reclassified as operational and qualifying service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. This will provide eligibility for all pensions and associated benefits under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and will mean that disability and war widow and war widower pension claims relating to this service will be determined on the more generous reverse criminal standard of proof.
The amendments made by schedule 2 reclassify certain submarine special operations that were undertaken in the period between 1978 and 1992 as operational and qualifying service. Service regarded as operational service provides eligibility for disability and war widow and war widower pensions, treatment and other benefits and the more generous reverse criminal standard of proof is used to determine pension claims. Operational service is overseas service within defined areas and dates in a time of war or during warlike or non-warlike operations. Operational service also grants veteran status under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. Qualifying service provides eligibility for service pension and associated benefits. Post Second World War qualifying service generally requires the person to have been allotted for duty and have served in an operational area listed in schedule 2 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act or to have rendered warlike service.
Persons with Defence service will generally have the same access to disability and war widow and war widower pensions, treatment and other benefits as those with operational service, except that pension claims will be subject to the civil standard of proof. On that basis a pension will only be granted if the Repatriation Commission, in deciding the claim, is able do so to its reasonable satisfaction. Persons with operational service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act are also eligible for subsidised home loan advances under the Defence Service Homes Act.
Relevant submarine special operations service between 1978 and 1992 currently attracts dual eligibility under both the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act as Defence service. As such, under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act claims for pension relating to this service are currently determined on the civil standard of proof and not the more generous reverse criminal standard of proof. All persons who served on the relevant submarine special operations were awarded, or were eligible to be awarded, the Australian Service Medal with Clasp SPECIALOPS.
As a consequence of the inclusion of the certain submarine special operations as operational and qualifying service under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act there is a need for consequential amendments to both the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Defence Service Homes Act. Eligibility under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act will be retained for claims made before the commencement of the amendments in this schedule; that is, claims made under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act before 1 July 2010.
Eligibility under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act will cease for new claims relating to the relevant submarine special operations on and from the commencement of the amendments to this schedule, 1 July 2010. This means that any compensation payable under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act prior to the commencement of this schedule, including claims lodged before the commencement of this schedule and determined after the commencement of this schedule, will continue to be payable and may be offset against any subsequent disability pension payable under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. The Defence Service Homes Act will be amended to provide eligibility under that act for members with the relevant submarine special operations service.
Then there are the changes for those who served in Ubon in Thailand from 31 May 1962 to 27 July 1962 inclusive, which is to be re-classified as ‘qualifying service’ due to the potential risk from the activities of hostile forces and dissident elements. The reclassification of this service to qualifying service will provide members with eligibility for service pensions and associated benefits. Service in Ubon in Thailand from 31 May 1962 to 27 July 1962 will retain its current operational service status.
It should be noted that the qualifying service reclassification is limited to service in Ubon and does not extend to service in other parts of north-east Thailand during that period, as the circumstances justifying the reclassification applied only to those serving in Ubon at that time. Service in other parts of north-east Thailand during this period will remain operational service. Some of these areas of service have been the subject of much discussion over the years and I am pleased to see they have now been recognised.
Domicile legislation is also to be altered by this legislation. Under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, British, Commonwealth and allied veterans may be eligible for pensions and other benefits, if they have eligible service with a Commonwealth or allied defence force and if they had Australian domicile immediately prior to their enlistment in that defence force. This policy was intended to cover those Australians who were travelling or studying overseas at the time World War II broke out and who could not return to Australia to enlist in the Australian Defence Force.
In the absence of the legal concept of Australian citizenship until 1949, the domicile concept was adopted as a means of determining whether a British, Commonwealth and allied veteran could be regarded as an Australian at the time of enlistment. However, persons under 21 at the time of their enlistment in a Commonwealth or allied defence force could not establish a domicile of choice—independent domicile—as the common-law rules that applied at that time meant that a person could not assume a domicile of choice before the age of 21. Until the age of 21, a person’s domicile would have been dependent on the domicile of the father, or if the father was deceased, the domicile of the mother. The Domicile Act 1982 has since lowered the age at which a person can claim independent domicile from 21 to 18 years of age.
However, this act does not apply to circumstances that occurred before the commencement of the act and thus the common-law rules continue to apply in those circumstances. This will enable those veterans who were between 18 and 20 and unable to nominate Australia as their domicile of choice to gain eligibility under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act for their service in a British, Commonwealth or allied defence force, as Australian veterans, providing they meet the other domicile and service eligibility requirements.
Finally, the amendments made by schedule 5 will cease eligibility for war widow or war widower pensions for widows and widowers who enter into a de facto relationship prior to claiming the war widow or war widower pension. It will also cease eligibility for a widow or widower who is in a de facto relationship at the time of the veteran or member’s death and who would otherwise have been automatically granted war widow or war widower pension.
Under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, a war widow or war widower pension is payable to compensate the widow or widower of a veteran or member of the Defence Force who has died as a result of war service or defence service. Under the current provisions, a widow or widower remains eligible for a war widow or war widower pension even if the widow or widower enters into a de facto relationship prior to claiming the war widow or war widower pension. (Time expired)
5179
11:42:00
Robert, Stuart, MP
HWT
Fadden
LP
0
0
Mr ROBERT
—This bill implements Labor’s 2007 election commitment to reconsider the unimplemented recommendations of the Clarke review of veterans’ entitlements. The review was, of course, conducted by the Hon. John Clarke QC and was completed in 2003. I note that in 2004, the previous coalition government responded with a package of $236 million over five years.
In Labor’s plan for veterans affairs in the Kevin 07 election the Labor Party promised:
A Rudd Labor Government will give further consideration to recommendations of the Clarke Review of Veterans’ Entitlements that were not acted upon by the Howard Government.
They said:
This process will also give early priority to recommendations relating to those Australian participants in the British Commonwealth Occupational Force in Japan—
BCOF—
and Defence participants in the atomic tests in Australia.
I do confess a conflict of interest: my uncle was part of the BCOF in Japan and would later volunteer and fight with the 3rd Battalion in Korea in 1951.
On 9 September 2008, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs issued a great press release: ‘Government kicks off Clarke Review—nuclear veterans and BCOF a priority.’ Submissions from veterans about unimplemented recommendations were due by 1 December 2008. The recommendations were delivered to Minister Griffin in February 2009. And then we waited. We waited some 30 months from the election of the government, and 15 months from the time the report was delivered, for any action at all on the recommendations.
And now we see in the budget, $36 million. The previous government spent $236 million. So another 15 per cent—$36 million—was certainly welcome over four years to implement the re-reviewed recommendations.
The Rudd Labor government noted that three had already been accepted and acted upon; four have been accepted and are the basis of this bill; four deferred for further consideration; 22 referred to the review of military compensation arrangements; and 12 rejected for a second time. Noting my declared conflict of interest, I am somewhat amazed that recommendations relating to BCOF veterans have been further delayed.
The government has stated it proposes to defer its response to these recommendations to allow further examination and discussion within the government and with the defence Nature of Service Review team. There appears to be no time line for the completion of this re-review of the re-review of the review, which is interesting because the minister’s press release was titled ‘Government kicks off Clarke review: nuclear veterans and BCOF a priority’. But apparently there is no time line for this ‘priority’; it just seems to have disappeared into the ether.
There is lots of noise from the government about correcting the service of BCOF veterans under the re-review of the re-review of the re-review of the review. But, again, nothing happened—30 months and there is still nothing for the 2,700 aged BCOF aged veterans, including my uncle, who has since died, and their families. And no-one is any the wiser about the commitment Labor made to them at the last election. I can only surmise that when the minister said ‘Government kicks off Clarke review’ and ‘BCOF a priority’ that a ‘priority’ would not end up as a re-review of a re-review of a review. I can only assume that is another broken promise—I have to say that list must be exceptionally long by now.
In terms of the substance of the bill, it deals with within the four accepted recommendations in five schedules, and there is one new issue there that was not part of the Clarke review. Schedule 1 deals with recommendation 45 of the Clarke review. The Australian government will reclassify the service of British nuclear test defence service veterans to an equivalent ‘hazardous, non-warlike’ status—costing $24.3 million over four years. Eligible ex-defence personnel will be able to access disability pensions, war widow pensions and, where applicable, a gold card. Of course, where I say ‘war widow’ I also refer to ‘war widowers’. Eligible ex-defence personnel will be able to access those benefits. In 2006, the previous coalition government extended coverage of the white card to all ex-defence and civilian personnel who were involved in the tests. White card coverage will remain for civilian personnel who are not ex-defence personnel. Under changes to the VEA Act, a new classification of service would be entered into the act.
Schedule 2 looks at the issue of submarine special operations—recommendation 31 of the Clarke review. The Australian government intends to reclassify the service of submarine special operations undertaken between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1992 as ‘qualifying’ and ‘operational’ service. Considering that this service was on board the British Oberon class of submarines, I have absolutely and utterly no problem with this recommendation and where the government is going. I have not been or served on board an Oberon class submarine. I have been on board the Collins class submarine. But I know, from talking to my colleagues who served on the Oberon class, that it was like living completely wrapped in smelly, diesel-covered oily rags. I think anything we can provide for those men that served long periods in quite dangerous occupations in that sort of unknown environment is well and truly deserved. This change will entitle eligible people access to an asset- and means-tested service pension at age 60, to the disability pension, to the war widow pension and to the gold card at age 70. The Naval Association of Australia strongly supports the extended classification, as do I.
Schedule 3 looks at service in Thailand. The Australian government will reclassify certain service between 31 May 1962 and 27 July 1962 in Ubon in north-east Thailand as ‘qualifying service’. Again, this will entitle eligible veterans access to service pensions at age 60 and the gold card at age 70, on top of existing entitlement to disability pensions, and will entitle eligible widows to war widow pensions. This is not in response to the Clarke review. Yet a quick note of the history I think explains where the government has gone, and again I think it is a relatively good move. Throughout the 1960s, Australian service personnel were stationed throughout South-East Asia—in fact, some of them were stationed there from 1948, when the Malayan Emergency began, in which I think 36 Australian servicemen lost their lives. Australians were involved in confrontation in Malaysia. After 1965, of course, personnel were involved in the Vietnam War, specifically with the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam and then other forces that went there. On a quick side note, my first exposure to the Training Team Vietnam was through our school sergeant Jim Geedrick, a great Australian who fought at a very young age in World War II, fought in the Malayan Emergency, fought in the Korean confrontation and then fought with the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam. He was a tremendous man, a great Australian and a great asset to my school, Rockhampton Grammar School.
In May 1962, 79 Squadron from the RAAF, the Royal Australian Air Force, was despatched to north-east Thailand to protect the territorial integrity of Thailand. At the time, suffice it to say there were few facilities at Ubon. It was pretty rugged. It was very, very tough going for two months before something more permanent began to be constructed. I have lived in some fairly tough, disgusting places in the north of Australia and other countries on operations. The situation in 1962 I think took tough to a whole new level. So, for the government to reclassify ‘potential risk from the activities of hostile forces and dissident elements’, considering the circumstances they were living in, is appropriate and just.
Moving on to schedule 4, which relates to recommendation 60 of the Clarke review, the Australian government will correct an anomaly in the VEA Act to enable certain British Commonwealth and allied veterans who were aged between 18 and 21 at the time of enlistment in a Commonwealth or allied defence force to access the Australian repatriation system. Under the VEA Act, British, Commonwealth and allied veterans may be eligible for pensions and other benefits if they have eligible service with a Commonwealth or allied defence force and if they had Australian domicile immediately prior to their enlistment in that defence force. Again, that makes a fair degree of sense to me.
Finally, schedule 5 deals with war widows entering into a de facto relationship. In line with recommendation 54 of the Clarke review, the Australian government will remove an entitlement from war widows who claim a war widow pension after entering a marriage-like—that is, a de facto—relationship. Consequently, the government will require eligible war widows to claim a war widow pension before they enter a new relationship in order to qualify for their pension. I note that, under current legislation, a war widow who applies for a war widow pension after marrying or remarrying is not entitled to that pension. However, a war widow who enters a marriage-like relationship could still apply for a war widow pension. There was a difference between de facto and married. I note the government is proposing a change. It is not retrospective, but it does make assumptions on the way people live. The government is looking to save $1.4 million over four years, which in effect denies about 10 new applicants per year.
I think it is instructive to again look at history. In 1984, the Hawke government put back pensions to married or remarried war widows who, until then, had lost their pension upon remarriage. Again, this was a prospective, not retrospective, change. In 2001, the previous coalition government broadened the 1984 change to include any married or remarried war widow who lost their pension as a result of their marriage or remarriage after applying for and being granted a pension.
Justice Clarke recommended, inter alia, that no change to the present arrangements be made, including the broadening of the base of the war widow pension to people who had applied after marriage. The war widow pension is a compensation payment and is not means tested. I think it is paid at a rate of $703.90 a fortnight, and some eligible war widows may indeed receive an income support supplement. I note this change has the support of the veteran and ex-service community, including the War Widows Guild of Australia and Legacy. However, my view is that a war widow is still a war widow. Regardless of whether she remarries or moves into a de facto relationship, they have lost their partner—their husband and, in some cases, their wife—in combat operations overseas. I cannot imagine the horror and the pain of losing my wife or of someone losing their partner, but to lose them in the defence of the nation or in the national interest overseas in combat operations, in such difficult environments, is a whole new world of horror.
There is an incredibly brave Australian in my electorate, Nicole Pearce. She is the war widow of David ‘Poppy’ Pearce who died in combat operations in Afghanistan, fighting for all that we believe in and our way of life. I have recently got back from 10 days in the Middle East operations, including five days in Kandahar and in Tarin Kowt. In the middle of the base is an Australian memorial, to the young Australian—in this case—men who have paid the ultimate price, who have died on combat operations serving their nation. David ‘Poppy’ Pearce’s name is there. I took a photograph of the memorial and a close-up of his name, of his plaque, and sent it to Nicole. I gave her a call, because she is in my electorate, and she said, ‘You know what: today would have been our 15th wedding anniversary.’ You cannot imagine the horror. A war widow is a war widow—and we should never lose sight of that.
5182
23:55:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—I rise to speak in support of the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010. The Rudd government is committed to supporting our veterans and their families. The budget handed down this year has a suite of new initiatives totalling $246.4 million. This includes greater access to compensation, income support, preventing unnecessary hospital admissions for members of the veteran community, decisive action with respect to the recommendations of Justice John Clarke in what is known as the Clarke review, and better access to health care and compensation for F111 workers, particularly those who worked on F111s at RAAF Base Amberley in the electorate of Blair. I have been a strong advocate of our actions on the Clarke review and of acting on what I would describe as the Bevis parliamentary recommendations, which recommended more justice and fairness for those in the military who worked on F111s, particularly in refuelling and the deseal-reseal operations at RAAF Base Amberley.
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is probably heartily sick and tired of my speaking to him on this issue. Every time he looks at me he initiates the conversation before I mention it to him. But I am pleased with the budgetary measures we have undertaken on both of these issues. Certainly, 2,400 extra people will receive justice in the deseal-reseal operations that took place at RAAF Base Amberley. These include the ‘pick and patch’ workers, at a cost of $39.6 million. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs said on budget night that more people will be eligible for care and compensation now, including those who carried out F111 fuel tank maintenance involving fuel tank entry. He announced a $55 million package of health care and compensation to those in need and the reopening of the SHOAMP healthcare scheme, which was closed on 20 September 2005 at a cost of $12.5 million. This is acting where the previous government failed to act.
I am pleased that Kathleen Henry from the group who advocated for justice on this issue has liaised closely with us. I commend her work and the work of Ian Fraser on this issue. It is not only the people involved in the F111 aircraft fuel tank maintenance operations but also those people who, sadly, in a terrible tragedy of our history participated in or were exposed to radiation as a result of British nuclear testing who will receive a degree of decency, compensation and health care as a result of the budget. British nuclear testing took place in a number of different locations in Australia. On 3 October 1952, the UK tested its first nuclear weapon, named Hurricane, at the Monte Bello Islands off the Western Australian coast. Two major test series were conducted at Maralinga called Operation Buffalo and Operation Antler. The Indigenous people in the area at Maralinga, who considered Maralinga to have very deep spiritual significance to them going back generation after generation, were simply ignored and treated appallingly at the time. This is a terrible period of our history, and it is not as though governments of the day did not know about this.
These people were exposed to radiation which had lifelong impacts upon them. The government’s response is to act on the recommendations of Justice Clarke, who recommended in 2003 in a report that the participation of defence personnel in the British nuclear test program in Australia be deemed non-warlike hazardous. This had implications for the provision of decent health care and compensation for these people. I say 2003: the actual review was the 2003 review of veterans entitlements conducted by Justice Clarke. We were not in power at the time; the coalition government was in power in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and nearly all of 2007. It is a terrible shame that the recommendations of Justice Clarke were not acted upon by the coalition government. We appreciate that now there is a bipartisan approach on this issue. We appreciate that from those opposite. But those opposite have failed dismally when it comes to the recommendations of Justice Clarke.
After I was elected to this place in November 2007 a fellow came to see me, a constituent of mine, Merv Kleidon, who lives in Ipswich at a place known as One Mile. It is a nice place with a great community centre, and there is a great Baptist church in the Leichhardt-One Mile area.
My uncle Merv Neumann is actually the president of the Leichhardt-One Mile Community Centre and secretary of the Leichhardt Baptist church.
Merv Kleidon is a well-known figure in the Leichhardt-One Mile area. He came to see me because he was concerned about this issue. I pointed out to him that there were about 470 submissions made in relation to the Clarke review when the government was considering this issue. I said, ‘Tell me, Merv, why are you interested in this topic?’ He said, ‘Well, Shayne, I’ve got a gold card. I got one for my service in Malaya in 1959 to 1961. I worked in the RAAF. I was an engine fitter and I was based at the RAAF base at Amberley in Ipswich,’ now in the electorate of Blair. He said, ‘I worked on the Lincoln aircraft. Me and my mates worked on them.’ I said, ‘Tell me about this.’ So Merv proceeded on this occasion, and on numerous occasions subsequently when he popped into my office to have a chat with me, to say that so many of his friends had died from radiation sickness and poisoning. He said, ‘We worked on these aircraft which were monitoring the clouds that came across as a result of the nuclear tests.’ He said he had been advocating for quite some time for justice, but he told me that the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association had contacted him about it. He said that the Australians who are involved in this association had contacted him and asked him to get involved. So he is actually on the editorial committee that publishes a magazine that deals with issues concerning nuclear veterans. He told me about the stories of his friends and what they put up with.
Merv went to places like Alice Springs and Toowoomba to advocate for the cause. He said, ‘We were treated shabbily. They knew and we weren’t told. We were exposed to this stuff and the authorities knew about it. We would go into the planes afterwards, the gunnery areas and where the pilots were, and they would have great packs of chocolate and nuts and food and we would eat these rations. We weren’t told that they were exposed to radioactive material, we weren’t told that we were damaging our health, but we were effectively fodder. We were misled deliberately and mistreated.’ So he and his mates and their families suffered accordingly.
Merv is obviously still alive and still advocating for the causes in which he believes. He claims that the British knew all about and he said, ‘We knew that they knew all about it later on.’ He felt the Australian government knew about it at the time but did little about it. Artie Fadden, who had been Prime Minister for a while, supposedly said to the British, ‘What’s going on about these clouds that are coming across the country?’ And the previous coalition government knew about it as well.
Merv’s response when I had a chat with him today about this issue was, ‘Good one, Shayne. You have done what you said you would do.’ Merv has got a gold card from his overseas service in South-East Asia, but he said it is long overdue recognition of what went on. He said that many people have been affected. I will never forget Merv coming into my office, with tears in his eyes, telling me about his mates. I want to commend Merv and all those like him who fought for justice for so long, who travelled around everywhere, who wrote articles, who advocated, who agitated, who annoyed politicians on both sides of the political divide. He said he was exposed not just for a couple of days but for a considerable period of time.
We treat and have treated our men and women who have served in the military pretty shamefully at times and we have adopted the views and we have followed slavishly at times the advice and the actions of our great and powerful friends. But sometimes our friends deserve to be told that they got it wrong. Sometimes we need to stand up more strongly for the Australian public, the Australian veteran community and the Australian military who serve on our behalf.
I thank Merv for his advocacy and I thank him for the many times he popped into my office. It is never a short conversation with Merv; he likes to let you know what he thinks. I want to thank him very much and I want to pay tribute to Merv and all those like him for what they have done in this regard.
I see the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs here. He will have nothing to talk to me about after the Clarke review and after the Bevis review. But I am pleased we have acted on those things, because he has honoured what he said he would do. This has not been an easy process, but it is a just decision. We will see legislation amended to ensure that the declaration of non-warlike hazardous service can in fact be extended to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. We have given action to the recommendation of Justice Clarke and it means veterans and their widows and widowers can get access to the kind of health care and assistance that they so deserve. This is the closure of a sad chapter in the military service of our country by so many people.
Other aspects of this legislation deal with the reclassification of certain submarine special operations as qualifying service, the reclassification of service in Ubon in Thailand as qualifying service, the lowering of the age of domicile of choice from 21 years to 18 years for the purpose of the VEA Act and the cessation of eligibility for war widow or widower pensions for widows and widowers who enter into de facto relationships prior to claiming the same.
Many of these things are the recommendations of Justice Clarke. I am sure that many people across the country will be pleased today with this legislation. It will help a lot of people. It will help honour their memories, particularly in relation to the British nuclear testing service. This change will potentially help up to 2,700 former defence personnel. This is a good day where we correct a terrible injustice that was perpetrated and perpetuated on Australian military personnel and their families for a very long time.
5185
12:10:00
Griffin, Alan, MP
VU5
Bruce
ALP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel
1
0
Mr GRIFFIN
—in reply—I will concentrate my comments on a number of issues that have been raised in the debate on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010 and address some of the concerns that have been raised. Some of the issues include not only the legislation but also, in a wider sense, the government’s conduct in veterans affairs over the last couple of years. I think some of these points need to be addressed. I will go back in time a bit, because much of what we are dealing with in this legislation is about going back in time and dealing with issues which were outstanding over many years.
I make the point that the government, when in opposition, came forward with a very comprehensive plan for veterans affairs. It has been mentioned by some of the speakers and I have a copy with me today. The funny thing about it, though, is that a number of people who have brandished the document or have endeavoured to quote from the document have, frankly, just quoted selectively. They have not gone to the details. They have picked headings out. They have used quotes such as, ‘The government promised to restore the value of compensation and entitlements.’ And, yes, we did. We then listed a series of specific commitments that we would act on, which we have overwhelmingly done.
Some people have sought to expand upon that far beyond what the government ever said, far beyond what the government ever suggested. In that way, they try and say on the basis of a heading or one line, ‘That means that the government meant (a), (b), (c).’ Well, it did not. We laid it right out there. That is why there was a document this big—some 28 pages—with details and specific commitments. What we heard from the ex-service community was that they were sick of being lied to, they were sick of being led down a path and they were concerned that matters were not getting addressed and had been outstanding for more than a decade.
In fact, when we look at the Clarke review, some of the issues that it raised are dealt with in this legislation. The Clarke review was the result of, under the previous government, massive concern within the veteran and ex-service community about the government’s lack of action around a whole range of issues. That is why the Clarke review was established. It was a commitment by the previous government earlier this century to look at what they had not addressed in the last part of the last century. It was about going to an all-encompassing inquiry which produced a range of different issues.
The government of the day subsequently responded to that, but, as has been said, many recommendations were not accepted and that was the nature of the commitment that was made by the government. We made the commitment to review those recommendations, not to accept them all, not to implement them all but to review them and to see what could be done about those recommendations that were worthy of action and those recommendations that were worthy of support.
We stipulated in our election commitment—in fact, it was in our platform—two particular recommendations that had received a good deal of public interest and a good deal of concern. We made sure that the debate internally around those issues was considered carefully and we looked to the question of what should be done with those particular issues. On this occasion and in this response one of those key issues—British nuclear test participants—has been addressed.
What is funny about it is speakers from the opposition saying ‘this has taken too long’, ‘it hasn’t gone far enough’, ‘some of these recommendations shouldn’t have been acted upon’ or whatever—take your pick. But let us remember what this means. This is an opposition complaining about the fact that this government is taking too long to address issues that they refused to address when in office. These recommendations were rejected by the previous government. It is great to see speakers like the member for Fadden and the member for Greenway standing up and endorsing, to a large extent, what is in the legislation and saying these are positive moves forward, even though the member for Greenway is a member of the party that rejected those recommendations—not so much the member for Fadden, seeing as he is a new member. I agree with him that action is long overdue in relation to submarine service, but, frankly, it was reviewed by the Howard government and it was rejected. I agree that action is long overdue on the question of Clarke’s recommendation about British nuclear test participants, but, frankly, the previous government refused to go any further than they did with their response in 2006, which provided white card coverage for cancer treatment.
Every single dollar under this legislation is a dollar that goes to members of the veterans community. It is money that they did not get, would not have got and were refused by the previous government. So it is funny to have the opposition stand in here today and talk about how long it has taken. It took them a long time to consider the issues in the first place, but then they were very clear: the answer was no. I am very proud of being part of a government where today the answer is yes on some of these issues. I am very proud to be part of a government that is moving forward in dealing with some of those outstanding concerns.
There are other issues that have been raised today which again I would like to comment on and which I think also tell part of that story. The member for Blair made much of the F111 deseal-reseal program, and I know in comments if not today then certainly in the appropriations debate that the shadow minister, the member for Greenway, raised issues in relation to that. The member for Blair made the point that this was a positive $55 million commitment in the forward estimates to deal with issues around the deseal-reseal program—that it expanded significantly the number of people who were covered and gave people access to opportunities to receive compensation and health care for conditions they had developed. The shadow minister said of the F111 Deseal-Reseal Support Group:
They feel incredibly let down by the response to the review.
Maybe she should go back and check with them now, because I met with them in Brisbane subsequent to the budget announcement to discuss the issues around the response and what it means for the people that they have concerns about—and it is fair to say that there are concerns that remain. But one of the key people in that group, who has had a long involvement in this issue, Kathleen Henry, said in an open meeting, ‘I think you’ve got this 90 per cent right.’
I will tell you what else: this was the result of a parliamentary inquiry conducted under the chairmanship of the member for Brisbane, Arch Bevis. It was a parliamentary inquiry that was a commitment I made as the shadow minister, in opposition, out at Amberley at a meeting of the deseal-reseal support group. I remember it very clearly because at the time I was not sure what the answer was, I was not sure what needed to be done here, but I was concerned about the level and degree of concern being expressed by those people about their circumstances. I could not commit, and it would not have been sensible to commit, to firm action at that time in terms of a monetary sum or a system, but I committed to having the parliamentary inquiry. ‘Let’s have a look at it,’ I said, and that is what they wanted us to do.
The next speaker after me that day was the then minister, the member for Dunkley. I have a lot of time for the member for Dunkley and, as I have said on the public record, I think he was a good Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. In his time as minister I think he addressed some issues where action was long overdue on a number of fronts. But on this one he dropped the ball, because he was asked for the same commitment that day and he refused to give it. We have the shadow minister complaining about a response to an inquiry that, when they were in government, they refused to have. They refused to conduct it; they refused to allow it.
As I said, there is some $55 million, according to estimates from the department, in health care and compensatory support, potentially going to up to another 2,700 or so members who were actively involved in the deseal-reseal area, and every single dollar of that exceeds the requirement and the allowance of the previous government in terms of what they were prepared to do. The opposition are saying: ‘Oh, it took too long,’ and, ‘Oh, it doesn’t go far enough.’ Well, it goes a bloody sight further than what the previous government did over a decade. I might add that the general response within the ex-service community on that issue, on most occasions—certainly from those who have actually read it—has been positive.
The shadow minister also mentioned the review of ESO advocacy and welfare services, commonly known as the BEST review. It has been put, as I understand it, that this has been sitting on my desk. It started sitting on my desk today—today; not a month ago, not six months ago. I received it today, and what I received is what we said and what I have said publicly it would be: a key issues paper for circulation. I have made that very clear to the ex-service community.
There are concerns about this review and there is good reason to be concerned, because it is a complex area. It is a complex area in terms of providing support where the ex-service organisations need it and where the people that they service need it. It is a complex area in which to make sure things are done properly, transparently and fairly. There have been issues, and the ESOs know that. It is one of the reasons why, despite their concerns about what the result might be, they have overwhelmingly supported the review. It has been embraced because people know there are issues that need to be looked at. I might add that there were probably more issues under the previous government, the reason being that there was less funding provided in their forward estimates for this program compared to what we have provided. So, if there are problems now, goodness knows what the problems would have been if the previous government had been returned. We are going to work through the issues in that review because it is important, but we are going to work through them with the ex-service community to ensure that we get a good outcome to deal with some of the issues in the future.
My understanding is that it was also said, if not in the appropriations debate then today, that there were concerns about the MRCA review. I think it was said that I verballed the opposition so they would not support it. No. What I said was: when they were in government and they established the system in terms of the MRC Act, it was said by all and sundry, frankly, that there ought to be a review of it once it had been in operation for several years. I said that when we committed to that in opposition the then government did not.
This is another example of today’s opposition all of a sudden on the road to Damascus having an epiphany and deciding that they will now support something. It was not that long ago that they were in government and had an opportunity to deal with these issues but did not. It was not that long ago that they just sat on their hands.
Concerns have been raised about the pharmaceutical costs review—it is long-awaited but still has not quite been delivered. Many ex-service organisations regularly raised the very important issue of the cost of medications to deal with war caused disabilities. The commitment from the opposition at that time—the Labor Party—was to review that area to achieve a fair outcome for those who have war caused disabilities. It was always made very clear that this commitment would be acted on very late in the term, and the bottom line is that is what is happening. Once again this issue was raised repeatedly with the then government and they refused to take any action. Again this government is being criticised by the opposition for taking too long to consider an issue that they refused to consider. Frankly, it smacks of hypocrisy.
There has been quite a bit of debate on military superannuation matters, which are also relevant to this. There was some debate yesterday on the legislation relating to the governance of superannuation schemes in the government sector. It has been suggested by members of the opposition that I made commitments prior to the last election to remove the confusion and ensure there was certainty.
Once again they were sitting on a report—they had information and they would not release it. Once again they had the ability to ensure people understood what was being considered, but they refused to do anything about it. It has been suggested that it has taken too long to consider Clarke. Yet they sat on that review for three months. They sat on that review for only three months because the election was called. I suspect that, if we had had another 12 months to wait, they would have sat on it for another 12 months because there was absolutely no sign of it coming out before the election.
We have the opposition intimating they may take action around issues like indexation in the longer term when they are back in government and when the budget is in surplus, yet they were in government for over a decade and overwhelmingly in that time the budget was in surplus and they did not do it. In fact, the opposition sat on the report. When we released that report, it was roundly turned on by the ex-service and defence community as being not the way they thought the government should be going. The Rudd government publicly released a report produced under the previous government, as we committed to do. Having released it, we sought to have it discussed and commented on. We had a process for that. The response from that process was, ‘We don’t want this,’ and we have been looking at the issue since.
I am happy to admit that it is taking a long time and it is taking too long. I am hoping to make some announcements in the next few weeks about where we will go with that issue. I think the opposition need to make clear whether they are supporting the Podger recommendations, the recommendations that were taken out of a review conducted under their stewardship. Are they saying they think that should be the military superannuation scheme for this country?
The opposition also should have a think about what they are doing with the superannuation governance bills that are heading towards the Senate. The improvements and efficiencies that will be made by that new system will mean real dollars in the hands of military superannuants in the years to come, as they retire. Depending on the circumstances of the individual—their rank and their length of service—the lump sum under the MSBS that they will receive towards the end of their career will be between an additional $20,000 and $50,000. When this parliament has the opportunity to provide people with those sorts of benefits I do not think we should be playing politics with issues of symbolism—and that is what it is. I think that, when serving personnel on the bases around this country understand what the implications of the action being taken by the opposition are for their final payments, they are not going to be real happy. I do not think they are going to think that is a good or fair way to go.
On the question of British nuclear test participants—one of the key issues covered by this bill—I want to put on the public record that we are talking about compensation, pensions et cetera being in the region of $24 million over the next four years. I also need to put on the record what that means in the longer term. We estimate on the basis of the age profiles of the people involved and their expected longevity that, although it is $24 million over the first four years, it will be some $71 million over the first 10 years. Beyond that, over 20 years, it will be in the region of $135 million. There is significant compensatory support to be paid out over time, as is the system under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act.
I commend the bill to the House. I urge the opposition to concentrate on criticising what we actually have done rather than what they say we promised to do when we never, ever did so.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
5190
Mr GRIFFIN
(Bruce
—Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel)
12:30:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
CHILD SUPPORT AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (BUDGET AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2010
5190
Bills
R4341
Second Reading
5190
Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Ms Macklin:
That this bill be now read a second time.
5190
12:31:00
Andrews, Kevin, MP
HK5
Menzies
LP
0
0
Mr ANDREWS
—I rise to speak on the Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2010. This bill is designed to align legislative arrangements relating to child care, particularly those relating to payments. Firstly, the bill aligns child support pay income estimate periods with financial years rather than child support years. Essentially, this changes the period over which income estimates are reconciled from 15 months to a financial year. This will ensure greater accuracy and efficiency as it is a simpler process to assess taxable income at the end of the financial year. This will also reduce delays in the automated reconciliation process.
Secondly, the bill will align care determinations under both the family assistance law and child support legislation. This amendment will allow parents or carers who are recipients of family tax benefit and who are paying or receiving child support to have the same care determinations made for a child in the case of a child having multiple carers.
Thirdly, this bill also allows for payments of family tax benefit to recipients who have not lodged their tax returns in the hope of having a lower accessible income to be cancelled. This will allow parents or carers who are entitled to FTB and also child support payers or payees to have the same care determinations made for a child where the care of the child involves more than one carer. This payment will be based on their adjusted taxable income.
The coalition has a proud history of child support policy. It was the former coalition government that established the Family Law Hotline to enable Australians to access information and advice about family law and child support issues. It funded a child support strategy that was aimed at improving post-separation relationships and encouraging parents to maintain contact with their children, which, evidence shows, will increase the likelihood of child support liabilities being met. It let payers with second families claim 100 per cent of child support paid as a deduction from the household income used for determining family tax benefit and the childcare benefit entitlements and increased the family tax benefit income test deduction for child support paid by non-resident parents with a subsequent family.
It was also the former coalition government that offered unemployed parents who had a child support responsibility access to community based parenting and relationship support services. When relationships break down and children are involved and where parents cannot agree on what support should be provided, our child support system plays an important part in ensuring that appropriate support is provided. If the government were serious about helping families and resolving disputes quickly and amicably, they would not have cut $50 million from family relationships centres and marriage counselling services in this year’s budget.
But Labor did just that. Mr Rudd, the Prime Minister, has demonstrated that the government is genuinely disinterested in families when it comes to ensuring smooth and efficient dispute resolution. For example, the government has decided not to replace four judges in the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court, placing unnecessary pressure on the judiciary, meaning that family law matters will now take even longer to get to court, let alone to be resolved.
The decision to cut almost $50 million from the Family Relationships Support Program is one to be deplored. In the budget papers the Treasurer announced a $4.5 million slashing of funding to marriage counselling in Australia. What was not in the budget papers, but was revealed in the next 24 to 48 hours, was a further slashing of $43.9 million to the family relationships centres. As my colleague here at the table will recall, these family relationships centres were established by the previous government—
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr Hartsuyker
—And very important too.
HK5
Andrews, Kevin, MP
Mr ANDREWS
—and were very important centres. I think there were about 65 of them throughout Australia, set up with the intent of providing a place where families having disputes and problems or issues with their relationship could go to a one-stop shop for assistance. They could obtain advice, information and assistance in relation to those disputes with a hope that reconciliation of the difficulties might be achieved and, where reconciliation could not be achieved, to at least conciliate rather than litigate the outcome of those difficulties.
The problem with this sneaky decision—sneaky because it was not announced on the budget night and was not in the budget papers but we found out afterwards—to slash $43 million from family relationships centres is that the very centres, the very organisations, the likes of Relationships Australia in the various states, and Centacare and Anglicare and other similar agencies around Australia, charitable and voluntary agencies that are providing excellent services to Australian families, will have less funding to provide those valuable and important services to Australian families right throughout Australia. As I said, it is something to be deplored and condemned and it is hard to understand why a government that routinely has used the phrase ‘working families’ in its rhetoric would actually pull funding out from the very services that provide support for families right around this nation. There has been no explanation as to why that has been done. As I said, it is regrettable in the circumstances.
The coalition support legislation that makes the interface of citizens and government departments and agencies simpler. We support aligning legislation in the areas of child support and family assistance to make life easier for parents and carers. Because of that, we will be supporting this bill.
5191
12:37:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—Family bonds are the link to our own being and, as a guide to our future, we rely on families a lot. As I have said in this place many times in a range of different debates, there is also no doubt about the cost of raising a family—and having three kids myself, and now four grandkids, let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it does not stop when they leave school or university. I guess that is one of the things that comes with parenting. There is a commitment to children because that is what we do, that is innate in us as parents. Without trying to put too fine a point on it, there are very real costs in raising children, with cost pressures associated with a range of different things, from school, to sport, to everything else.
Unfortunately, an inescapable fact of life—and this statistic is extraordinary—is that for every, I think, 2.3 or 2.4 marriages or unions there is one separation. That has a real impact not only on the social and emotional wellbeing of the family but also on the financial aspects of raising children. Having been married now, as of last May—I have got this figure right—for 34 years—
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Congratulations.
ECV
Hayes, Chris, MP
Mr HAYES
—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I could give you the date too, but I won’t! My youngest son has been through a separation and I know the impact that has had emotionally on both sides and I know the effect on my granddaughter. It is something that involves the whole family and it is inescapable that people are going to look internally and externally for reasons. But, at the end of the day, we need to provide for the child. That is what this legislation we are debating is about—putting the child front and centre in all this. It is about encouraging parents to settle their disputes, to make sure that first, second and third in their thinking is the proper raising of their child. That is what we are attempting to do. We are not trying to say that we are removing the emotional and financial stresses. We are trying to put a better balance in place that will at least allow the parties to address the real issue at stake, and that is providing support for the child.
It is not uncommon for each of us as members of parliament to hear some very tragic stories when people come to our offices. Many of them are pretty emotional when they see us. We are the last port of call. In my electorate of Werriwa alone there are 11,000 kids on child support. We have to be pretty positive that we are making sure those kids in my electorate, and kids in the same situation in everybody else’s electorates, are given the best opportunity so that they are not scrounging and will not be apologetic for life about coming from a separated family. We have to make sure that they are able to participate and feel included in a normal life as a child. This is what we are trying to do. As I said, parents have to learn to sort out their problems as maturely as they can, and I know that it is often somewhat difficult. But we must focus our arguments and our attention on what we deliver for these young people who are going to go on to become the Australians leading this country in the future. Responsibility does not just start and stop with the parents. We need to focus their attention on the cost factors associated with the child and we want to make sure that they are reasonably met.
The bill before us, the Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2010, will do a couple of things. Firstly, it will introduce amendments making rules easier for separated families by implementing the 2009 budget measure aligning care determinations between family assistance and child support. The Child Support Scheme aims to ensure that children receive the appropriate level of child support from their parents. Conversely, to assist with the costs of raising children, many parents receive family tax benefit. Under the current arrangements, the Family Assistance Office and the Child Support Agency use different rules to determine the care levels for child support and family assistance, and this creates inconsistencies and unnecessary duplication of processes and decision making between both agencies.
Under the current rules, where there is no alignment, parents may not receive their correct assessments unless they separately notify each agency. Unquestionably, this can put additional strain on separated parents who have to deal with two agencies and two different sets of rules. As a consequence, there can be numerous elements of inconsistency. To address this, the bill makes amendments to provide for a single determination of care for both child support and family tax benefit purposes. Aligning the determinations of care will provide consistency in decisions about the level of care being provided by separated parents who have to deal with both agencies. Another advantage expected is that this will reduce objections and appeals flowing from the separate determinations in the two agencies.
To those parents I have had to have discussions with on this, I say that the government is listening, is taking these matters into account and is trying to make it easier for them to balance their arrangements and finances and to do what they need to do in making provisions for their children.
The bill also makes improvements to the process of estimating income for the purposes of child support. To determine their child support obligations, some parents estimate their income. The estimate is reconciled with the actual income earned and various corrections are made to ensure that the correct amount is being paid. Currently, when parents estimate their income to calculate their obligations under the Child Support Scheme, it is for a child support period of 15 months. This period can cross over up to three financial years.
It comes as no surprise that estimating income over multiple financial years can be difficult for parents and often leads to inaccuracies. As a consequence, debts and credits can accrue. Often, reconciliation cannot occur until the parent’s actual income for each financial year is known. We are therefore introducing measures that will help align these child support periods directly with financial years. This measure will make it easier for parents to estimate their income, which will be automatically determined with the filing of your tax return. This will mean that people will not have to wait until the end of their child support period before making adjustments. When you submit your tax return at the end of the year, the estimate will be automatically reconciled and this reconciliation can be taken into account in making any necessary adjustment. I can confirm that these amendments will not affect the length of the child support period, being 15 months, but they will make the adjustment process more practical and will allow it to occur automatically, as I said, with the filing of the income tax return.
Lastly, there is a minor amendment to family assistance provisions. The bill excludes two circumstances from the provisions that prevent family tax benefits being paid if tax returns have not been lodged. This amendment will put in place more flexible arrangements for the 2008-09 budget measures, which have applied since January of this year, 2010, to suspend fortnightly tax benefit payments for recipients who have not lodged tax returns and who have a family tax benefit debt as a consequence of not filing those returns. The budget measure was designed not to punish people but to encourage family tax benefit customers to lodge their tax returns to ensure that they receive accurate payments and, as a consequence, to reduce the incidence of overpayments. It was a measure that was recommended following the 2007 Australian National Audit Office report and one that is made more flexible by this legislation.
I know this suite of amendments will not remedy the issues that arise for young people when relationships tragically break down, but what we are trying to do is to make sure that the loving products of those relationships, the children, have a fair stake in their life ahead. We are trying to encourage parents not to use children as weapons in protracted disputes but rather, in a loving way, to make sure that their children are put first and foremost in a way which provides for their future. I commend the bill to the House.
5194
12:49:00
Ellis, Annette, MP
5K6
Canberra
ALP
1
0
Ms ANNETTE ELLIS
—I rise to support the Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2010 and I am glad to have the opportunity to address the issues that it raises. The Child Support Scheme, as we know, was first introduced over 20 years ago by the Hawke government. It was implemented to ensure that separated parents share the cost of raising their children, subject to each of their financial capacities to do so. The system was, however, subject to heavy criticism over many years at a variety of different levels. It was subject to confusion, to misunderstanding and, in some cases, to misuse. Many parents felt that the child support formula was unfair and, whilst parents could understand the need for a system that looked after children, they felt that the system in place did not in some cases give them a fair go. For instance, many parents felt that it did not take into account the often large costs that were incurred by the non-custodial parent when the children were under their care.
The 2003 report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs entitled Every Picture Tells a Story found that, of the 597,000 families who had a child with a natural parent living elsewhere, 41 per cent received no child support, 42.3 per cent received cash child support and a further 16.3 per cent received only in-kind child support. In the report of the Ministerial Taskforce on Child Support entitled In the best interests of children—reforming the Child Support Scheme, a number of issues were identified. For instance, the report found that, under the fixed percentages that were paid in child support, it was assumed that people across the income range spent the same proportion of their income on children. However, the research of the task force found that, while the higher the household income the more parents spent on their children in dollar figures, expenditure actually declined as a percentage of their income. The report also found that, in setting the percentages paid in respect of children regardless of their age, the scheme did not adequately reflect the much larger cost of caring for teenagers, which was estimated at two to three times the cost of caring for younger children. The report also found that the system in place at the time did not take into account the issue of parents who had started new families with children and the extra associated costs that those children brought to their lives. These were just a few of the issues raised. There were many more.
In response to the Ministerial Taskforce on Child Support, the system was subject to a major overhaul between 2006 and 2008 to provide a fairer and more flexible calculation of child support. A key element of the reforms was the development of a new formula to calculate how much child support would be paid by using an income shares method, which calculates and shares the costs of children between the parents according to their share of the combined income. Currently, approximately 1.1 million children are supported through this scheme.
The amendments put forward by the government aim to build on the recent changes already made to the system. Firstly, they allow for the implementation of the 2009 budget measure of aligning care determinations between family assistance from Centrelink and from the Child Support Agency. This will create simpler rules for separated families. Currently, the Family Assistance Office, which covers Centrelink and Medicare, uses rules to determine care levels for child support and family assistance that are different to the rules used by the Child Support Agency, creating inconsistent processes and decision making between the two agencies. Under current arrangements, where the rules between the Family Assistance Office and the Child Support Agency differed, many parents did not receive their correct assessments unless they notified each agency separately.
It would be fair to say that many separated families undergo the strains of tense and acrimonious circumstances. Many members in this place, including me, can attest that very strongly. The fact that parents had to deal with two different sets of rules under the two agencies created additional strain within these families. This need not happen. These amendments will make a single determination of care for both child support and family tax benefit purposes, thus removing the acrimony that can be created by separate decisions. It is expected that it will also reduce the number of objections and appeals that are lodged as a result of the two different determinations from the two agencies. Therefore, it has the added bonus of saving Australian taxpayers money—money that was spent unnecessarily on appeals—through simple clarification of the system.
Secondly, the amendments will correct anomalies that occur where parents estimate their income. Some parents estimate their income, and this estimate is reconciled against their actual income to ensure that the correct amounts have been paid and received. Under the current system, parents can estimate their income for a period of up to 15 months. This period has the potential to cross over into three different financial years. Understandably, where this means that parents have to estimate income over multiple financial years, it can easily lead to inaccuracies in their estimates.
One of the outcomes of these amendments will be to align estimate periods with financial years, thus making it easier for parents to estimate their income. Once their actual income is known, it will allow the Child Support Agency to reconcile the estimate automatically. These amendments do not affect the length of the child support period, which will remain at 15 months. However, they will change the period over which the estimates are reconciled from 15 months to a financial year.
Thirdly, the amendments will put in place more flexible and fairer arrangements where fortnightly payments are ceased for parents who fail to lodge tax returns. Following recommendations in a 2007 Australian National Audit Office report into the reduction of family payment debts, new rules were introduced to encourage family tax benefit recipients to lodge tax returns in order to ensure that they received the correct amount that they were entitled to, thus reducing overpayments. These amendments will retain those arrangements. However, they are also more flexible in that they will allow payments to continue in circumstances where people do not have a family tax benefit debt, or where the cessation of payment would cause hardship.
There will also be the provision to suspend the loss of entitlement of family tax benefit where special circumstances apply. This measure is to target certain vulnerable sections of society, such as those affected by severe illness, domestic violence or bereavement. These measures build on and strengthen the comprehensive changes previously made to the child support system. The amendments make many improvements, particularly in the area of the estimation of family income. We are hoping, in fact we are planning, they will make the system fairer and more flexible.
As other members have said and as I wish to say as well, this system will probably never be perfect for the reason that, with this legislation and this area of public policy, probably more so than in any other area, we are dealing with human nature and intimate family relationships at a level that only those who are in those relationships can understand. It really can be a very difficult and very fraught area of public policy. The intent of these amendments and the intent of the legislation generally is to ensure that children in families where separation does occur are at the centre of the argument, the discussion and the debate, and that their ability to be cared for is uppermost in all of our minds. I know from the experience I have had in my office with some very difficult cases the lengths that people of both genders have gone to in the past to avoid their responsibility or to use the situation to pay back for some relationship issue they have had in the past. Where children are concerned, that cannot be countenanced. Where this legislation is concerned, everything we are doing is to put in place as safe and as secure a system as we can to allow the CSA process to work for the benefit of the children and the families concerned. I commend this bill to the House.
5196
12:59:00
Irwin, Julia, MP
83Z
Fowler
ALP
1
0
Mrs IRWIN
—In what may be my final speech in this House, I wish to make a few remarks reflecting on my close to 12 years as a member of this parliament and express my thanks to those who have made my time in this place memorable. In my first speech in November 1998, in a parliament which would see Australia and the world entering a new millennium, I saw my challenge in a quotation by Hillary Rodham Clinton, who on her graduation expressed this thought:
… for too long now, our leaders have used politics as the art of the possible. And the challenge now is to practise politics as the art of making what appears impossible, possible.
That is not an easy challenge, you would agree. On the same day as I made my first speech, the newly elected member for Griffith, now our Prime Minister, quoted Keynes’s well-known remark:
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slave of some defunct economist.
The member concluded:
Debate, therefore, about fundamental ideas … about the proper role of the state in the economy and society, is critical to an informed discussion about policy.
So it is with some sadness that, when I reflect on my years as a member of this parliament, I note there has been little achieved in this place in addressing these challenges. Indeed policy—whether it be economic, social or foreign affairs—is increasingly framed within a straightjacket of orthodoxy. Think tanks, academics, editorial writers and radio shock jocks all sing from the one song sheet, all the slaves of some defunct economist. They cast a long shadow over governments and, it seems, this parliament.
When I was first elected to this parliament, I had already been a member of the Australian Labor Party for more than 30 years. I have been described by some journalists as being the outspoken member for Fowler or ‘old Labor’. I wear those comments as a badge of honour. I believe that there are, as the title of the well-known Ben Chifley pamphlet declared, things worth fighting for. I saw my role as carrying on the causes that so many former members had fought so valiantly for.
I am one of the few remaining members who began their political life in what was the Labor Youth Council in the late 1960s. Its leaders then included Paul Keating, Laurie Brereton, Bob Carr and Leo McLeay. While we were on opposite sides of the factional aisle in those days, Leo proved to be a great supporter and friend during my earlier terms, and I thank him. Along with Michael Lee, those people held the soul of New South Wales Labor, and I believe Michael might have proved to be a fine Labor leader in time.
I should also mention Labor’s leader for most of my time here, Kim Beazley. On three occasions I walked proudly with Kim to caucus ballots, and each time he lost. I half expected Kim to ask me not to walk with him anymore, as I must bring him bad luck—so for that, Kim, I apologise. To my mind, Kim Beazley was the greatest Labor leader never to have become Prime Minister.
In my time here, my spirit has not always made me friends on either side of this House, but I believe it has earned me the respect of those who I hold in high regard, especially Senator Steve Hutchins, who has made that very long journey from the Senate to be here today, and that is all that matters to me, Steve.
On issues such as drug addiction—especially drug law reform—unemployment, single parents and refugees, I, like the Member for Kooyong, have not been afraid to take up the cause, even when doing so has not been in line with the popular view. And then there is Palestine. It could be said that foreign affairs matters are not often debated in this House, the Iraq War being one exception and the short debate on my Middle East peace motion in 2002 being another. The nature of that debate explained why that issue is rarely discussed in this parliament. Even the 2006 war on Lebanon did not raise more than a ripple of concern. It seems that our reluctance to participate in real debate about the Middle East has placed a muzzle over the parliament on all foreign affairs issues.
A large part of the work of backbench members is their work on policy committees. I have had the opportunity to serve on a number of committees which have conducted inquiries into issues of great concern to me.
I mention some of the inquiries which influenced me and which I believe have produced reports addressing some of the most important issues facing Australia today. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration report entitled Not the Hilton, which was tabled in 2000, reviewed migration detention centres at that time. The report raised concerns about conditions in migration detention centres and recommended improvements. However, unfortunately, in the wake of the Tampa incident and the so-called ‘Pacific Solution’, it seems that most of the committee’s recommendations were thrown overboard by the Howard government.
My longest committee experience was with the variously named committees on family and community services, and my friend Annette Ellis, the member for Canberra, chairs the current committee. The social policy area has always been my main focus in public life, and this committee conducted a number of inquiries which covered some of the thorniest issues faced in our society. We began in my first term with an inquiry into substance abuse. As the often-described ‘drug capital of Australia’—Cabramatta—was in my electorate, the issue was of vital importance to me. As with later inquiries, there were widely different approaches to the problem of drug abuse as well as a great deal of common ground. Not surprisingly, I found myself contributing a dissenting view on some parts of the final report tabled under the title, Road to recovery.
The next inquiry was into the controversial area of child custody. With the member for Riverina as chair, the inquiry made forthright recommendations on shared parenting and other custody issues which, thanks to the continued advocacy of the chair, have since been included in legislation. Other inquiries included overseas adoption and balancing work and family. Again, in the last inquiry, along with my Labor colleagues, a significant dissenting report was included.
In terms of winning and losing on the many issues confronted, I would have to say that I have lost more than I have won, which has brought some of my friends and some people in the media to award me the portfolio as the ‘minister for lost causes’. Perhaps because of my record, or in spite of it, I was appointed as the first Chair of the Petitions Committee, which was established in this term of the parliament. You could say that I have found my spiritual home, along with my deputy chair, a man of integrity, Russell Broadbent, the member for McMillan. I have certainly found it to be the most rewarding of my many roles in this place. In guiding the committee in its formative years, I have attempted at every opportunity to make the committee a sounding board for the people of Australia in this parliament and to welcome public participation in the parliamentary process. I am very pleased with the progress we have made and I look forward to the many potential developments in the petitions process which can enhance our parliamentary democracy.
The other role of members of this place is their work in the electorate. Having worked in electorate offices since 1975, I have seen the value of this part of a member’s duty. In assisting me to represent the people of my electorate of Fowler I have had the benefit of a loyal and dedicated staff. As I frequently remind them, it may be my name on the door, but we are all part of a team. I have been fortunate to have had long-serving staff, including Joy Petrovic, who has been with me from the beginning. Joy has assisted constituents efficiently and sympathetically as well as keeping me organised—and she has had to on many occasions—in times of acute chaos. I wish Joy and her husband, Petro, well in their future life with their family in Cairns. Margaret Brindley, also known by us as ‘Have a chat’, is the heart and soul of the office, whose political knowledge has been invaluable and whose service to constituents has been outstanding. Rocco Leonnello’s knowledge of the electorate, assistance with community groups and advice have been second to none. John Alam has ably supported me, particularly in Canberra. I promised him when he started with me two years ago that it would not be boring—and I think I have delivered on that front, John. Pina Violi, my relief staff, was thrown in at the deep end when she started but has been quick to learn, in spite of the political culture shock.
Others who have given so much of themselves in the past include Justin Lee, the wild man of my office and an adviser of the first order, and Dean Superina, who has always been a calming influence. Last but not least, Grahame Hungerford, who was with me for nine years, brought a touch of creativity as well as nitpicking correctness to the task. Grahame could be lovable, although infuriating at times, but he was dedicated and loyal to the end. All have shown great understanding and empathy with our local community and I could ask for no better support than I have had from all my staff in my years in this parliament.
I should at this time add my thanks to those on the other end of the phone—the parliamentary liaison officers in the various government agencies, in particular, Immigration, Centrelink and Veterans’ Affairs. Probably the most rewarding aspect of my work has been the small personal victories won on behalf of constituents, sometimes against an unfeeling bureaucracy but more often simply by putting a case on behalf of people who did not have the experience or resources to do so themselves.
In an electorate such as Fowler, where economic and social disadvantage are more commonly found than in most parts of Australia and where too often people are not aware of their rights or are afraid to press for their entitlements, I have always been proud to speak out on their behalf and felt especially receptive to their concerns. In such a diverse community as Fowler, community organisations have a special role to play. I am proud to have been associated with the ex-service organisations in Fowler—‘my boys’, as I call them—at Canley Heights RSL, Liverpool RSL and Cabra-Vale ex-services, and I specially mention the boys at Bonnyrigg Men’s Shed.
Indigenous and migrant community organisations have been crucial in developing the greater community of the Fowler electorate. Vietnamese, Chinese, Italian, Croatian, Serbian, Lebanese and so many other community associations and religious bodies provide the pillars for integration in our greater Australian society. I have been pleased to work with these organisations to benefit our local and national progress.
To my loyal ALP branch members go my sincerest thanks for their loyalty and support, for their patience and for their assistance. They are too many to mention by name, but let me acknowledge two people: Sid Hugen and Joan Windsor, whose wise counsel and staunch support over the years have been much appreciated. Without the support of the people of Fowler, my role here in this esteemed chamber would have been all the more difficult. It has been a singular honour to represent them, and I trust that my representation has played a small part in helping them to fulfil their aspirations.
After 11½ years as the member for Fowler, like many other members I could say that I have never stayed in one job for this long. For me that has meant travelling to Canberra from my home in Sydney. Considering my work as a staffer since 1990, that is now 20 years of driving down from Sydney. I can say that the road has improved quite a bit in that time, and I think at times I could almost make the drive with my eyes closed. But I am fortunate in that for the last 10 years I have had the hospitality of Anne and Michael Gardiner to look forward to on my arrival. I have come to feel a part of the Gardiner family and I have been privileged to share in their lives. As a member spending 20 or more weeks a year away from home, being able to spend some time with an ordinary family while in Canberra has kept me in touch with the real world, something that other accommodation would not have provided. While family are only a phone call away, it is always more comforting to have warm and caring people like Anne and Michael with whom one can share the ups and downs of each day of parliamentary life.
Another part of my extended family in Canberra—and I will mention them—have been the Comcar drivers. Always courteous and always friendly, they have helped me get off to a good start to each sitting day and seen me safely home after a hard day’s night, as well as kept us all in touch with the real world in, I will add, a most discreet way.
The same can be said of the attendants and security staff here at Parliament House. When you think of the time we spend locked away in here during sitting weeks, it would be impossible to endure if it were not for the friendly smiles and happy remarks of those staff. And I would especially thank the dedicated clerks and committee staff who make it all possible. If I have caused committee staff some angst over the years by insisting very strongly on making dissenting reports, they certainly showed no outward signs at the time.
And if I may, through you, Mr Speaker, make my peace with the chair for my many lapses in decorum.
009LP
Windsor, Antony, MP
Mr Windsor
—No!
83Z
Irwin, Julia, MP
Mrs IRWIN
—Yes, I am apologising! I do not know if I hold the record for female members of this House—I may share the record with my friend and my mentor, the Hon. Janice Crosio, former member for Prospect—for the number of occasions of being sin-binned during question time, and possibly two or three times being asked to leave for 24 hours. But I assure you, Mr Speaker, that this morning—and you are going to be very, very proud of me—I finally did take the trouble to read standing order 94 and I can now see what all the fuss was about. And having said that, can I thank speakers past and present for the many indulgences I have been allowed over the years and in particular today.
Which leaves me with the other 148 members of the House, friends and foes alike. As has been said before, not all the foes are on the other side of the House and not everyone on this side can be counted as a friend. Can I say to the friends, and they definitely know who they are, I thank you for your friendship and support over my years in this place. And to those friends who will go on to the next parliament, can I offer the tribute made by Les Haylen—a man I have had discussions with for many years, along with his son Wayne—in his book Twenty years hard Labor:
To my mates in Canberra, the ones who saw clearest, fought hardest and suffered most in the struggle.
Mr Speaker, there is one other group that I must thank: my family. Unlike Petro, I am leaving this until the last. When I look back over what now seems a short time, I have seen my children, Rebecca and Blake, grow into adulthood, complete university and establish their own homes, and I am so proud of them. I have been blessed with two beautiful grandchildren, Liam and James Hunt, and I lost my beloved father, Alan Welsh, in 2006. Family life goes on regardless of what happens here in Canberra. With my mother, a true believer, a life member of the party, Lois Welsh, and my sister, Helen del Gallo, I have known the love, support and comfort of a very, very close family and I have been sustained through the highs and definitely the lows of life as a member of parliament by the love and support of my best friend, my husband, Geoff.
Those members fortunate to have a loving partner will understand the bliss at the end of a sitting week of returning to a home-cooked meal and a chance to shrug off the mask of life in Canberra. Thanks to Geoff I have been able to return for another bout, refreshed, rearmed and ready for another battle. While there is much that I will miss in Canberra, I am looking forward to the role finally of being a full-time wife, daughter, sister, mother and grandmother.
Mr Speaker, like Hillary Clinton I have not made the impossible possible, but I have definitely given it my best shot. I do leave this place with my heart bruised but it is definitely not broken, my spirit tested but not bowed and I leave with my integrity intact.
5201
13:19:00
Bidgood, James, MP
HVM
Dawson
ALP
1
0
Mr BIDGOOD
—To be or not to be a federal politician: that is the question. Why? Because it is the road less travelled as a career path. There are very few people who can truly relate to the experience. In fact, when I came to Canberra for the very first time in my life in November 2007 as the elected member for Dawson, I was told that I was the 1,020th federal member of parliament to be elected in 107 years of Federation. I recognise the honour and the privilege that was bestowed upon me by the 45,000 people who voted for me in that historic Rudd Labor election win, with a swing of 16.9 per cent and a two-party preferred vote swing of 13.2 per cent. Labor won the seat of Dawson for the first time in 32 years. I consider it to be the greatest political honour and achievement in my life. This would not have been possible without the dedication of the rank-and-file membership of an active volunteer base of the Australian Labor Party and union movement in the seat of Dawson.
So what is it that inspires a man or a woman to aspire to this office, where so many are called but so few are chosen by the people? For me, it was the passionate conviction in my heart for social and political change in our society and workplaces to improve the lot of everyday working people. All politicians are driven people. They are focused, determined and single-minded, and some, dare I say it, are ruthlessly ambitious. Their souls burn with conviction.
What drives me is the passion to fight injustice wherever that occurs, whether it is in the workplace or the home. It may be the worker who is being victimised because they are speaking out for better workplace health and safety, or asking for better wages and conditions. That is why I am so proud to be part of this historic Rudd Labor government that said it would scrap Work Choices, and we fulfilled and delivered that promise to the people of Australia. The good news for the workers of Australia is that this Rudd Labor government has saved you from unfair dismissal laws; this Labor government has saved your long service leave from being scrapped; this Labor government has saved your sick pay from being abolished. We can say with proud conviction that this Labor government has delivered to you, everyday working Australians.
The global financial crisis revealed corruption and bad trading activities overseas which resulted in global capitalism being put into crisis and in meltdown around the world. This, in turn, had a knock-on effect in this country. Thankfully, the people had a Labor government who had as its priority the protection of everyday jobs for people. We were engaged in an economic stimulus package, and that would not have happened under a conservative Liberal-National Party government. They would have let the anarchy of the free market rip and shred over 200,000 jobs. They would have explained it away as merely a market correction. This government has a totally different view. We intervened when capitalism went into crisis, and we stepped in to save those jobs from being lost. I believe in grassroots democracy, and that for me means being on the street meeting people outside newsagents, video stores, post offices, fish and chip shops and in the marketplace. During the election campaign it meant getting up at 5 am every day, being out at 6 am and standing outside the local newsagent, 7 am standing at a busy intersection greeting the early morning traffic and then, at 8 am, I would fulfil my duty as a single parent doing fifty-fifty child care, and take my kids to school.
I am proud to say I totally kept my commitment to my children during the whole electoral campaign, from April 2006 through to November 2007, as well as during the past 2½ years as a member of this parliament. It is not easy being a member of parliament and a single parent. I know there are a small number of people on both sides of this House who really know what it is like. Two of my three children are in the gallery today—Zoe, who is nine, and my son, Jade, who is eleven. Jazmin, who is 14, could not make it today as she has had exams this week. My children are the most important people in my life, and I will always love and be proud of them. I love their straightforward and ruthless honesty. Being a member of parliament also puts a huge strain on relationships, partnerships, family life and personal time. Political life has caused a rollercoaster of emotions for my partner Davina, and I want to thank her for her love through all the highs and lows over the last four years.
I want to thank Brendan Greenhill and Lee Webster, a great couple who housed me at Curtin in their spare room. These good friends of mine I knew in Bowen before they moved to Canberra just before the election. They have truly given me a home away from home; a real brother and sister who looked after me with wonderful hospitality. Another good friend and brother who has been there through all the rough and tumble of this job is the member for Blair, Shayne Neumann—you are a good man, and I will deeply miss your company and our long political, religious and social conversations. There was never a dull moment!
I would love to name all 34 of my Labor colleagues in the class of 2007—but time is of the essence! So I wish to have the whips list of new Labor members’ names and photos included in this speech. Perhaps I will table that. I am proud to be with you in history as helping to form the Rudd Labor government. Each and every one of you has so much potential, talent and vision to serve the Australian people. Thank you for all your friendship and support.
I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the full cabinet and ministers in their commitment to grassroots democracy demonstrated by bringing the federal cabinet to Mackay in June 2008. That was a historic first for the city. Also I want to acknowledge the three other visits in this term of government by the Prime Minister as well as his three visits during the election campaign. The people of Dawson know you take the contribution of the region and its value to the bottom line of the nation’s wealth very seriously, compared with the previous Prime Minister who visited only once in 11 years. I can say with confidence to the Prime Minister that your sacrifice of time has borne fruit and it is widely appreciated in the community that this government has delivered for the people of Dawson.
Funding for Dawson includes, for example: roads $350 million, including $50 million for the southern approach to Mackay and $95 million for the port access road in South Townsville; health, $6.1 million for brand new training facilities for dental care at the base hospital in Mackay and a new clinical training facility at the Mater Hospital; and education, 2,022 computers for secondary schools across Dawson, $121,247,926 for the Building the Education Revolution, with 278 individual projects across Dawson, and $9,376,617 for trade training centres. In May 2010 the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard—who I think has done a fantastic job—visited the nearly completed TTC for the Mackay Christian College-Carlisle Christian College-Whitsunday Anglican cluster. There is also a state cluster made up of Mackay North, Mackay High, Mirani High, Pioneer High and Sarina High. This project is in danger if the Liberal-National Party form the next government. There is no guarantee for that cluster. For training and TAFE, there is $2,645,000 for the Mackay TAFE Training Infrastructure Investment for Tomorrow program, and $2,630,994 for Better TAFE Facilities Program projects in Bowen, the Burdekin Cannonvale and Mackay
There was funding for community infrastructure: $4.9 million for Mackay Regional Council, Whitsunday Regional Council and Burdekin Shire Council; there was $742,727 under the National Bike Path Project for the Whitsunday Regional Council. Under Caring for our Country there was the Reef Rescue package worth $15,106,424 in 2008-09 and 2009-10. That is delivering for the people of Dawson. There was the Better Regions program. There is more! There was $8.8 million for the Mackay Stadium; $4 million for the Bluewater Lagoon; the Australian Mining Innovation Centre based in Mackay is worth $14 million. For social housing, there was $24,496,692 for 82 new housing units and 281 units to undergo repairs and maintenance.
I am proud to be a part of this government’s increases in pension payments—the best in 100 years. These increases, following on from 2009, mean that total pension payments for those on the maximum rate, including base rate and pensions supplement, is $701.10 a fortnight for singles and $1,057 a fortnight for couples, combined. This represents an increase of around $100 per fortnight for singles and around $74 a fortnight for couples, combined, in pension payments as a result of the government’s increases and indexation in 2009. Wayne Swan, the Treasurer, has done a fantastic job in delivering for the pensioners across the whole nation.
To all my electoral staff, I say thank you for all your work during very difficult times, particularly during the Mackay floods in February 2008. We had only just moved into our federal office in December 2007 and then were completely flooded out. We moved into my house and operated from a spare lounge room for three months. Then we moved to The Dome Shopping Centre in Mackay’s CBD before finding permanent accommodation in November 2008. It was an incredibly disruptive and stressful first year. No-one should underestimate the problems it caused on many different fronts. I still have all the same staff. None of us had worked in a federal office before, and I can tell you that we are now all older, wiser and greyer. I put on record thanks to government services based in Brisbane for all their help in re-establishing offices we could work from. I also thank all parliamentary staff in this building and thank the Comcar drivers for their professionalism in helping MPs do their job. I thank Roger Price, the Chief Government Whip, for his wisdom and advice over the last 2½ years and all the executive for their support.
I, James Bidgood, federal member for Dawson, can stand here today with my hand on my heart and truly say I made a promise to deliver for the people of Dawson. The Rudd Labor government and I have delivered over $600 million to the people of Dawson in 2½ years—more than was delivered in the previous 2½ years of the conservative Liberal-National Party government. The only way for this to continue is for the people of Dawson to vote Labor in the upcoming election. I totally endorse Mayor Mike Brunker of the Whitsunday Regional Council who is the new Labor candidate for the seat of Dawson. I am proud to have established a Labor legacy in the seat of Dawson, and long may it remain a Labor seat into the future. I have passionately served with all of my heart, soul, body and mind. I have given 110 per cent, and I thank the people of Dawson for the honour of serving them.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—During the member for Dawson’s contribution he sought to include material in Hansard. There were no dissenting voices, so I take it that leave was granted. However, that might be a challenge to the Speaker’s guidelines for incorporation, so, given the intent and the generous spirit of the member for Dawson, leave will be granted for the documents to be tabled and they will form part of the parliamentary papers.
5204
13:34:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—I will speak briefly in relation to the Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2010. The organisations which impact on Australians the most in terms of services are Centrelink, Medicare and the Child Support Agency. These government agencies impact on people’s lives by providing financial support, providing care, reimbursing people for their health costs, and providing assistance at times of loss of economic security through the loss of jobs and at other times. Making sure that there is alignment in relation to these great government organisations is absolutely crucial to ensuring that we deal with Australians consistently and decently. We need to make sure that they have access to all the information and financial support that enables them to meet their family’s needs, pay for their household challenges and get the kind of health care and assistance that they richly deserve in the Australian community. We want to make sure that they have the kind of help that allows them to clothe themselves, house themselves, educate their children and make sure they have jobs and job security. These are vital for the needs of average Australians.
The bill makes amendments to implement our budget measures. It lines up care determinations between the Family Assistance Office and the Child Support Agency; it makes improvements to estimating the income for the purpose of child support; and it makes some minor changes in relation to family assistance law to exclude two circumstances from the provisions that prevent the payment of family tax benefit on the basis of an income estimate if the relevant tax returns have not been lodged.
Since coming to office the Rudd government has been diligent and determined to deliver significant reforms across a suite of areas, particularly in areas of pension reform. The member for Dawson talked about the very significant pension reforms—the largest pension rises and the biggest change in the 100 years of Australian Federation. We have substantially increased assistance to carers for those with a disability and in the House of Representatives we have legislated for Australia’s first Paid Parental Leave scheme. These things make Australia’s systems of help for families better and simpler. It is a real scheme that we believe will make a difference in people’s lives. Those opposite have failed to assist Australian families, whether it is in the area of paid parental leave, the area of social security and pensions, or whether it is in the area of child support and other sorts of assistance.
We have provided enormous assistance. The Child Support Agency was a reform of the Hawke-Keating government back in the late 1980s. For a long time before that—decades before that—the child maintenance systems in this country were inadequate. When I was practising as a family lawyer all manner of child maintenance was avoided by both mothers and fathers at various stages. You had to end up taking cases to court on behalf of clients who were not being paid, often without legal assistance. It was a really difficult set of circumstances. Enforcing those orders were very difficult and costly for people in time, effort and money. The Child Support Scheme, for all its failings, faults and foibles, has taken us forward. It is not without difficulty or problems. It interfaces with people at the coalface. Most people do not get charged with criminal offences, most people do not involve themselves in fraud, most people do not have contract breaches, most people are not injured in car accidents and most people do not face the litigation system in this country. But many people end up separating from their partners and spouses, and child support becomes a real thing of them.
The child support systems in this country say very clearly that parents have a primary obligation to support their children and provide for their proper needs from reasonable and adequate shares in the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of both parents. It is stated very clearly in the Child Support (Assessment) Act. Similar words are used with respect to the care of children in the Family Law Act. Indeed, in section 3 and section 114 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act the act says that there are extra duties and responsibilities and that parents have a primary duty to maintain their children. If people are unhappy with the outcome of the decision that is made with respect to child support, they can always seek internal reviews and they can rely upon section 117 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act, which sets out the grounds for departure orders. They can undertake internal reviews and then look at the SSAT and the Federal Magistrates Court for further justice if they feel they have been hard done by.
The legislation here makes the interaction between the family assistance provided to people and the child support arrangements more consistent. In determining people’s child support obligation some parents use an estimate of their income and that estimate is then reconciled against actual income to make sure the correct amounts are paid or received. Also, if they are not happy with a child support assessment and a feel that their income is 85 per cent of or less than the actual estimate, they can, under section 60 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act, request the Child Support Agency to look at it again.
We have made changes in this regard in terms of the estimates and the reconciliation. The measure in schedule 1, which talks about child support income estimates, will make it easier for people to estimate their income and allow the Child Support Agency to reconcile the estimates automatically once the actual income is known. The amendments do not amend the length of the child support period, which remains at 15 months. The amendments only change the period over which an estimate can be reconciled—from 15 months to a financial year. That makes sense, because most people look at their budgetary arrangements on a financial year basis.
There are also changes with respect to percentage of care. This implements a 2009-10 budgetary measure to create simpler and clearer rules for separated families. We know that the Child Support Scheme aims to provide adequate levels of child support, which of course is used to meet children’s needs. But there is also assistance given with family tax benefits, which help parents pay for their costs of raising their children. Currently the Family Assistance Office—that is really Centrelink and Medicare—and the Child Support Agency use different rules with respect to determination of care levels for child support and family assistance. Those care levels are always difficult and problematic, and often discussions with respect to these matters take place on the doorstep of courts and also in lawyers’ offices, at mediations and arbitration, at conciliation conferences and at Family Relationship Centres.
The reconciliation and removal of inconsistencies and unnecessary duplication is a good thing. The amendments make plain it is to provide a single determination of care for both child support and family tax benefit purposes. There are some amendments, too, with respect to schedule 3, as it deals with more flexible arrangements with respect to details concerning family tax benefits. That follows a recommendation of the Australian National Audit Office in a report concerning the reduction of family payment debts. This second change will have some benefit, because there are people whose personal and financial circumstances are such that they are vulnerable and are open to challenges. Dealing with separation is really hard. They do not always think of Centrelink and Medicare changes or electoral enrolment changes or child support issues.
I was a litigation lawyer practising in family law for more than 20 years before I came to this place. People do not always think as clearly as they should or as they would normally think when they separate and are facing circumstances that they never thought they would face. Often they are affected by illness, domestic violence or other circumstances which cause them not to think clearly. Anything that makes the situation better for them or makes their circumstances easier with respect to family tax benefits is a good thing. Flexibility, simplicity and clarity are important for them in those circumstances.
The member for Menzies had a go at the government about family relationship centres and other types of assistance that we are providing within the family law system. But the member for Menzies did not talk about the great initiatives that the Rudd Labor government is undertaking in these areas—the extra $154 million that is being given to family law services, particularly legal aid services, for people who are facing child support issues and family relationship breakdowns. The previous government—the Howard government—gutted legal aid in this country. They came up with a ridiculous artificial distinction between Commonwealth matters and Commonwealth persons. The Rudd government is seeking to address the failures of the previous government to invest in legal aid, providing for Indigenous people and those with family law or child support needs in a way that the Howard government never thought to do. It is providing additional legal aid and putting a greater emphasis on family dispute resolution, particularly with the new civil dispute resolution bill implementing recommendations made by the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council. There is also a greater emphasis on mediation, particularly the use of family relationship centres for property and spousal maintenance matters, with very few exceptions.
The member for Menzies is simply not correct when he criticises the Rudd government’s commitment to alternative dispute resolution. We have improved access to justice with this bill. That was a budgetary measure. The Commonwealth contribution to legal aid services across the country now totals over $1.2 billion, far more than the Howard government ever had the wisdom, the wit or the will to undertake. We are putting a huge amount of resources into making sure that there is access to legal services in rural, regional and remote areas through providing additional funds. The previous government should stand condemned for its failure to provide adequate legal services.
In Ipswich in my electorate of Blair, we are giving additional assistance through Centrelink; Commonwealth, state and local government services; Job Services Australia; disability employment services; and education providers. Community welfare organisations are going to join Centrelink to provide improvements in services for disadvantaged job seekers. We are one of four locations across the country which will host this initiative. They will be wraparound type services—a local connections-to-work program, providing disadvantaged job seekers with access to justice. This will be all at one location, providing the kinds of services that will deliver for all of us and deliver for those who are disadvantaged, helping with financial assistance advocacy, housing, employment, health services and education as well as giving advice on child support and family assistance, which is the topic of this legislation.
This is important reformist legislation. Those opposite would not do it. Those opposite failed on legal aid, they failed on child support and they failed in providing these integrated services. It is up to the Rudd Labor government to do that which is necessary to help those in need.
5207
13:49:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
0
Ms MACKLIN
—in reply—I thank those who have contributed to the debate on the Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2010 and particularly recognise the previous speaker, the member for Blair, because he has considerable experience in this area. His contribution to the debate has been very valuable, as is his advice on child support and other family law matters.
The bill contains three measures affecting the family assistance law and child support legislation. All measures are largely administrative and are designed to make government systems easier for families. Firstly, the bill includes a measure from the 2009-10 budget that will align care determinations in the child support and family assistance systems. This will simplify administrative decision making, making life easier for separated families. Current rules allow for two different care percentages to be determined for the same child in child support and family assistance. This amendment will provide for a single determination of care that applies across both systems, bringing consistency and reducing administrative complexity.
Secondly, the bill amends the income estimate process under the Child Support Scheme. A number of parents provide an estimate of their income to assist in determining their child support obligations. To make sure that the correct amount of child support has been paid or received when actual income is known, the amount is reconciled against the estimated income. This amendment will align estimate periods with financial years and is intended to avoid inaccurate estimates, which can occur when parents are providing estimates for multiple financial years. It will also allow automatic reconciliation against tax returns, speeding up the reconciliation process. This will also help improve the accuracy of child support calculations to make sure that the correct information is used.
Lastly, the bill contains amendments to the family assistance law to provide greater flexibility in dealing with family tax benefit non-lodger debts. This will amend rules introduced in January this year that allowed for the temporary suspension of fortnightly family tax benefit payments where a person has not lodged their tax return more than 18 months after the end of the financial year. These amendments will give the secretary the discretion to determine that the rules that will apply in special circumstances and to clarify that, where there is no outstanding family tax benefit debt due to the failure to lodge a required tax return, the new provisions will not apply. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
5208
Ms MACKLIN
(Jagajaga
—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs)
13:53:00
—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS AMENDMENT BILL 2010
5208
Bills
R4369
Second Reading
5208
Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Stephen Smith:
That this bill be now read a second time.
5208
13:53:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Leader of the Nationals
0
0
Mr TRUSS
—This Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2010 underlines yet again the sheer administrative incompetence of the Rudd Labor government. It breaks at least four specific election promises. It is another botched program that shows this government’s complete lack of understanding that what business needs most is certainty.
In 2007 the Labor Party promised before the election that it would revitalise the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. It said it would increase the maximum grant by $50,000 to $200,000. It would allow the cost of patenting products in the international marketplace to be treated as an eligible export marketing activity. It would allow approved regional not-for-profit economic development bodies, including tourism bodies, which promote Australian exporters to access the scheme. It would lift the maximum turnover limit of eligible applicants from $30 million to $50 million. It would cut the minimum threshold of expenditure by $5,000 to a $10,000 minimum. It would extend the limit on the number of annual grants from seven to eight annually and it would replace the list of eligible services provided in Australia with a negative list which means all services would be considered eligible unless otherwise specified. The Labor Party said in its election platform:
These sensible changes will revitalise and update the EMDG and will assist businesses, especially small businesses, to break into the export market. The program will be more accessible, especially to businesses in the service sector and those based in regional areas.
I can recall debating these issues at the Lowy Institute with the then shadow minister for trade, the current minister, when he outlined the importance of all of these measures and promised Australian exporters that there would be a much more generous EMDG scheme in the future.
This bill breaks four of those commitments. One, the negative list for items to be covered, was never even implemented. So, in effect, almost all of the Labor Party’s pre-election promises to the tradie sector and almost all of the reforms that the government promised to make to the EMDG scheme are being reversed in this legislation. The scheme will largely go back to the scheme that was in place before Labor came into office. They said they would make substantial reforms. The reforms have not worked and now Labor is reversing those changes.
This bill will reduce the maximum grant from $200,000 to $150,000. It will reduce the maximum number of grants available for an individual recipient from eight to seven. It will cap intellectual property registration expenses at $50,000 per application. It will increase the minimum expense threshold from $10,000 to $20,000 and it will increase the eligibility income limit for members of approved joint venture consortia from $30 million to $50 million.
If we go back through these listed changes, the government in this legislation is reducing the maximum grant from $200,000 to $150,000. That is precisely the size of the maximum grant that the previous government had in place and that the government said it would change. They have decided to reduce the number of grants available to an individual recipient from eight to seven. The number of grants available under the previous government was seven. They are increasing the minimum expenses threshold from $10,000 to $20,000 and that is a specific reversal of the commitments that the government has made. It is indeed a humiliating backdown. The government is returning the scheme largely to the one that they inherited. All of the specific changes that the government said it would make are being reversed.
The EMDG scheme operates by reimbursing eligible enterprises for 50 per cent of the cost spent on specific export promotion activities above a threshold. The scheme has been capped at $150 million per annum since 1997 and through the forward estimates except in 2009-10 when a $200 million cap applied.
Labor knew that its changes to the EMDG scheme would cost more money but it only funded an amount for an increase for just one year. There was no additional funding provided in the long-term even though the government knew that a more generous scheme would inevitably cost more. So that they could allow for better refunds in 2007-08, there was some top-up funding in that year. That was a top-up for payments under the scheme of the previous federal government. So Labor knew that the scheme was more than exhausting the funds that were available. They promised additional grants and additional benefits but, in reality, did not offer the money that was going to be necessary to fund those benefits. Because this is a capped scheme, it meant inevitably therefore that thousands of small businesses—exporters—did not get the export market development grants that they expected—and had a right to expect—on the basis of the rhetoric of the government before the election.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
5209
Ministerial Arrangements
5209
14:00:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr RUDD
—I inform the House that the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency will be absent from question time today as he is attending the launch of the New South Wales Defence Industry Program in Sydney. Furthermore, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Defence Personnel will answer questions in relation to defence materiel and science and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will answer questions in relation to climate change and energy efficiency on his behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
5209
14:00:00
Questions Without Notice
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
—I demand the call.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. I will explain. We clarified that I would agree that, if the call was to my left and the Leader of the Opposition was jumping, in most circumstances I would give the call to the Leader of the Opposition. On this occasion, on that basis I will be giving the call to the Leader of the Opposition.
PRIME MINISTER
5210
Motions
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
5210
5210
14:01:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr ABBOTT
—I move—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 97a, which states, as you would be aware, that question time shall begin at 2 pm on each sitting day. If they do not want to have question time in future—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I have called on question time. I have given the call to the Leader of the Opposition. As the Leader of the House knows, even though I thought that the Leader of the Opposition might have been going to ask a question, the procedure that he is outlining is permissible. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
HW8
Symon, Mike, MP
Mr Symon interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Deakin is warned.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah from moving forthwith the following motion:
That the Prime Minister be called and address the House, for a period not exceeding 10 minutes to be followed by the Leader of the Opposition for the same time, to address the claim that his new mining tax will drive investment offshore, destroy jobs and risk Australia’s economic prosperity, and, in particular that the Prime Minister:
-
explain why his great big new tax doesn’t risk our prosperity when today’s announcement by Xstrata – to immediately suspend $586 million of investment in two Queensland mining projects and put 3,250 new jobs at risk – proves otherwise;
-
stop playing class war politics over the livelihoods of mining communities across Australia and dump his tax before any more projects are jeopardised or another job lost; and
-
stop hiding from the mining industry, the Parliament and the Australian people by stepping up to the mark today and defending his tax.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—You are surely not going to try to hide this Prime Minister again in this parliament; you are surely not trying to hide him again.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
14:04:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
14:08:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
77
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
59
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Katter, R.C.
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C. *
O’Dwyer, K
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D. *
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Washer, M.J.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the motion seconded?
5211
14:11:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
0
Mr HOCKEY
—I second the motion. He is losing jobs and he is too gutless to debate it.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
14:12:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
14:13:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
77
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
59
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Katter, R.C.
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C. *
O’Dwyer, K
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D. *
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Washer, M.J.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Original question put:
That the motion (Mr Abbott’s) be agreed to.
14:15:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
58
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Katter, R.C.
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C. *
O’Dwyer, K
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D. *
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Washer, M.J.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
77
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Franklin was on her feet seeking the call to ask a question because she wanted to—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
—Mr Speaker—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Kennedy will resume his seat.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
—When do I get a chance to speak?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Kennedy will resume his seat.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
5213
14:18:00
Questions Without Notice
Budget
5213
14:18:00
5213
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr ABBOTT
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the announcement this morning—
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I understand the standing orders, he had the right to seek the leave of the House. Why has he got that right and I have not got that right? I would like that explained to me.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I am not going to give you advice on the run because I actually had a feeling that, given your combined state and federal experience, you would know that, once you got the call, you had an advantage over me.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—Mr Speaker—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
—Mr Speaker, my point of order was—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Kennedy has not got the call. The member for Kennedy now has the call.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
—I seek leave of the House to move a motion.
Leave not granted.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sturt yet again has squandered an opportunity. I will ignore everything now.
AUSTRALIAN MINING INDUSTRY
5213
Miscellaneous
Suspension of Standing Orders
5213
5213
14:21:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
0
Mr KATTER
—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Kennedy moving immediately the following motion:
That the House immediately debate a matter of national importance, namely the continuing deterioration of the Australian mining industry demonstrated by the announcement by Xstrata that they will not be proceeding with Ernest Henry copper mine at Cloncurry nor the Wandoan Coal Project, costing Queensland 3,200 jobs in construction and over 1,000 permanent jobs thereafter.
I have been somewhat restrained, uncharacteristically restrained, on this subject—
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
14:22:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
14:26:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
77
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
59
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Katter, R.C.
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C. *
O’Dwyer, K
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D. *
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Washer, M.J.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the motion seconded?
5215
14:29:00
Scott, Bruce, MP
YT4
Maranoa
NATS
0
0
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—I second the motion. Prime Minister, why are you too gutless to debate this—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Maranoa will resume his seat.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
14:29:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
14:31:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
77
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
59
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Katter, R.C.
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C. *
O’Dwyer, K
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D. *
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Washer, M.J.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Original question put:
That the motion (Mr Katter’s) be agreed to.
14:33:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
59
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Katter, R.C.
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C. *
O’Dwyer, K
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D. *
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Washer, M.J.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
77
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I have only been thrown out of this place once before, and that was a mistake by the Acting Speaker at the time! Three thousand people have lost their jobs—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Kennedy will resume his place.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Kennedy will resume his place.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Kennedy will resume his place.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for Kennedy then left the chamber.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—You can return at 25 to 4.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
5217
14:36:00
Questions Without Notice
Budget
5217
14:36:00
5217
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr ABBOTT
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the announcement this morning by mining company Xstrata that it has suspended $586 million of current investment in two major mining projects in Queensland as a result of his great big new tax, putting at risk total capital investment of over $6.4 billion and 3,250 jobs in regional Queensland. Given the statement of Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, who said, ‘This is no longer of war of words; this is causing real pain to Queensland families,’ and given Xstrata’s statement that neither of these two projects would be viable if the new tax were imposed, will the Prime Minister now listen to these warnings and dump this tax before any further damage is inflicted on the Australian economy? Why did the Prime Minister gutless out of fully debating this issue, first in response to me and second in response to the member for Kennedy?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The last part of the question is ruled out of order.
5217
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—In fact, this is such a matter of national importance to the opposition that their stated matter of public importance today is about the government’s failure on people smuggling. Those opposite, frankly, speak again with two voices on these matters. The Leader of the Opposition, come the end of each sitting week, feels the need always to move a censure—and not just at the end of a sitting week; in fact, according to my numbers, every third day on average since he has been Leader of the Opposition there has been a censure, a suspension or some other parliamentary device in order for the Leader of the Opposition to assume the dispatch box. I also say in response—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Now that we have question time underway, a question has been asked, the question is being responded to and I think that perhaps members should sit in silence and listen. The Prime Minister has the call.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The first thing I would say in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s question is: this government will not be intimidated by any statements by any mining company anywhere. This government will not be intimidated by the statements of any mining company, foreign or domestic. This government does not stand here as the puppet of parts of the mining industry, as those opposite do; this government stands here to act in the national interest on behalf of all Australians.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order!
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—Out of his depth!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Flinders is warned! He might have been a bit unlucky, but he filled the vacuum. I simply say: for the next short period of question time could members try to show a little bit of respect for each other. The Prime Minister has the call.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition’s question also went to the impact on jobs. I find this remarkable from the Leader of the Opposition, who has resolutely opposed any form of stimulus in the economy, which has created 225,000 jobs in this economy. Had we followed the prescription of those opposite, we would have had 200,000 more people in Australia out of work. So, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to stand on his feet here and speak sanctimoniously about his concerns for jobs, I would ask him to reflect on his own party’s record on the question of how we responded to the global economic recession. That is the second point.
The third is this, and it goes to the particular statement put out by Xstrata this morning: it is passing strange that, when we have a new system which was announced just one month ago, we have 12 months to go before draft legislation and we are 24 months away from the start of a new system, a company of this nature would issue a statement of this type. Furthermore, in relation to the particular project at Wandoan, I add the following: under the proposed RSPT, first of all, such a project would have been eligible for a 40 per cent tax credit on its investment—that is the first point. The second is that coal royalties payable to the Queensland government would have been refunded. Furthermore, when it comes to the use of the tax credit, that becomes available to the company irrespective of whether it is generating a profit or not. This stands in stark contrast to the royalty system, which is a crude—
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeks to interject again, I presume in the national interest.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should learn to cease interjecting and the Prime Minister should ignore her.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition always interjects in this place, with enormous credibility! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, each time she opens her mouth, is in fact greeted with the shaking of heads on the part of all those behind her—and we know the reasons why. This set of taxation arrangements replaces a royalties regime which is a crude instrument applied only to, firstly, volume and, secondly, revenue.
In response also to the question of the Leader of the Opposition, he should also pay attention to the fact that it is our understanding that there are a number of other existing issues impacting on this particular development, concerning the feasibility of rail access, port infrastructure and power supply. My understanding is that these issues have not been fully resolved.
I conclude my answer to the Leader of the Opposition by saying this: we on this side of the House stand for the national interest; we do not stand here as the instruments of Clive Palmer or anybody else. I would say also to the Leader of the Opposition that Clive Palmer’s intervention in this debate yesterday was to make the remarkable statement that the minerals in the ground do not belong to the Australian taxpayers. This is the individual, Clive Palmer, who is the major contributor to the Liberal National Party in Queensland; he is the major contributor to the conservative parties in Queensland. He seems to also dictate the policy position of those opposite—and he stands in this capital and says that these resources are not owned by the Australian people. That is wrong. Those opposite obviously believe that this Mr Palmer’s position on this is right; we will stand for the national interest, not for the sectional interests of an individual mining company, foreign or domestic.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Mr Speaker, in response to the Prime Minister’s claim that Xstrata are being untruthful, I seek leave to table the Xstrata statement issued earlier today.
Leave not granted.
Economy
5219
5219
14:44:00
Collins, Julie, MP
HWM
Franklin
ALP
1
Ms COLLINS
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain how the national accounts reflect the consequences of strong economic management, and why it is important to continue to reform for the future?
5219
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—The member for Franklin asks a question about the strength of the Australian national economy. The strength of the Australian national economy depends fundamentally on strong economic management in the national interest. But can I also say in terms of the strength of the government’s economic performance that we have been underpinned by a resolute prosecution of the need to stimulate this economy during the global economic crisis.
The national accounts yesterday demonstrated that we had a 0.5 per cent increase in growth in the March quarter. We see commentary also from others in the last 24 hours about the key role of stimulus to keeping the Australian economy afloat. Chris Caton from BT has said:
… that stimulus has kept the economy afloat.
Scott Haslem, the chief economist of UBS, said yesterday:
Traditionally economic growth has been split 80-20 between the private and public sector.
Over the last year it was 60-40 in favour of the public sector as the private sector struggled.
The bottom line is this: public sector stimulus was absolutely fundamental to keeping this economy out of recession. That is the bottom line. Notwithstanding that, many families and small businesses across this country are still doing it tough.
The Liberal and National parties made the very wrong call on stimulus last year. They said that stimulus was not necessary. They said that stimulus should not occur. They said that stimulus has been misdirected.
Opposition members—That’s a lie!
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I notice their interjections whereby they object to the accuracy of what I have just said. I would draw their attention to the following statement by the now Leader of the Opposition. First of all he said, and I refer to his comments from last year:
… all of the money that they are spending, it’s not going to stop us going into a recession.
Wrong. Second statement:
It’s not going to stop the recession being long and deep.
Wrong.
And I would argue that the recession will actually be worse in the long run because of the measures that they’ve taken.
Wrong, wrong and wrong! So said the Leader of the Opposition. That was his prescription for economic policy.
He then went on to say, ‘One of the reasons why we have opposed the $42 billion cash splash is because it is not the right way to go about stimulating the Australian economy.’ If you are not going to use money to stimulate the Australian economy, what are you going to use? Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that if you do not use money to stimulate the economy then you are going to use a rousing speech, some comforting words or perhaps a form of Viagra to keep the economy going? I would say that it is axiomatic: if you are going to stimulate the Australian economy, you invest finance to stimulate the economy.
But those opposite recommended a different course of action. The Leader of the Opposition, who has no interest in economics, whom the former Treasurer Peter Costello said he would never appoint as a treasurer of Australia, has said that the one model we should have followed was that of New Zealand—five consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. The Liberals and Nationals were absolutely wrong on the response to the global economic crisis, and it is time they admitted it.
Furthermore, there has been a debate in this place about the government school modernisation program. I would quote what the Macquarie Bank economist Ben Dinte has said specifically about this. On 2 June he said, ‘Much of the 0.5 per cent expansion in the Australian economy in the first quarter of 2010 was the result of significant government spending on education building projects.’ In other words: it is not just stimulus at large, it is also the investment of school projects in particular that has kept the Australian economy afloat.
On the question of the school modernisation program, it is very important to listen to what those opposite have been saying on this. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he intends to slash the quantum of the investment in the school modernisation program. That is what he has said. He has been backed in that by the member for North Sydney, as the shadow Treasurer, to slash the quantum of the investment in the school modernisation program. But today we have another voice: the member for Sturt. The member for Sturt answered a question by saying, ‘We believe the infrastructure spending in schools’—this is the member for Sturt, this is what he said—‘is wise and sensible, and we will keep the infrastructure spending in schools if we are elected in a couple of months.’ Then he is asked this question by the journalist, ‘In that quantum as well?’ So says the member for Sturt, ‘In that quantum, as we’ve said all along.’ So we have the Leader of the Opposition saying that he is going to slash the quantum of investment in the Building the Education Revolution program, and now we have the member for Sturt saying they are going to keep the quantum of investment intact. What all this points to is once again that those opposite have been absolutely loose with the truth. The truth is, as articulated by the Leader of the Opposition, he is going to slash and burn the school modernisation program, and what the member for Sturt has tried to do is paper stack over that.
The contrast between us on these questions is very, very basic. We stand for responsible economic investment; they stand in support of a strategy which would throw Australia into recession. We stand for supporting jobs through the recession; they stand for casting hundreds of thousands of people into unemployment. We stood for taking the measures necessary to keep the Australian economy and the retail sector afloat; they would have consigned hundreds of thousands of people across those sectors into unemployment. We stand for the Building the Education Revolution program; those opposite stand for slashing that program. We stand for returning this budget to surplus in three years time, three years ahead of time; those opposite refuse to nominate the date at which it will be returned.
The purpose of keeping the economy strong is as follows: to deliver a fairer Australia for all Australians, and that means being able to deliver on three sets of tax cuts for working families, being able to deliver a new health and hospital system for working families, being able to deliver the biggest increase in the age pension for working families, being able to boost the investment in our nation’s infrastructure and skills for the future of the economy. But fundamental to all of the above is of course tax reform, making sure we take our current strengths and reform the economy for the long term. That is what underpins the long-term economic strategy of this government.
We believe, and argue passionately, that a profits based regime for the future taxation of the mining industry is essential. That is government policy. Interestingly, it is also the policy of the member for Wentworth. The member for Wentworth has re-entered the fray. Malcolm Turnbull says:
The miners have been arguing for years that royalties should be levied as a share of profits as opposed to a percentage of gross revenues or volume of production—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
E0H
Laming, Andrew, MP
Mr Laming
—Yes, sit down, supermouth.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Bowman is warned.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has been going for eight minutes. He could not possibly still be relevant to the question he was asked. He is now talking about members of the opposition on subjects that have nothing at all to do with the question he was asked about. After eight minutes, if he had accepted our suspension he could have given this speech then—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member will resume his seat.
IPZ
Chester, Darren, MP
Mr Chester
—That Viagra works well.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Gippsland is warned. The standing orders are silent on the length of answers. Members should read Practice in full, because Practice might not be silent. This is another matter that perhaps the House, through the Procedure Committee, could have a look at at some stage. The Prime Minister is relevant to the question, and I had a feeling that he was coming to a conclusion before the interruption with the point of order. I give the call to the Prime Minister with that anticipation.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Thank you, Mr Speaker, because part of keeping the Australian economy strong lies in continued reform. That is why we are seeking to reform the economy and boost investment in skills, in infrastructure and in productivity, and also to prosecute a program of regulatory reform across the Australian economy. Part of that reform is tax reform, and part of tax reform is mining tax reform. That means a system which is based on profits, not volume, and profits, not production, as was confused by the Leader of the Opposition the other day, and as I notice the former Leader of the Opposition backs in his remarks today and the member for Goldstein backed the other day as a rational way to impose a tax regime on mining projects, as has occurred with the offshore regime since the introduction of the petroleum resource rent tax in the mid-1980s. We stand, therefore, for the continued reform of the Australian economy, to keep our economy strong. Those opposite, it seems, have one attitude to economic policy and that is it—simply to abandon the field and take up the sectional interests of elements of the mining industry.
Budget
5221
5221
14:53:00
Scott, Bruce, MP
YT4
Maranoa
NATS
0
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the mining company Xstrata has today announced that it will suspend the $6 billion Wandoan coal project, near Roma in my electorate of Maranoa, which will put an immediate stop to $170 million worth of current works and see the immediate loss of 150 jobs as a result of this government’s investment-destroying great big new tax on mining. Given that the Prime Minister did not have the guts to attend the Minerals Council’s dinner last night, does he have the courage to come to my electorate to personally explain why he says his great big new tax is so good for the town and the region?
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order, part of that question was out of order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—In black and white, a lot of the question was out of order because it contained argument, and it gives a title to a program that is argumentative—it is not the official title. Over the last 2½ years I have allowed those things to go through. The element that could be seen as debate about personality is not of assistance within a question, and I rule that part out of order. Reference can be made to the first part of the question; the latter part should be ignored.
5222
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the member for Maranoa for his question. I note that the member for Maranoa often stands in this place and speaks of the infrastructure needs for his part of Queensland. I note that the member for Maranoa has stood in this place recently and demanded extra funding for road construction in his part of Queensland. I note that the member for Maranoa is in repeated correspondence with the minister for infrastructure and local government requesting investment by this government in the infrastructure needs of his community. What the member for Maranoa does not do is stand on his feet with integrity and ask this question of himself and the House: ‘And how should such investment in infrastructure be funded in the future?’ This government has taken measures in terms of its proposal for an RSPT to provide a delivery of infrastructure investment funding for regional Australia. The member for Maranoa is very good at standing up and posturing in this place about the infrastructure needs of his region but on the other hand providing no solutions in terms of delivery of investment back into his region and the source of revenue which should provide the basis for it.
As to the honourable member’s question about Xstrata, I refer to my answer earlier to the question asked of me about the company: firstly, the impact of the proposed RSPT on that company through the refund of the royalties that they would otherwise pay to the Queensland government; secondly, the 40 per cent tax credit which has been recommended as part of the proposal; and, thirdly, their ability to use that across the life of the project particularly in its early loss-making years. That is why, for example, editorials across many parts of the country and the world, including most recently in the Financial Times, have said that this in fact is a rational way in which to tax the resources industry of this country and in fact others abroad.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Yeah, and? It was proven wrong!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for North Sydney!
Budget
5222
5222
14:59:00
Turnour, Jim, MP
HVV
Leichhardt
ALP
1
Mr TURNOUR
—My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. How will the resource super profits tax ensure that regional communities receive a fair return for the once-off development of their non-renewable resources, particularly in northern Queensland?
5222
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism
1
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—Mr Speaker—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—You’ve been set up!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney is now warned.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I thank the member for Leichhardt for the question, because he appreciates this debate is far more complex than a simple debate about a profits based system for the mining industry of Australia. Our tax reforms are also, importantly, about broadening and strengthening the economy for the future. It is also a debate about those who are up for the hard reforms that are worthwhile in Australia’s national interest, and those on the other side of the House who are not up for the debate.
It is also about those who always put the special interests of particular groups ahead of the national interest and those who are prepared to take on the major reform for the long-term national interest of Australia. I say that because I actually think Australia is well-positioned to have this debate at the moment. I refer to the overall strength of the Australian economy. We all appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition gets up every morning hoping and praying that he gets a bad economic indicator. All I can say is that he has had yet another week of waiting. We as a community can handle the tough debates. Why shouldn’t we take on the tough debate about taxation against the backdrop of yesterday’s national accounts? Even though we appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition finds economics boring, I am sure his advisers at least brought the national accounts to his attention yesterday.
Let’s consider the nature of the national accounts and our capacity as a nation to actually front hard reform. The economy grew by 0.5 per cent in the March quarter and 2.7 per cent over the year. Perhaps more importantly, Australia was one of only two advanced economies to avoid recession during the global financial crisis. I also remind the House that the report of the national accounts yesterday very clearly stated—and we should never forget that the opposition leader opposed, every inch of the way, the economic stimulus package of our government—that the Australian economy would have gone into recession, contracted for three consecutive quarters, if we had not taken the decisive action that we did. It is in that context that the member for Leichhardt has appropriately raised the all-important question: how do we assist those local communities who are feeling the pressure of the infrastructure requirements out of the strength of the Australian economy and the importance of the resources sector? That is why this debate is broader than the debate about resources; it is also a debate about broadening and strengthening the Australian economy.
I can feel a few visits coming on next week for the Leader of the Opposition. We will have the fluoro jacket and the hard hat, and I am sure he has already telephoned his close mate, Clive Palmer, and said, ‘Mate, mate, mate, can I borrow your Mineralogy jet?’—the largest corporate jet in Australia—and there is no doubt that Clive will be on board and will also be talking about the next round of donations for the purposes of funding the forthcoming election.
When it comes to pressures of infrastructure—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How could this be relevant to the question?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister is responding to the question. The minister is well aware that he has to be relevant.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—It goes to the question of infrastructure and the pressure the resources sector is putting on local communities in Northern Queensland—the pressure on infrastructure, the pressure on the budget and the pressure on the daily lives of workers in these communities. Perhaps when the opposition leader is on the Mineralogy plane next week he could drop in to the seats of, for example, Leichhardt and Herbert and actually look first-hand at all the investment by the Australian government in key local infrastructure projects and the pressure it is putting on the Australian economy and the pressure it is putting on the budget. He could go, for example, to look at the $255 million being spent on the Bruce Highway from Sarina to Cairns; have a look at the port access road in Townsville, at $95 million; have a look at the Townsville ring road, at $79.5 million; have a look at the Douglas arterial duplication, at $55 million; have a look at the $150 million for the upgrade of the southern approach to Cairns along the Bruce Highway; and a range of other projects in North Queensland.
That is why we are also working with, for example, the member for Kennedy, because we understand the importance of reliability on energy. We are working with him about how we upgrade the grid between Mount Isa and Townsville. We are confident that out of that process we will also get a key commitment to a growth in renewable energy opportunities in that particular area of Australia. This government, unlike the opposition, understands and appreciates the pressures on local Queensland communities because of the resources sector and the expectation of people in those local communities that the mining sector pulls its weight in terms of sharing the huge profit growth they have had out of the opportunities to develop Australia’s national resources, which are 100 per cent owned by the Australian community.
Compare that approach to the view of the opposition leader. Let’s go to what he said yesterday at the Minerals Council lunch: ‘The resources sector is paying a fair amount of tax.’ That is contrary to what a range of resource companies are actually saying. They are actually conceding that there is room to pay more tax. He then spoke in opposition yet again to a profits based tax. I referred yesterday to the clear statements by the CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia that they themselves believe that we should be introducing a profits based system in Australia. I will tell you what all this is about: a desire by the Leader of the Opposition to create a class war in Australia. He spelt that out in his speech to the Minerals Council of Australia at lunchtime yesterday.
The Australian government is going to continue this debate because this is a very important opportunity for us as a nation to put in place a modern tax system, not only of long-term benefit to the resources sector in Australia but, importantly, of long-term benefit to the Australian community. We are committed to getting the balance right between attracting investment in the resources sector and returning a fair benefit to the Australian community. That is why the proceeds of this debate will help the states provide the major infrastructure necessary to continue our economic growth in Australia.
I appreciate why the Leader of the Opposition is standing up for special interests in the Australian community. I refer, for example to the donations of Mineralogy to the Liberal-National Party in 2008-09: $400,000 to the federal Liberal Party; the WA National Party, $110,000; the federal National Party, $50,000; the Liberal-National Party, $20,000. Then we go to the archangel of the coalition: a personal donation by Mr Clive Palmer of $280,000 to the Liberal-National Party. That was last year.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will bring his answer to a close.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—We all know what has been coming the opposition’s way in recent weeks. They have got difficulties actually adding up the donations, because they have sold their soul yet again.
BV5
Adams, Dick, MP
Mr Adams interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Lyons will withdraw.
BV5
Adams, Dick, MP
Mr Adams
—I withdraw.
Budget
5224
5224
15:08:00
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
0
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to Xstrata’s announcement this morning that it is suspending its planned $586 million expansion of the Ernest Henry copper mine near Cloncurry in Queensland, involving the immediate loss of approximately 60 contractor jobs and a further 160 jobs that would have been created over the next 18 months. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that no worker in the mining industry, or their family, will be worse off under his government’s great big new tax on the mining industry?
5224
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the member for Groom for his question.
Opposition members interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I thank those opposite for their interjections, in particular the member for Dickson. I would just like to inform him that his share price is up since he invested. At lunchtime today, BHP was up 2.5 per cent.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sturt can resume his seat. The Prime Minister will go to the question.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister had not even started the answer when the interjections started, so the interjections were practically interjections on the question. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I thank the member for Groom for his question because it goes to the question of jobs. He asked specifically about jobs.
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Dickson!
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—What I would say in response to the honourable member’s question is that, on the question of jobs, this government’s economic policy—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Dickson is warned.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—has created 225,000 jobs while practically every advanced economy in the rest of the world has been shedding jobs. If you look right across Australia and at the employment performance of the Australian economy over that period of time, we have seen jobs added when they have been lost in so many other parts of the world. A large number of jobs in international tourism, for example, have also been affected by the impact of the global economic crisis. Take, for example, Far North Queensland—the member comes from Queensland: the unemployment rate in Far North Queensland is currently in the vicinity of 12 per cent. One of the factors associated with that is the competitiveness in Far North Queensland of tourism businesses affected by a high Australian dollar. In response to those sorts of factors, what governments can do is to bring down the overall company tax rate for companies competing internationally.
WN6
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
Mr Ian Macfarlane
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question was whether the Prime Minister will guarantee that no mineworker will be worse off—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Groom will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. The question used the title that the opposition has decided to use for a package of policy proposals and the Prime Minister was speaking about those proposals.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The member’s question goes to jobs. He asked specifically about jobs in one part of Australia and in one industry. My response goes also to the fact that employment across Australia is generated by many factors, not least of which has been the government’s investment in stimulus for the last year and a half. As a consequence of those measures, we have added in the vicinity of a quarter of a million jobs in this country while we have seen jobs being lost right across the rest of the world.
Secondly, the Leader of the Opposition interjected before that in fact he had never argued that stimulus was not necessary. I believe I have got his interjection correctly. He said before in an interjection that stimulus was not necessary. I also draw the attention of the House to what the Leader of the Opposition has actually said on this subject. The Leader of the Opposition, who is carefully avoiding the attention of the debate at this moment, said the following:
… the economic stimulus wasn’t necessary to strengthen Australia’s economy at a time of global recession.
That is what—
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I beg your pardon? The Leader of the Opposition continues to say that he did not argue that the stimulus was not necessary. On 30 March 2010, he said:
… the economic stimulus wasn’t necessary to strengthen Australia’s economy at a time of global recession.
‘Was not’ he said—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Solomon is on thin ice. I am not sure whether there is much ice in Darwin, but he is on thin ice.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: on the widest interpretation of the meaning of ‘substance of the question’, the Prime Minister is clearly not being relevant to the question that was asked. I refer you to page 553, second paragraph, and ask him to return to the substance of the question or else sit down as he is unable to answer it.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Page 553 goes on to say:
In practice the word has been frequently accepted by the Chair as meaning relevant in some way or relevant in part, rather than directly or completely relevant.
It might be a matter that the procedures committee could address in the next parliament or the parliament after.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The member for Groom’s question goes to jobs—what generates jobs and what protects jobs—and I am responding to that both for the economy in general and for regions in particular. We have argued in this place that continued positive growth in the economy and in employment has occurred on the basis of stimulus through the course of the global financial crisis. The reason I am engaging in this debate is that the Leader of the Opposition has interjected across the chamber repeatedly that his position has never been one of opposition to stimulus. That is untruthful. That is fundamentally untruthful. The Leader of the Opposition has a very deep problem with telling the truth in this chamber. The Leader of the Opposition said that the economic stimulus was not necessary to strengthen Australia’s economy at a time of global recession.
We might well ask: was that just said, or was it written down? Guess what? It was written in a speech. Therefore, it is the full gospel truth. It was a considered, scripted, written speech in which he says that the economic stimulus was not necessary to strengthen Australia’s economy at a time of global recession. Not only was that wrong in terms of economics but also he has been untruthful today in pretending he never said it. He did say it. That is their position, and it has been consistently.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister will bring his answer to a conclusion.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—We stand for policies which support employment. Those opposite stand for policies which destroy employment.
Economy
5226
5226
15:16:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
Mr HAYES
—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. How is the government stimulus continuing to support jobs across Australia, particularly in my area of south-west Sydney?
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I am getting distractions at two levels. For two agitated whips, I suggest that the standing orders tell me that I can give the call to a person only if they are in their place. I do not see anybody standing. Thank you, member for Werriwa.
ECV
Hayes, Chris, MP
Mr HAYES
—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will remember in future. My question to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation is: how is government stimulus supporting jobs in Australia, particularly in south-west Sydney?
5227
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
1
Mr TANNER
—I thank the member for Werriwa for his question. I acknowledge his very important work towards improving community infrastructure in south-west Sydney, such as the upgrade of the F5, the refurbishment of the Campbelltown stadium, the cancer centre at Liverpool Hospital and, significantly, the development of the autism-specific centre at Liverpool. I remember well doorknocking with the member for Werriwa in his electorate several years ago and meeting Julie Darmer—somebody who has been very active in the area of autism. I commend the member for Werriwa for his work.
The national accounts that were released yesterday represent another solid outcome for Australia’s economy, which continues to be amongst the best in the world at a time of great economic stress. The Australian economy grew by 0.5 per cent in the March quarter of this year and by 2.7 per cent over the year. That outcome was strongly supported by continued public investment, which rose 12½ per cent in the quarter to be more than 40 per cent up over the year. This contributed 0.8 per cent to GDP growth. About half of that is attributable to the government’s stimulus strategy. The stimulus is gradually being withdrawn as the economy returns to something approximating normal growth. Nonetheless, it is still playing a very significant role in supporting jobs. Infrastructure projects are continuing to plug the gap in private building activity, which has been substantial, while stimulus payments to households and tax breaks to businesses have in effect flowed through the economy. There is very clear evidence in the national account figures released yesterday of the critical ongoing importance of the government’s stimulus strategy in sustaining reasonable economic growth at a time of global economic challenge and sustaining jobs.
The Prime Minister has drawn attention to the statement on 30 March by the Leader of the Opposition. I will repeat it again, just so that people realise the true nature of the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition:
The economic stimulus wasn’t necessary to strengthen Australia’s economy at a time of global recession.
This was in a speech amazingly entitled ‘Economic fundamentals’. Anybody who is not bored by economics—anybody who is not innumerate, as the Leader of the Opposition was once described by the former Treasurer, Mr Costello—would read the national accountants and see just how critical the government’s stimulus strategy has been. But it is not just the government that sees this as the outcome of the national accounts figures. In fact, the man who I presume the Leader of the Opposition will be enthusiastically arguing to be Victorian Treasurer at the Victorian election, due in a matter of months, shares the national government’s view. I quote the Victorian shadow treasurer, Kim Wells, in a statement today, referring to the Victorian figures in the national accounts:
The result would have been far worse had it not been for solid consumer and government spending in the quarter, generated by the continued effects of government stimulus payments and programs funded from Canberra.
That is the Victorian Liberal shadow treasurer, who I assume the Leader of the Opposition will be saying is the right person to be managing finances of the state of Victoria come the Victorian election later in the year.
The member for Werriwa asked me about the issues of stimulus and local infrastructure projects in south-west Sydney. I want to refer to the seat of Macarthur and just indicate to the people of south-west Sydney and particularly the people in the seat Macarthur what they stand to lose not just in macroeconomic activity but in local infrastructure if the opposition is elected to govern Australia. It will be $1½ million for three black spots projects, $1½ million for three local councils for 25 community infrastructure projects, $48.7 million for 212 social houses, $206,000 for repairs and maintenance in social housing and, under the Building the Education Revolution program, $114 million for 141 projects at 59 schools. These are the things that are helping to keep people in jobs in the seat of Macarthur in south-west Sydney and all around Australia, helping to keep growth positive at a time of great economic tribulation internationally and delivering important new facilities for the people of south-west Sydney. These are the projects that the opposition is committed to eliminating. If ever you wanted an illustration of the economic illiteracy, the vandalism and the complete lack of concern for the jobs of working people, this issue tells you all you need to know.
The Leader of the Opposition and the member for North Sydney stand for depression era economics when the government sat back and did nothing and hundreds of thousands of people were thrown on the scrap heap. That is their position. The government stands to protect jobs, to support jobs, by investing in infrastructure at a time when the private sector is retreating, and that is being shown in the national accounts. Australia’s economy continues to grow and employment remains reasonably strong because of the efforts of this government.
Budget
5228
5228
15:23:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
0
Mr KEENAN
—My question is to the Prime Minister. What job transition and employment assistance arrangements will be offered to mining industry workers who lose their jobs as a result of the government’s great big new tax on mining, including the 60 contractors who have lost their jobs today as a result of Xstrata’s decision to suspend the expansion of its Ernest Henry copper mine near Cloncurry in Queensland?
5228
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the member for Stirling for his question. I would say to him that, a little like the question earlier from the Leader of the Opposition, for those opposite to now have an interest in (a) jobs and (b) workers rights is very interesting indeed. Firstly, on the question of jobs, I would say to the member for Stirling he should have a long, long hard look at the impact of the government’s stimulus strategy on employment in the state of Western Australia. Look at the impact of investments that we are making in the infrastructure of Western Australia in the Ord, prospectively at Oakajee, in the middle of Perth—hospital constructions as well as road constructions, notwithstanding the investment in social housing. There are investments also in the Building the Education Revolution program in Western Australia and the community infrastructure program in Western Australia. These are core contributors to jobs growth in the state of Western Australia. If he looked at the breakdown of the state accounts, and the contributing elements to gross state product within his state, he would reach the same conclusion.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister was asked about the employment assistance arrangements for the 60 workers at Cloncurry. We would hope he would answer that specifically.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Sturt will resume his seat.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned. The Prime Minister will relate his material to the question. He understands that he has to and the Prime Minister is responding to the question.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The member’s question went to both jobs and workers entitlements. On the question of jobs, my response to him, being a member from the west, was along the lines I have just described. Those comments equally apply to the impact of the government’s measures on stimulus payments in the state of Queensland. I suggest that he also looks at the impact through the most recently released gross state product figures for Queensland and other states to conclude where the actual contribution lies from federal government stimulus investments. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation has just referred to that in the case of the state of Victoria and made appropriate reference to statements recently by the Liberal shadow Treasurer of Victoria to that effect.
Secondly, on the question of workers’ entitlements, I would say this to the member for Stirling, as he cries crocodile tears about workers entitlements and workers rights: workers entitlements and workers rights are infinitely better as a result of this government’s change to the laws than existed under the government of which he was part. We had also under this government, through the abolition of Work Choices, made sure that basic conditions for working people and working families were protected, not destroyed—not least of which was protection from unfair dismissal.
Those opposite stand for the repeal of the government’s protections against unfair dismissal. We stand for the protection of workers from unfair dismissal and we also apply the standard support measures for any worker in this economy who finds themselves unemployed for whatever reasons. This government’s policies in support of jobs and in support of measures relating to the conditions of workers and, on top of that, protection from unfair dismissal exists in a legion above and beyond anything ever considered or supported by those opposite when they occupied the Treasury bench.
Education
5229
5229
15:27:00
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
1
Ms BURKE
—My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on school education programs, including Teach for Australia, and on any threats to these programs?
5229
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank for member for her question. I know that the member for Chisholm is very focused on the question of quality education and quality schools in her electorate and that she is aware, as are many people around the country, of the impact of our Teach for Australia program. This program already has 45 of the best and brightest graduates who have undergone a training program teaching in disadvantaged schools around the country, most particularly in Victoria. It is a great quality program. I know that this program is under threat and I know the member who asked me the question is concerned about these threats. The threat arises because the Leader of the Opposition has said that, if he is elected, he will cut the money allocated to the national partnership program that supports Teach for Australia. This has been welcomed by principals, by people who care about education right around the country with words like, ‘I feel like I have won the lottery to have one of these high quality graduates in my school.’
I know that the member for Chisholm out in Melbourne’s east has been involved in some community discussions about this question. I know that that community discussion is also continuing in the electorate of Aston. My attention has been drawn to the flyer of the Liberal candidate for Aston, Alan Tudge. I had a good look at it. I was a little bit intrigued when it said that, among his various claims to fame, he had worked at a national level formulating initiatives to give school communities more funding and control. That is interesting. Why is the name Alan Tudge familiar? Then it occurred to me—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I would refer you to the statement that ministers should not engage in irrelevancies, which include contrasting government and opposition positions, which is precisely what she is doing. I would ask you to ask her to sit down.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The question was in order. The question went to any threats. I have a feeling that something is emerging in this answer. The Deputy Prime Minister understands that she must relate the material to the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I was asked about threats to the Teach for Australia program. I know the name Alan Tudge because he is on the Teach for Australia Board; that is how I know that name. This is the very program that the Leader of the Opposition is a risk to.
I am a person who looks to research things in depth, so I did not stop there with the community flyer. I have managed to obtain the Liberal Party of Australia application for preselection endorsement by Alan Tudge. There is interesting reading on the question of education. I will not be tabling it, because it contains personal details. But I will be making extracts available for all.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, perhaps the member for David Jones over there could—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. I know that it has been a long fortnight. The Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the question. She will relate her remarks to the question and the House will sit quietly.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I am reminded of the great Gareth Evans statement about the member for Mackellar.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I think that we will move on, Deputy Prime Minister.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—With that short reminder, I will move on to the preselection application, which deals with the Teach for Australia program about which I have been asked. Alan Tudge, the candidate for Aston, basically claims—
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to the standing orders. Page 125 refers to the right of reply of persons referred to in the House who are obviously not present to defend themselves. If the minister wants me to run a bit on her—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. His punishment is to stay here in the chamber quietly with us. There will be no more ads for commercial retailers, ads for parts of the standing orders or anything else. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. She is responding to the question. She now has the chance to complete her response.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—On Teach for Australia, in this application Mr Tudge tells us all about his involvement and how valuable it is—the very program that the Leader of the Opposition wants to cut the money from. That shows how erratic that they are and shows how little that they care about school eduction.
This preselection election campaign talks about Mr Tudge’s claims to fame. It says: ‘I helped develop the popular Investing in Our Schools Program, which was both practical policy and great assistance to coalition members in their individual seats and their local campaigns.’ When we on this side of the House invest money in schools, we do it for the benefit of schools, not for the political benefit of coalition members. If you ever need to know the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House when it comes to education, have a look at this document. We are about benefiting schools. Mr Tudge and everyone sitting there are about cutting the money that goes to schools. As revealed by the Leader of the Opposition, they are going to cut the Building the Education Revolution, trades training centres, computers in schools and now this teaching quality money as well—those are the things that the opposition threaten with their budget cuts. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition should talk to Mr Tudge about the benefits of Teach for Australia. But we know that the Leader of the Opposition is a risk to local schools right around the country.
Infrastructure
5231
5231
15:37:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
0
Mr TRUSS
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to remarks made last night by Sir Rod Eddington, who is chairman of Infrastructure Australia, who questioned the policy-making process behind the government’s great big new tax on the mining industry and urged the Prime Minister to dump the tax and start again. If the Prime Minister will not listen to warnings from his principal business adviser, who will he listen to?
5231
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—As I said when asked about this by the media earlier today, as far as Sir Rod’s comment goes on the question of consultation we welcome any commentary from those outside who want to see a good outcome to the negotiations currently underway between the government and the mining industry. Therefore, within that spirit I welcome Sir Rod’s comments on the question of consultation. I note however, that this question was asked by the Leader of the National Party and I note that he is not actually bringing into the frame the leading pin-up boy of the National Party in Queensland, Clive Palmer.
I know Clive was in town yesterday. It is hard to miss Clive—not just his jet but Clive himself—when he is in town. He made some interesting comments last night, I think. His description, which I presume reflects the position of those opposite, was that once there was Marx, then there was Engels and now there is Rudd. Marx, Engels and Rudd—so there is a communist conspiracy underway. But what I find confounding is this: the Clive Palmer who bankrolls the Liberal and National Party in Queensland seems to make a powerful amount of money from Chairman Mao’s China.
I say to those opposite that when they seek to invoke the names of various commentators in the debate on the future of the super profits tax it is very instructive to reflect on, firstly, who bankrolls the Liberal and National parties? Clive Palmer. Secondly, who stands up, therefore, and says that these resources are not owned by the Australian people? Clive Palmer. And thirdly, therefore, are those opposite acting in the national interest in their participation in this debate or acting simply as emissaries of various branches of the mining industry? On the question of employment which was raised—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—I rise on a point of order. I simply ask you: how could it be relevant when the Prime Minister was asked about Sir Rod Eddington’s comments, for him to go into a diatribe about another member for the community, who is not part of this question?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I am going to have to be very careful or these comments will be misinterpreted. The question went to: if the Prime Minister would not listen to Sir Rod Eddington, who will he listen to? He seems to be indicating somebody that he has listened to. I do not want that to be misinterpreted to but that is where it is at.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Elegantly summarised, Mr Speaker, because—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Do not overdo it, Prime Minister.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I will not be listening to Clive Palmer. I do not think anyone on this side of the House will be listening to Clive Palmer, but I know those opposite will be listening to Clive Palmer because he bankrolls those members opposite in terms of their political parties—$800,000 contributed to the LNP last year alone.
On the question of consultation, the government is engaged in a process with the mining industry. That will continue. This is a tough negotiation process but we in the government are up for an exercise of national economic reform. Those opposite are simply acting as emissaries on the part of a mining industry, which the Leader of the Opposition says pays too much tax already. The government’s view is this: this tax reform is necessary to deliver better super for working families. It is necessary to bring down the company tax rate for all Australian companies. It is necessary to bring about a tax break for Australian small business and it is necessary, also, to fund the future infrastructure needs of Australia. That is why the government is committed to fundamental tax reform and that is why those opposite are acting purely as the mouthpieces of Clive Palmer as they engage in this debate.
Superannuation
5232
5232
15:41:00
Symon, Mike, MP
HW8
Deakin
ALP
1
Mr SYMON
—My question is to the Minister for Human Services and Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law. What will be the impact on the retirement incomes of working Australians if the government’s stronger and fairer superannuation reforms do not proceed? How would this particularly affect the communities of outer eastern Melbourne?
5232
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services
1
Mr BOWEN
—I thank the member for Deakin for his question. I also note that there are 46,000 working Australians in his electorate who stand to benefit from our reforms to superannuation. Perhaps it is unsurprising that there are so many people in the electorate of the member for Deakin who will have their retirement incomes boosted by our reforms, because there are 8.4 million Australians across the country who will benefit from our reforms, and there are 3.5 million low-income Australians who will benefit from having their contributions tax given back to them under this government, each of whom stands to lose those benefits if the Leader of the Opposition gets his way.
At the moment, the average lump sum of somebody aged between 60 and 65 is $245,000 for men and $170,000 for women. By 2035, as a result of more people being under compulsory superannuation for longer as a result of our reforms, that will increase to $485,000 for men and $345,000 for women. Of course women stand to get a greater proportion of the benefit because females have lower incomes and our reforms are very much targeted at those who need to put more money aside for their retirement: people on lower incomes. The simple fact is that nine per cent of salary and wages is not enough for a comfortable and dignified retirement in Australia. It is a very good start—a start for which we can thank previous Labor governments. It was something that the opposition opposed all the way and something that they continued to oppose all through the years of the Howard government. They opposed giving Australians a more comfortable and dignified retirement.
The member for Deakin asked me about the impact on outer eastern Melbourne. As I said, the member for Deakin can report to 46,000 of his constituents that they will be better off because of this government’s reforms. But the member for La Trobe, who rejoins us in the chamber, will have a much harder task, because he will have to report to 52,000 of his constituents that they will miss out on a greater retirement income because of his opposition to our superannuation reforms. He will need to report to 17,000 of his constituents aged over 50, who potentially could benefit from our improved catch-up payments for superannuation, that he stands against them getting a more comfortable and dignified retirement.
These are people who do not have a private jet with which to fly to Canberra to make their case at the National Press Club. They rely on us to make it for them. At least a little more than half of the people in this chamber are standing up for people to get a better retirement income. A little fewer than half are more interested in defending mining companies than interested in boosting the retirement incomes of Australians. They are lions on behalf of Clive Palmer; they are mice on behalf of working families. They have not a word in response—not a word in defence of the retirement incomes of Australians. So we look forward to the member for La Trobe’s next newsletter. He will be explaining to 52,000 of his constituents why he opposes them getting a better retirement income. He could make it a bumper edition. He could explain why he opposes the trade training school at Boronia Heights. He could explain why he opposes the GP superclinic at Berwick. It could be a bumper edition. He would have to rely on all his eloquence to do it, but I am sure he could do it.
It is time the Leader of the Opposition gave working families a break. It is time he gave them a tax break for saving through their superannuation. If you asked the shadow minister for superannuation what he thinks about superannuation all he will tell you is what mining companies think. But this is about much more than the shadow minister for superannuation not being up to the job. It is about the Leader of the Opposition thinking superannuation is a con job. He told this House it was a con job. It is about an opposition more interested in boosting their donations from mining companies than boosting the retirement incomes of Australians. That is what this is about. It is time the Leader of the Opposition—
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr Southcott
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I think we have strayed well away from outer eastern Melbourne and to areas which do not even relate to the minister’s portfolio—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Boothby will resume his seat. The question only went especially to outer eastern Melbourne. The minister has the call.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—I thank the member for Boothby for pointing out that all Australians stand to lose from the opposition opposing our proposals.
Most importantly, this is about working families and working Australians looking forlornly at the Leader of the Opposition, who simply does not care about giving them a more dignified retirement.
E0H
Laming, Andrew, MP
Mr Simpkins interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Cowan!
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—He simply does not care about superannuation—
E0H
Laming, Andrew, MP
Mr Simpkins interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Cowan is warned.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—simply does not care about retirement incomes and simply does not care about them.
E0F
Wood, Jason, MP
Mr Wood interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Before giving the call to the member for North Sydney, I simply say to the member for La Trobe that the sort of agitated interjection he is making is surely unhealthy for him.
Budget
5234
5234
15:47:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to a statement today from Mr Ian Henderson, head of JPMorgan Chase London’s $7 billion natural resource fund, where he says that he has:
… reduced our Australian exposure … It’s been a wake-up call frankly. I had not thought that the changes in Australia would be quite as drastic as they are proposed to be.
He goes further in relation to the mining tax:
It clearly does reduce the attractions of developing new projects in Australia and indeed investing in Australian-based mining ventures… It has made people aware of the potential for these industries to be used as milk cows by governments. That has altered the risk profile for the mining industry probably for quite a long time.
Does the Prime Minister still think that his great big new tax on mining is going to grow investment and jobs in the industry?
5234
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I say to the member for North Sydney that he should spend some time reading the Treasury’s analysis through the independent modelling contained in the Econtech report on the impact of (a) the overall growth in the mining industry and (b) employment in the mining industry. As far as employment in the mining industry is concerned, Econtech’s independent analysis says the implementation of these reforms will result over time in a 7.7 per cent increase in employment in the mining industry.
Furthermore, the member for North Sydney goes to comments from third parties. Can I draw his attention also to the comment of the former head of the Minerals Council, David Buckingham, who said that reactions to the mining tax proposal to the government have, quite frankly, been ‘hysterical’ and:
Apoplectic responses of that kind simply don’t help the cause in any realistic way.
Furthermore, I draw his attention to a former Liberal Treasury spokesman and a former Liberal leader in this place, John Hewson, who has also come out in his attacks on the scare campaign which has been launched against the government’s RSPT. I draw the member’s attention also to the support for the government’s proposals being delivered by the former leader of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, John Brogden. I draw his attention to the statement by—
Opposition members interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Those opposite seem to laugh at that, as if Mr Brogden does not have a proper place in the public debate. We think he does.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked the Prime Minister about a company that has reduced its exposure to Australia’s industry—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The question was very open-ended, about whether the PM does stand by his position.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The member for North Sydney’s question went specifically to the impact of the government’s measures on the growth of the mining industry and on employment in the mining industry. I sought to answer both those things by reference to the government’s modelling contained in the Econtech government report. The member for North Sydney simply leapt to the dispatch box in order to make a separate political point himself. Mind you, I say that it is pretty interesting in this debate that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be rationed to one question a day these days. Perhaps that is because there has been some concern on the part of the member for Sturt about the, shall I say, demeanour of the Leader of the Opposition in this place.
Can I say in response to member for North Sydney’s question, given that he does ask all the questions on the economy—as the Leader of the Opposition seems to have been banned from asking any questions on the economy, because the Leader of the Opposition is bored by questions on the economy and is regarded by the former Treasurer as being innumerate on questions of the economy—that there are multiple third parties in this debate, many of whom have supported the government’s RSPT proposal. Many of them have contributed to Australian newspapers in recent times. Many of those views have been reflected in international journals as well. I would draw again the member for North Sydney’s attention to the editorial contained in the Financial Times only earlier this week. It said specifically:
The charge that it turns Australia into the “number one sovereign risk issue”, made by Tom Albanese, chief executive of Rio Tinto, is absurd.
Furthermore, the Financial Times said:
It will be a long-overdue update of the medieval practice of levying royalties on gross production. Being regressive, royalties squeeze marginal producers while letting those with the most abundant mines keep the largest share of their loot.
I draw his attention to that editorial. Editorials in the Financial Times are not written lightly. They are written on the basis of a considered analysis of all the contending views and all the contending analyses. What those opposite are doing at the moment is what they always do: engage in a fear campaign—a fear campaign on the resources tax, a fear campaign on the emissions trading scheme, a fear campaign on asylum seekers. All they actually do in the public policy debate is engage in a fear campaign, because that is what the Leader of the Opposition is an expert at doing.
We always hear opposition from the Leader of the Opposition; we never hear him propose anything. We hear negativity all the time, never positivity. We hear him stand opposed to everything the government puts forward. We never hear him propose anything, except one thing and that was his own great big new tax on everything. Having gone onto the Neil Mitchell show and sworn hand on heart that there will be no new taxes under the Liberal Party which he led, what did he do one month later: he jacked up the tax two per cent on all companies in the country with a turnover in excess of $5 million.
Can I just say to the Leader of the Opposition: on the question of the economy and why I presume he has been sin-binned by the member for North Sydney and the member for Sturt from asking any questions on the economy, he would be very well advised to go back to Fundamentals 101 and revisit his earlier statement that this economy could somehow survive the absence of stimulus over the last 18 months. The illiteracy of the Leader of the Opposition on questions of the economy becomes more apparent day by day not just in this place but right across the country, as he simply does not know how to add up.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the document ‘JP Morgan sells Rio, BHP on Australian tax concerns’.
Leave not granted.
Infrastructure
5236
5236
15:54:00
Trevor, Chris, MP
HVU
Flynn
ALP
1
Mr TREVOR
—My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Why is funding certainty and consistency in long-term planning important in delivering major road and rail infrastructure projects and are there any risks to these investments, particularly in Central Queensland?
5236
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
Mr ALBANESE
—I thank the member for his question, because he understands that long-term planning and consistency is absolutely crucial when it comes to delivering infrastructure into regional Australia. But, of course, we know that consistency is not the coalition’s forte. They say one thing here in the parliament and something completely different in their electorates. Just one week after the budget, on 20 May, the member for Hinkler wrote a letter to the editor of the Isis Town & Country newspaper. He said this:
Labor has betrayed local motorists by ignoring the urgently needed Isis River Bridge upgrade in its Budget.
Wrong! The May budget delivered another $15 million to start the construction on this important bridge this year, money brought forward this year, jobs in Hinkler this year—something that could not be achieved by that other mob in their 12 years of government. The member for Hinkler also said—
An opposition member—At least you put the people of Hinkler on notice.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—This is after we provided the funding, you nong—a week after the budget.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will withdraw.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—I withdraw. In the Isis Town & Country newspaper he also said:
I have put the Government on notice—
this is one week after we provided the funds—
that I expect to see funds brought forward to have the job done …
I will be in Hinkler tomorrow and I put the opposition on notice: is this project on your secret infrastructure hit list? The shadow minister for finance, in a letter to another local paper, said ‘There are still many projects worth billions of dollars in the Rudd government budget which have not started’ and he would not commit to supporting any of those projects that are in the Nation Building Program. He has made it very clear, and he confirms it today, that if construction has not started it will be on the hit list. Maybe the $250 million Bruce Highway safety package will be on the hit list.
We know that the Roads to Recovery program for every local government in Australia is on the hit list, because he has told the Colac Herald and the Geelong Advertiser. So Bundaberg Regional Council, $7 million gone; Fraser Coast Regional Council, $6 million gone; North Burnett Regional Council, $7 million gone—and we know that there will be other critical infrastructure cut in Hinkler as well; 841 computers in schools, gone; and over $112 million for 58 schools, gone. We know that over $70 million of the 283 new social housing dwellings will be gone and we know that the trade training centre which is proposed to be built at Bundaberg State High School at a cost of $11 million will be gone. You have got to come clean and be fair dinkum with the Australian people. You cannot tell the electorate that you are fighting for more money for them and come here and be part of a show that is about making all these cuts.
The member for Maranoa raised a question earlier on today and it went to the issue of infrastructure and employment in Queensland. The member for Maranoa is quoted in the Toowoomba Chronicle. He wants another $500 million in funding for the Warrego highway. He said:
On advice given to me by Main Roads Queensland, $500 million is needed for a full upgrade and I am calling on the Rudd government to commit this funding as a contribution to the state Government’s infrastructure plan for Surat Coal Basin.
He goes on to say: ‘With critical time lines now in place for local road, rail, airport and housing infrastructure, the Rudd Government’ must deliver this. He has given up on his side! He has given up. I say to the member for Maranoa: part of our RSPT proposals is about providing a fund for infrastructure in regional areas. That is what it is about. So you should be voting for it, and I look forward to the member for Maranoa’s support on the RSPT.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PRIME MINISTER
5237
Motions
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
5237
5237
15:59:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr ABBOTT
—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah from moving the following motion forthwith: That this House censures the Prime Minister for failing to govern Australia in a way that:
-
takes the nation forward and not backwards;
-
grows our economic prosperity, not risks it;
-
enhances our international reputation as a safe investment destination not trashes it;
-
keeps promises, not breaks them;
-
reduces debt and builds a surplus rather than reckless spending and billion dollar deficits;
-
stands up for our world leading industries, not hides from them;
-
spends taxpayers dollars like it comes out of his own pocket, not throws it out the door; and
-
has the mettle to defend his decisions and not run away; and,
finally and most importantly, for the damage that his great big new tax is doing to investment and jobs as evidenced by Xstrata’s decision to suspend $596 million of current investment today.
They are not going to hide him yet again, for the third time running, on a day like this—
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
16:01:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
16:05:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
75
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
53
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C. *
O’Dwyer, K
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Robb, A.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D. *
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the motion seconded?
5238
16:10:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Leader of the Nationals
0
0
Mr TRUSS
—I second the motion. Kevin Rudd ran away from the miners last night; he is running away from the parliament today. Stand up and be counted. Do not run away; you have to answer to the Australian people for what you have done. This is the man who does not have the courage of his convictions—
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
04:11:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
16:12:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
75
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
53
NOES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C. *
O’Dwyer, K
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Robb, A.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D. *
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Original question put:
That the motion (Mr Abbott’s) be agreed to.
16:14:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
53
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C. *
O’Dwyer, K
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Robb, A.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D. *
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
74
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
DOCUMENTS
5240
Documents
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
16:16:00
—Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings, and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Broadcasting Services Act 1992—Content and Access: The future of program standards and captioning requirements on digital television multi-channels—Report, June 2010.
Department of the Treasury—Guarantee Scheme for Large Deposits and Wholesale Funding—Report, 21 May 2010.
Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
5240
Matters of Public Importance
Asylum Seekers
5240
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Cook proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure to introduce policies and take decisions to address the unprecedented rate of illegal boat arrivals.
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—
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
16:17:00
—I move:
That the business of the day be called on.
Question put.
16:21:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
70
AYES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Zappia, A.
49
NOES
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
May, M.A.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Neville, P.C. *
O’Dwyer, K
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Robb, A.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D. *
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
5241
Personal Explanations
5241
16:25:00
Robb, Andrew, MP
FU4
Goldstein
LP
0
0
Mr ROBB
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—I do, most grievously.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr ROBB
—Mr Speaker, yesterday in this House in response to a question the Minister for Transport made accusations about me which were quite erroneous. The minister said:
… the shadow finance minister when asked how he would fund roads said that he would use Roads to Recovery funding—a big woops moment from the member for Goldstein.
He went on with that sort of drivel. What I actually said in the paper was:
Unlike the Labor Party, we are not in the business of ripping up contracts and let me make it perfectly clear that this project is not under threat, and Mr Fitzgibbon knows this, considering the Howard government spent $110 million on the preliminary stages.
I challenge the minister to show where I have claimed anything about Roads to Recovery.
5241
16:25:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—Mr Speaker, that is complete nonsense. He is talking about two separate issues—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—No, the Leader of the House will resume his seat.
EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS AMENDMENT BILL 2010
5241
Bills
R4369
Second Reading
5241
Debate resumed.
5241
16:27:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Leader of the Nationals
0
0
Mr TRUSS
—The Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2010 talks about the assistance provided to Australian exports. In the couple of minutes left before the House adjourns for a week, I want to talk about the importance of mining exports to the Australian economy and in particular how important it is to encourage this industry. It is hypocritical of a government on one side to be claiming that it wants to assist industries to export through the Export Market Development Grants Scheme and on the other side to invent a great big new tax to make mining uneconomic in this country.
The Prime Minister must surely be the only person in the world who actually thinks that you make your mining industry more prosperous by taxing it more. The President of Zambia once tried this route to encourage mining in his country, and he quickly realised it did not work—there was no point, he said, in collecting a few million dollars in tax if you lost thousands of jobs in the process. Our Prime Minister has not learnt that lesson. He believes that if you put a tax on alcopops you will reduce consumption. He believes if you put a tax on cigarettes you will reduce consumption. But, if you put a tax on mining, you will have more of it—you will have more investment.
Ask Xstrata how much more investment they are going to have in Australia with this great big new tax hanging over their head. Ask the people of Whyalla what is the future of their steel works with this great big new tax hanging over their heads. Ask other investors, like British Gas, who have a proposal to open up coal seam gas harvesting in Queensland, what the future of that investment is, and the $20 billion LNG train in Gladstone. All of that, along with hundreds of other projects in Australia, is at risk, might not proceed, because of this government’s great big new tax on mining.
Last night the Prime Minister had an opportunity to explain this to the Australian mining industry. But, instead, he ran away—he went to a function for the centenary of Andrew Fisher’s government—a one-term government, I might add. But the centenary was actually three weeks ago, so this function was put on in Old Parliament House so the Prime Minister could run away, not face the mining industry but talk to a few party faithful about events of 100 years ago.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
5242
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.
Rudd Labor Government
5242
5242
16:30:00
Laming, Andrew, MP
E0H
Bowman
LP
0
0
Mr LAMING
—Facebook is an emerging and powerful tool for local people to communicate with their elected representatives. Just 48 hours ago I wrote to 1,400 local Redland residents, none of whom are aligned to political parties, and asked what they think about Mr Rudd and where Australia is heading—Redlanders having their say. I will read out their words, condensed but not selected in any way.
Damien Buckley, 35, Thornlands: ‘Where is my broadband, Mr Rudd? Why am I paying for your campaign advertising, Mr Rudd? Why are you slugging my meagre investments? Why am I paying for illegal immigrants to be kept in motels?’ Amy, from Cleveland: ‘Mr Rudd is turning everything that we want and need to suit himself and not our country.’ Emily Wilson, 22, Cleveland: ‘Does “he is a clown” sum it up?’ Terri Davidson, 42, Alexandra Hills: ‘Dear Mr Rudd, if you believe you’re doing such a great job for us, please feel free to come and live my life, on my budget, and see how much you enjoy the life you are giving us.’ Tim Marley, 22, Wellington Point: ‘The young people are watching our Prime Minister waste our nation’s money on poorly designed and poorly implemented plans for the future.’ Katrina Malone, 39, Alexandra Hills: ‘What happened to Mr Rudd’s promise for more support and help for autism?’ Anthony Davis, 19, Birkdale: ‘Andrew, can we get cheaper fuel please, because I’ve got a four-wheel-drive now. I like to get outdoors and have some fun, but I can’t afford it on uni wage, which is jack all. Thanks.’ Chris Schneider, 28, Thornlands: ‘If only hot air could solve problems. If only rhetoric could find solutions. If only bureaucrats knew how to look after working families. If only dictators could understand the people, Kevin Rudd would be doing a great job.’ Anonymous: ‘No substance, policy back-flipping, the bureaucrat is only concerned with what is most popular in the polls.’ Bronwyn Hope, Redland Bay: ‘I’m getting tired of constant electioneering and spin. Let’s have some substance. Answer a straight question with a straight answer without treating your country like it’s full of idiots.’ Marie Stuart, 46, Cleveland: ‘I want to see some outcomes and less talk.’ Adam Haylock, 24, Mount Cotton: ‘Kevin, why are you letting Anna Bligh take it upon herself to sell Queensland Rail and various other assets that we own?’ Sheriden Merrin, 19, Redland Bay: ‘He has a lot of empty promises. He’s promised to stop whaling and improve health care.’ Anthony Nix, 43, Wellington Point: ‘Andrew, I personally do not think Kevin Rudd is a bad person and he could have been a good Prime Minister. What has let him down is really bad advice and a really incompetent ministerial team. That left him having to lie to regain some type of credibility with the Australian people.’ Nikki Palelei, 22, Thorneside: ‘I think Mr Rudd is doing a good job. I didn’t vote for him but I’m glad he got the job and say “Well done” to him.’ Kieran Ewald, 19, Thornlands: ‘I agree Kevin’s doing a good job. I’m glad he is where he is. I agree, though, that I don’t like Anna.’ Matthew Russell: ‘If you think Mr Rudd’s doing a good job, you’re living under a rock. Pick up a newspaper and see Mr Rudd’s empty promises. One thing you can say to Mr Rudd is: “When will we get our stay in a four-star hotel on taxpayers’ money when we come to this country illegally?”‘ Brian Gleeson, 36, Alexandra Hills: ‘Mr Rudd, if the buck stops with you, as you have stated on so many occasions, why are you still drawing a pay cheque, if your programs have all failed and then cost taxpayers millions to fix?’ Clare Jansz: ‘Mr Rudd, get your head out of the clouds and your hand out of our pockets.’ Kate Miller, 22, Birkdale: ‘Stop flicking your hair. It makes you look like a creep.’ Rob Spence, 21, Birkdale: ‘I think the great big new tax should be called a get-out-of-town tax.’ Nicole Blight, 37, Alexandra Hills: ‘As my two-year-old would say: “Who are you, Mr Rudd, and what are you doing there?’ Megan Mothershaw, 27, Capalaba: ‘Don’t fail Australia, Mr Rudd. Give us the PM we so desperately need.’ Karl Haase, 22, Alex Hills: ‘Kevin Rudd did poorly during the recession and is now trying to make it worse with a resource tax. I don’t like either option, but I do not like a resource tax which will kill the Australian economy.’ Darrin Hewitt, 44, Cleveland: ‘Stop overpromising and underdelivering.’ Anne Howe, 50, Thornlands: ‘It’s outrageous that trainee nurses are forced to find tuition fees.’ Anousha Gilroy, 20, Birkdale: ‘I think that workplace bullying needs to be addressed.’ Darren Skiggs, 40, Victoria Point: ‘Do as I say, not as I do: buy Australian made.’ Cheryllea Shooter, 52, Victoria Point: ‘Krudd. What more can I say? His name says it all.’ Matthew Pannam, 17, Thornlands: ‘Where is our national broadband, Mr Rudd?’ Kurt Henselin: ‘Kevin Rudd is a dud Prime Minister. Get rid of him.’ Peta Egan: ‘Mr Rudd, I don’t believe anything you say anymore.’ Luke Clifton, 21, Victoria Point: ‘Tell him he’s better than Howard, but he still needs to improve.’ Dean Bottrell, 21, Capalaba: ‘Another $900 please.’ Alicia Anne Black, 29, Birkdale: ‘Why does my three-year-old have to pay for Mr Rudd’s incompetence?’ Matthew Russell, 21, Wellington Point: ‘Mr Rudd, you fail at your job. Anyone else would of been fired by now because of your mistakes.’ Nic Hansford, 18, Cleveland: ‘Why can’t Australia have a 24-hour rail network?’ Dean Davison: Mr Rudd, just look beneath the surface and see through your facade of trustworthiness and competency disappear.’ Sheriden Merrin: ‘You’re all talk and no action.’
These are young people in the Redlands having their say. I am sorry, Mr Rudd—this year they will also have their vote. (Time expired)
Computers in Schools
5244
5244
16:35:00
Thomson, Craig, MP
HVZ
Dobell
ALP
1
0
Mr CRAIG THOMSON
—I want to talk about a very successful Rudd government program in relation to computers in schools and the threat that is being posed to it by the policies of the opposition. The Central Coast is one of the poorest areas in New South Wales; in fact, I think we have the poorest average family income area in New South Wales. One of the great things about the computers in schools program is that it provided computers to both public and private schools in areas right across the country, and particularly in areas like mine where many of the children going to school do not have access to computers on a daily basis. That is why it has been so important, so popular and so successful.
I was talking to the principal of Tuggerah Lakes Secondary College, Mr Andrew Newman. He wrote to me and said: ‘The Digital Education Revolution in New South Wales has been an outstanding success in government schools.’ He went on to say, ‘To cease such a successful program would be an enormous backward step that would be opposed by principals and teachers and parents.’ This is the principal of the largest secondary school on the Central Coast. He is the college principal of a campus that goes across three areas, and this is what he said about the importance of the Digital Education Revolution.
I spoke to him today and he said, ‘Look, you can say that it’s not just me as the college principal. I am also the Deputy President of the New South Wales Secondary Principals Council, and that is the view of the Secondary School Principals Council. The digital revolution in relation to putting computers in schools is absolutely vital for the education of kids right across New South Wales and it is something that should be supported. They are terribly upset that the opposition are looking at slashing $700 million from this vital area, which will mean computers will not be able to be provided for many schools.’
In fact, in my area—an area that, as I said, is one of great need—over 600 computers would be cut if the opposition’s policy of cutting computers in schools was implemented. I will go through the list of schools and the cuts they would suffer. MacKillop Catholic College would lose 66 computers; Wyong High School, 51 computers; Tuggerah Lakes Secondary College, The Entrance campus, 81 computers; Tuggerah Lakes Secondary College, Berkeley Vale, 60 computers; Lisarow High School, 87 computers; Tuggerah Lakes Secondary College, Tumbi Umbi, 53 computers; Wadalba Community School, 68 computers; Central Coast Grammar School, 37 computers; Wyong Christian Community School, 15 computers; and Lakes Grammar, nine computers. Over 600 computers would be cut from my electorate on the Central Coast because of the opposition policy decision to slash and burn in education, announced in the budget reply that was delivered in three stages.
In my area, we have youth unemployment of over 40 per cent. In some of my high schools, we have retention rates of less than 40 per cent. In these areas, education is the key to making sure kids who leave our school system have the skills that will enable them to get a job locally. Over 30 per cent of those in my electorate have to commute to Sydney and Newcastle to find a job, yet employers in the area say that they sometimes have difficulty recruiting the right people and they actually recruit people from outside the area. The key to making sure that local people in my area get jobs that match up with the jobs that are being offered by employers—that they are given a chance in life, that we do not condemn a generation of kids to unemployment—is making sure that we make the proper and right investments in education.
Part of that is making sure that there is a proper investment in computers in schools. In my electorate it is absolutely vital that those 600 computers, the ones we plan to roll out under the program, are not ripped away from these kids—that they get the proper facilities and the proper equipment to make sure that they are job ready. We have to make sure that these kids have a future, that they can get employment in an area of very high unemployment. This is absolutely vital. The opposition should be condemned over their decision to cut this program. It will disadvantage kids in my schools and disadvantage kids in my electorate and electorates right around Australia. This slash-and-burn education policy is only going to subject another generation of kids to high unemployment like the 40 per cent youth unemployment in my area. (Time expired)
North Sydney Electorate: North Shore Times
5245
5245
16:40:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
0
Mr HOCKEY
—All of us in this House understand the important role that local newspapers play in the lives of the communities we represent. Today I want to reflect on the success of one of those papers, the North Shore Times. I do so because last month the Times turned 50, a considerable milestone for both the paper and the North Shore community in Sydney. The newspaper’s golden anniversary is worthy of celebration because the North Shore Times has been the primary journal of record for such a large part of Sydney.
In 1960, when its first edition was published, the North Shore was a very different place. The last North Shore trams had stopped running just two years before. The Warringah Expressway was yet to be built and motorists would wind their way from the Harbour Bridge along the Pacific Highway through North Sydney. Most North Shore residents were of Anglo-Saxon heritage, living in private homes following the urban subdivision patterns of the time. Much of the upper North Shore was still bushland and many of northern Sydney’s suburbs were yet to go through the so-called gentrification that continues today.
The past 50 years have seen dramatic change, all of which has been recorded by the North Shore Times. That change has mostly been for the better. I think particularly of the many people from different nations, including my own father, who have made the North Shore their home. Our communities are more diverse and vibrant as a result. We have seen the growth of places like North Sydney and Chatswood as major commercial centres and we have witnessed the revitalisation of other suburban centres like Lane Cove and Crows Nest in my own electorate.
As with all of Sydney, the population on the North Shore has grown dramatically. Many often reflect that it is harder to maintain a sense of community in such large metropolitan areas. Some fear that we have lost the ‘togetherness’ that communities bring, that we have become suburbs of strangers. While the character of our communities has changed, I am not so pessimistic. That the North Shore Times has survived and thrived is testament to the fact that people still place a high value on strong local communities. The Times both reflects and assists that aspiration. Every week I see people coming together as a community, be it in the hundreds that attend Chinese New Year celebrations in Chatswood or in the thousands that come together every weekend through local sporting organisations or in the strength of community groups working to protect our local environment or assist those in need. As our region has grown in population, the role of the North Shore Times has become more important, not less.
It was Rupert Murdoch’s vision that saw the North Shore Times established in 1960. It needs to be recorded in this House that the North Shore Times stands alongside the Australian as one of the two papers that Rupert Murdoch created from scratch in Australia. In fact, the North Shore Times was the first paper he created from scratch in Australia. The Times records in its golden issue that one of its first journalists, Peter Sinclair, still holds the original layout for the paper prepared by hand by a young Rupert Murdoch—right down to the size and placement of advertisements in those early editions.
Today I thank all of those people that have been involved in the first 50 years of the North Shore Times—its editors past and present, including particularly Mr Ron Bendall; its journalists, many of whom have gone on to bigger and better things in the media over many years; and, importantly for any successful newspaper, those in production and advertising. It says a lot about the whole of Cumberland Newspapers. The current staff, led by the editor Catherine Zuill, reflect the dedication and professionalism that are the hallmarks of good journalism. No-one can really predict what the North Shore of Sydney will look like in another half century, but I am absolutely confident that the North Shore Times will still be there to reflect the triumphs and, occasionally, the disappointments of all of us who call this part of Sydney our home.
Newcastle Electorate: Innovation
5246
5246
16:44:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
1
0
Ms GRIERSON
—In many speeches to the House I often find myself making special mention of innovation in Newcastle, and that is for very good reason. Over the past few years, Newcastle has gained a well-earned reputation as a centre for innovation across a wide range of industries and sectors, reflecting its economic strength and diversity. If it is not a new announcement regarding clean energy or an advance in medical research, it may be a current or former Novacastrian making a name for themselves on the national or international scene.
A recent example of that is the appointment of former Director of the Newcastle Regional Art Gallery, Nick Mitzevich, who is now taking up a corresponding role at the Art Gallery of South Australia, following in the esteemed footsteps of the now Director of the National Gallery of Australia, Ron Radford. For somebody who has only just nudged 40, as Nick is, taking up the role of director after only two major gallery appointments is a recognition of the quality of his work. He is very well regarded for his innovative approach in attracting new crowds to galleries. After cutting his teeth at the Newcastle gallery, Nick was very successful at the gallery at the University of Queensland in attracting record numbers of crowds, particularly online crowds, with his conceptual, youth oriented approach. I know that Nick will be just as successful in his appointment to the Art Gallery of South Australia and I wish him all the best in his new role.
In the education sector, a particular high school engineering program, the Science and Engineering Challenge, which was developed at the University of Newcastle, will this week see the participation of its 100,000th student. Established in 2000, the challenge encourages high school students to pursue careers in science and engineering. It has actually been very successful in increasing the take-up of maths and science subjects by senior students throughout Newcastle and the Hunter region. It teaches students team work and problem-solving skills in practical engineering activities. It now has been rolled out all around the nation. I congratulate all those involved in making this program such a success. The University of Newcastle has also been very well recognised in the innovation field in other areas.
I can turn to a much wider scale of innovation success when I look at the Hunter Central Coast Innovation Festival, hosted in Newcastle, which was held last month. The festival provides a unique opportunity to hear about or see products, services, equipment, technology, science and engineering innovations emanating from this region and its highly skilled, dedicated and inventive workforce. Regional Development Australia-Hunter managed the project this year, assisted by some funding from the New South Wales state government through Industry and Investment NSW and through the federal AusIndustry initiative. AusIndustry has been sponsoring the Australian Innovation Festival since 2002, and it does a wonderful job in it.
I congratulate all the sponsors, supporters and organisers of the event, particularly Neville Sawyer, chairman of the innovation festival board. Now in its third year, the festival’s main theme—building sustainable businesses—aimed to highlight the importance of innovation in meeting the challenges of the current business environment. Almost 50 events were held as part of the festival, from public forums to TAFE and university open days—even a paper plane throwing competition. I was pleased to speak at a clean coal symposium held as part of the festival, to which people from all around the country came to share the latest information in clean coal innovation. I was also pleased to be at the final event at the innovation festival and to speak there on the closure of the festival at NBN Television studios in Newcastle, where the amazing new technology of TV stations of today was showcased. Again, I congratulate everyone involved in the festival.
Overall, the Rudd government has been incredibly supportive of innovation in Newcastle. Of the $1.37 billion that has been spent in my electorate so far by the federal government since its election in 2007, a total of $116,695,883 has been spent on research and innovation. It is an amazing amount of money and it is an amazing foundation for the growth of innovation in my electorate. Only last week I spoke of some of the clean energy innovations, and I will not revisit those except to again congratulate Newcastle on its SmartGridCity initiative, one that I am hoping will be very successful.
I also make mention of the recent success of University of Newcastle Professor Behdad Moghtaderi and Dr Elham Doroodchi on the television show The New Inventors. Their invention, known as Granex, is a revolutionary new form of geothermal technology and won over the judges’ panel in April. I am very confident that, with this sort of support from the Rudd government, Newcastle will continue to build its reputation as a centre of innovation. (Time expired)
Asylum Seekers
5247
5247
16:50:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
0
0
Mrs GASH
—Many people are not aware of some of the facts and figures surrounding asylum seekers in this country. In fact, some time ago I put out a brochure in my electorate to answer some commonly asked questions and to highlight the facts with help from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Parliamentary Library. In my former role on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I had the privilege of touring Australia’s detention centres for a firsthand view of the situation. Despite my initial trepidation, I was nothing short of impressed by what I saw. Behind the high fences were green fields where children were running and playing. They were given new shoes and clothes if they needed them, access to dental and health care, internet access, Kosher food if they had such dietary requirements, and both single and family accommodation.
I am certainly not saying that the mental trauma and stress these people have faced in their home country, which drove them to sell their possessions, raise the $6,000 to $15,000 to pay a people smuggler and take a boat, no longer impacts them when they arrive. Of course it does. But I am saying that they receive adequate care under our watch. Under the United Nations convention, a person is entitled to seek asylum in their closest safe port. Australia is not always the first safe port, yet they still risk their lives to bypass other countries and come to Australia. Why? At the risk of sounding callous and having my detractors say I am a racist, it is a sense of fairness that motivates me to speak up. I am concerned about Australia’s ability to provide the resources for the thousands that have arrived and continue to arrive. I am not prepared to see our seniors, many of whom in Gilmore are doing it tough, go without. I still have many pensioners who live in terrible conditions, and we have many homeless and a waiting list for dentists and hospitals. In fact, a figure that is not widely known by communities is just how much it actually costs Australian taxpayers to cater for one asylum seeker while their assessment is being carried out. The amount is $82,000. That is the taxes of nearly seven average wage earners on $62,000 a year. This means that the relentless flood of asylum seekers is costing taxpayers $250 million each year, and that cost is growing.
The government has to reopen detention centres that the Howard government had closed down to cope with the demand. There are plans in the pipeline to build new ones. In the latest development the government wants to turn a disused mining village in the middle of the Western Australian desert into a processing centre. This will only add to the ever-growing cost from Kevin Rudd’s watered down and failed border protection policy. Since January the number of detainees held in onshore detention centres has risen by more than 240 per cent due to the record illegal boat arrivals with hundreds of detainees transferred to the mainland. Last week nine detainees broke out of the Villawood detention centre and that is another added cost in resources and energy.
Sadly, there are 427 children being held in detention centres right now. Where are all the voices that criticised the Howard government when we had 21 children in detention centres and others who lived in the community and attended regular schools? Each new boat arrival stands as an incentive for others to test the system and jump the queue, not to mention those still waiting in refugee camps with no ability to buy a place on a boat. It is going to cost Australians well over $1 billion over the next four years just to deal with the present flood. Unless the government takes a more resolute approach in discouraging immigration queuejumpers, immigration laws will never be taken seriously or the sovereignty of our nation.
Since the Rudd government announced their asylum freeze, 22 boats have arrived carrying almost a thousand people. The overwhelming majority of these illegal arrivals, who will be from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, will be staying for at least six months and three months respectively before their claims are even assessed. The fact is people smugglers are using the opportunity the federal government has created in softening the Howard government border protection policies and people smugglers now have a highly desirable product to sell—like permanent residence in Australia—and maybe the government will give you a special deal to process you quickly in an attempt not to lose face politically.
I am pleased to report that the coalition have put forward a policy or strategy to address community concerns which Australians will have an opportunity to vote on at the next election. Part of our policy will include (1) the commencement of discussions to establish an offshore processing detention facility in another country; (2) temporary protection visas and benefits with the proviso that recipients make a contribution through a work for benefits scheme as is required of Australian citizens; (3) we will require those who arrive illegally onshore to make any claim within 45 days and we will turn back boats where circumstances allow. This will send a clear message to opportunistic people smugglers who take people’s lives into their hands, allowing them to travel on leaky boats just to make money. It will tell them that people who come to this country through illegal channels will not arrive on the mainland and will not automatically receive a permanent visa. So then there is no product to sell. So far the number of illegal boat arrivals under Mr Rudd is 129 which is over 6,000 people. The problem is growing; the cost is growing, and this government has no real strategy to deal with it.
Economy
Braddon Electorate: Schools
5249
5249
16:55:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—I would like to raise two things this evening. The first is to recognise this government’s very good record in keeping our economy moving. The newspaper headline, ‘The economy on the march’, written by Andrew Carswell, clearly indicates the importance—contrary to what the other side say—of the government’s stimulus packages to keeping this economy working. That means working in the sense of jobs being sustained. It clearly indicates through all the information available that the private sector has been lagging but the good thing that is predicted by a number of analysts is that from the current and future quarters, the private sector should increase its investment in the economy and together with the government keep this economy moving. I think we should be congratulated on that as a nation, and this government in particular, but do you hear that from the other side? Not on your nelly. But I wish to recognise it.
On an even more positive note, I would like to congratulate a number of schools in my community that were kind enough to invite me on behalf of the Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, to attend the opening of their wonderful new facilities. You hear from the other side about a number of instances that may be questionable under the BER scheme on the mainland and, if you read the Australian, you would swear that every school in Australia was going backwards in terms of their infrastructure. I can tell you that in Tasmania we have a first-rate record of rolling out the Building the Education Revolution. In my electorate alone there are 139 projects in 63 of my schools worth something like $99.6 million—that is being spent in my region keeping people employed and producing excellent teaching and learning facilities. Every community I have been involved with thinks they are first rate. Say what you may, warts and all, in terms of rolling out this massive $42 billion in BER projects throughout Australia—these facilities, particularly in primary schools, would never have happened under the other mob and did not happen in their term of government which you never hear about. Many states would be struggling to provide these facilities for primary schools throughout the nation and particularly in my region.
If I have to pick paradise on earth, may I suggest you go to Natone on the north-west of Tasmania. The day of the opening was magnificent. The sun was pouring down; the grass was growing milk because the cows were asleep, and in the Natone Primary School of 55 students, a magnificently kept school, was this wonderful facility, allied with its eco centre. Many schools and their teachers come from not just the north-west coast but from the whole of Tassie to the Natone Primary School. It had $300,000 for a magnificent addition. The Latrobe Primary School, the mighty Latrobe, had $2.1 million for a multipurpose facility which I saw in action the other day with magnificent dancers and wonderful exhibitions. I cannot imagine more flexibility in a building than at the Latrobe Primary School. Also the Devonport Christian School had $925,000 for a fantastic addition to their library and other aspects of the school.
These are just three examples of the BER at work and very happy communities. All I want is for Senator Colbeck, Senator Parry and Mr Abbott to come in and tell my people which projects will be being closed in the future and what is going to happen to the trades training centres that are promised now and are on the way and they are going to stop. Come in and tell us. I bet you we don’t see them within cooee. (Time expired)
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Order! It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted.
5250
17:00:00
House adjourned at 5.00 pm
2010-06-03
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 9.30 am.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
5251
Constituency Statements
Forrest Electorate: Environment
5251
5251
09:30:00
Marino, Nola, MP
HWP
Forrest
LP
0
0
Ms MARINO
—Today I would like to bring the serious concerns of constituents in my electorate of Forrest to the attention of the government. In May the Labor Minister for Resources and Energy announced the government would allow oil and gas exploration in the Mentelle Basin in Commonwealth waters off the coast of Margaret River, as one of 31 new offshore exploration leases around the country. The minister may be aware of the potential for oil and gas deposits to exist off Margaret River, but my constituents are also aware of the existing environmental qualities of the area, as well as the current and future environmental, lifestyle, tourism and surfing potential of the south-west of Western Australia, which includes Margaret River in its heartland.
There is no doubt that Margaret River is recognised and valued as an international destination and for its environmental qualities. The communities living in and around the spectacular and, in places, rugged south-west coast have long recognised that they are privileged to live in one of the most ecologically valuable environments in Australia and internationally. The communities also recognise that with that privilege comes the responsibility to care for and protect the land, air and water resources in their area. They and I want to be assured that the Labor government also understand their direct responsibility in this regard.
The minister has said that the strongest safety and environment protection regulations will be in place. However, how can a community like Margaret River trust this Labor government and the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett? They are responsible for the tragic and disastrous Home Insulation Program that has seen four young Australians lose their lives, over 100 house fires, thousands of roofs at risk—endangering the lives of thousands of people—and a potential billion dollar clean-up bill for taxpayers. I have no confidence in this environment minister and this government when they could not even deliver the Green Loans Program. On that basis, how can the residents of Margaret River and the wonderful south-west possibly trust the environment minister and the government to protect the pristine environment in which they live and which they love?
I ask how the minister for resources will assure my constituents that exploration and possible extraction of oil and gas will not impact on them, their homes or, either on land or in the ocean, the wonderful region in which they live. I specifically ask the minister: what safeguards has he put in place to protect the people and the environment of the south-western forest? Even the local shire CEO was recently quoted in the Augusta Margaret River Mail saying:
The shire is aware of the high level conservation issues which would need to be considered as a high priority in any policy development and would be sensitive to the community’s wishes.
This is a very serious issue for many residents in my electorate of Forrest.
Poverty
5252
5252
09:33:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—Recently, the parliament hosted many young people from throughout Australia involved in the Make Poverty History campaign. One of those, Jess Jacobson, is a Tasmanian organiser. Jess is from my electorate and has been very active in taking up causes on behalf of the least fortunate around the world. She was passionate and is passionate about making poverty history. Hopefully we are all passionate about that. I gave her my commitment that I would make reference in the parliament to the Make Poverty History cause and I am now fulfilling that commitment. Along with many others, I believe, I signed on to a call for members of parliament to pass the following motion:
We reaffirm our pledge, first made in the year 2000, that we will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanising conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion are currently subjected.
The commitment went on to say:
With only five years until the international goals to address extreme poverty are due, there is now an urgent need to recommit ourselves to this task. We can and will do our fair share to achieve all the Millennium Development Goals. Our actions of the last twenty years have already succeeded in halving rates of extreme poverty. Within a generation we can and will make poverty history.
Indeed, we have the means; whether we have the willpower to do this as both a nation and a community of nations is another matter. I truly hope that we will continue to do this.
I might say that one of the factors I talked about as I hosted, along with others, a forum with the Make Poverty History group, was that it is about the way we use what we call aid in order to support those that most need it. Creating peace is one way to affect poverty in the world. The provision of educational services and better health services is absolutely crucial. Just talking about offering aid may not be enough. May I alert those who may be interested and may be listening to a controversial and thought-provoking book, which I think is important, by Dambisa Moyo. It is called Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa and was issued in 2009. (Time expired)
Petition: National School Chaplaincy Program
Petition: Marriage
5252
5252
09:36:00
Scott, Bruce, MP
YT4
Maranoa
NATS
0
0
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—I rise this morning to present two very important petitions to this chamber. The first is a petition which calls on the Rudd government to extend the commitment to the National School Chaplaincy Program beyond next year. This Labor government has only committed to funding it at a reduced level until the end of 2011. The coalition has already promised that, should we be elected, we would continue funding the program beyond 2011 in its current form, which is a funding level of $165 million over three years. It has been an enormously popular program across the nation and it has certainly been embraced in my electorate of Maranoa. In fact, we had an overwhelming response to this petition with some 2,964 signatures. This is the second highest number of signatures received on a petition that I have presented on behalf of my constituents in Maranoa. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many church leaders and groups in my electorate—schools, individuals and families—who signed this petition and passed it around their communities. I call on this Labor government to take notice of this petition and I hope that they will heed the message from these almost 3,000 people and continue funding this very important and essential program in its current form.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the National School Chaplaincy Program, built on the excellent history of school chaplaincy in Australia, which was introduced by the former Coalition Government in 2007/08 with a commitment of $165 million for its first three years. It was endorsed by Prime Minister Rudd who said “they (Chaplains) actually are providing the glue which keeps school communities rolling”.
The program offers pastoral care and spiritual guidance to all. Chaplains necessarily have religious beliefs which underpin their work. These beliefs are representative of the school communities the chaplains work in and they do not hinder chaplains from working with those of other beliefs or none. It operates in 1915 schools and enjoys strong support among principals, schools and in the community generally.
The Rudd Government has extended funding for the program, at a reduced level, until the end of 2011, after which time there may be no more funding despite the program’s social benefits, sound administration and strong community support. Malcolm Turnbull has announced that if elected, the Coalition would continue funding the program in its current form, at its current level of $165 million over 3 years.
We therefore ask that the Rudd Government continue funding for the National School Chaplaincy Program in its current form.
from 2,964 citizens
Petition received.
YT4
Scott, Bruce, MP
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—The second petition I would like to present today calls for the definition of marriage to remain as a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. It respectfully expresses its opposition to same-sex marriage and its opposition to the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill. This bill was negated in the Senate earlier this year; however, I thought it was still important to present this petition here today so that the 270 people who have signed it will recognise that their views have been expressed by their federal member and that their voice has been heard in their federal parliament. The Greens have vowed that they will reintroduce this legislation during the first sitting of the new parliament. I believe that this is a very important issue for many Australians, not just the petitioners in my electorate, and I trust that the Greens are listening to this.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
RETAIN THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN
To the honourable Speaker a d Members of the House of Representatives:
We, the undersigned citizens draw to the attention of the House of Representatives assembled, that the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life” is the foundation upon which our families are built and on which our society stands. To alter the definition of marriage to include same-sex “marriage”, as proposed by the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill, would be to change the very structure of society to the detriment of all, especially children.
We, the undersigned citizens therefore request that the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, he opposed.
from 270 citizens
Petition received.
Isaacs Electorate: Community Bank
5254
5254
09:39:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
1
0
Mr DREYFUS
—I rise today to speak about the opening of an important business for the Aspendale Gardens and Edithvale area, which is the community bank at Aspendale Gardens Shopping Centre. The opening of the Bendigo Community Bank in Aspendale Gardens has been a long time coming, with a grassroots campaign run for around four years by the local community to secure the $710,000 investment required from shareholders to get the bank off the ground. After seeing the stalls set up at the Aspendale Gardens Shopping Centre seeking shareholders whenever I regularly do my mobile offices there and closely following the race to raise the funds, it was particularly pleasing to hear that the community secured the required investment by the January deadline.
The official opening of the branch on Friday, 14 May was certainly a grand affair, with several performances by talented students from the Aspendale Gardens Primary School, who run an excellent music program, and a huge turnout from the local community. Former St Kilda coach, VFL star and local resident Stan Alves officially opened the branch, which is now open weekdays and on Saturday mornings. Importantly, this bank will secure branch banking services for the local community with an ATM at the Edithvale shops.
As a long-time supporter of the project to bring a community bank to the area that will share profits equally between shareholders, Aspendale Gardens and the Edithvale community, I congratulate all involved in bringing this project to fruition. I also wish the best of luck to the local branch manager Russell Mactaggart.
On another matter, I recently went to the Richfield Retirement Village in Aspendale Gardens to discuss the federal budget with local residents. It was a great opportunity to talk about the changes being made to simplify the tax system, about how the Rudd government is reforming the health and hospital systems and about how the resource super profits tax would help better use super profits from our resources to boost compulsory superannuation to 12 per cent, reduce tax for small business and build vital national infrastructure. While some residents at Richfield told me that they have shares in mining companies—and we had quite a long discussion about superannuation funds—it was clear to me that residents at Richfield understood the importance of the mining industry, which uses non-renewable resources that belong to the Australian people to make massive profits, giving back by paying its fair share in tax.
I must also thank Ray Neal, a long-time resident of Noble Park but now a resident of the Richfield Retirement Village, who invited me to speak to the residents. I also thank the management of the Richfield Retirement Village, who are always accommodating in providing a venue for me to discuss important local issues with the residents.
McMillan Electorate: General Practice
5254
5254
09:42:00
Broadbent, Russell, MP
MT4
McMillan
LP
0
0
Mr BROADBENT
—‘Balderdash!’ as the Prime Minister said yesterday. What we heard from the member for Isaacs a moment ago about the health reforms is exactly the point that I would like to raise again in this chamber, and I have raised it twice before. It is chicanery and more chicanery, which means to be clever but devious at the same time—maybe a bit too clever and joined in by groups. It is about what has happened with GP clinics, and I am writing to every GP clinic in my electorate.
The government have taken away the practice incentive payments—seven of them—with regard to what happens within a general practice. What the government offered in those health reforms in the budget seemed extremely positive to me when they said, ‘We will give you nurses for each doctor. Five doctors, five nurses. We will give you a certain amount of money for each of them: $25,000 as an incentive to employ.’ It sounds fantastic, because nurses—and I am related to one—give us all great service and we appreciate what they do within a general practice. In one general practice, the practice would receive $125,000—$25,000 a nurse—but the practice incentive payments adding up to $185,000 would be removed from that particular practice, leaving a deficit of $34,000. In fact, I received another email yesterday that says that that practice now may be worse off again.
When members of this House go back to their electorates and talk to people, they need to consider what is happening in their general practices and what I raise today. I am raising it for the third time because it is important. I am not raising it to bash the government around the head; I am raising it because it is important, because it is going to affect the on-ground work done by GPs and their nurses. It means a disincentive to employ. It is one thing to give you a nurse; it is another thing to take away seven practice incentive payments for the work that those nurses do. It is the changing of bandages on wounds—the little things—that have been taken away by the department.
I do not think members of parliament on the government side even know this has happened. Last time we were in the House I did not table information on this because it was confidential, but I handed it to one member of the government and said, ‘This is what’s happening on the ground.’ It is plea from me today on behalf of GP clinics right across Australia that, if this is the case, as I have announced, it needs addressing, it needs addressing now and it needs addressing by this government at this time or I will raise it again. (Time expired)
Holt Electorate: Jayco
5255
5255
09:45:00
Byrne, Anthony, MP
008K0
Holt
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Parliamentary Secretary for Trade
1
0
Mr BYRNE
—I rise today to talk about a local success story that commenced in the winter of 1975 in a shed in Cranbourne. A 24-year-old man started a small business. He started with only eight employees but, using his formula for success—passion, perspiration and persistence, which are his terms—he created a business empire that has grown to be a key employer in Melbourne’s south-east. I am referring to Jayco, a great Australian company started by Gerry Ryan, who overwhelmingly demonstrated the entrepreneurial spirit that has characterised the success of so many Australian businesses.
There would not be too many privately owned businesses that are celebrating their 35th birthdays this year, but there would be even fewer that could demonstrate their success not only in business but also in their commitment to their staff in that they still employ some of the staff that began with the company 35 years ago. Indeed, of the eight staff that began with the company in 1975, six still work there. One of them is 76 years old. What is more, there are over 20 employees who have been with the company for more than 20 years. Last Friday, 400 of these staff and spouses celebrated the company’s 35th birthday at a dinner at Docklands in Melbourne.
I have come to know Gerry and respect him for the enormous contribution he has made to his business and to the community. He is an unassuming man but one who commands intense loyalty from his staff. They describe him like this: ‘He’s a quiet man who doesn’t like attention or look for accolades.’ That is reflected in the working environment at Jayco. The values that Gerry infuses Jayco with and the significant investment in the staff capacity result in the employees’ pride in their workplace. It is also the familiar atmosphere of the company that has resulted in its resounding success. At the height of the global financial crisis, when companies were shedding staff, Jayco made a conscientious effort to retain their highly skilled workforce—many of whom had been taken on by the company as school based apprentices. These were people who Gerry and his team knew would not be easy to replace once the Australian and international economies recovered. Now, with over 750 staff, Jayco remains a significant employer in south-eastern Melbourne and many from my electorate of Holt work in the company.
During his 35 years at the helm of Jayco, Gerry has also used the company’s success to pursue numerous philanthropic projects. Only recently the Australian labelled him as one of the country’s greatest sporting philanthropists. He is an avid St Kilda fan—I guess you have to have one vice!—being a life member and having had a stint as the club’s vice-president. I know how welcome his support is there. He is also a generous supporter of the Dandenong Rangers in the Women’s National Basketball League, as well as a supporter of the Australian Jockeys Association, the Melbourne Storm, various cycling teams and significant events like the now famous Adelaide tour down under and the Jayco Herald Sun tour in Melbourne.
It is important to note Gerry’s contribution in other manners, like the Visy Cares Centre in Dandenong, which invests in community based projects like youth centres, libraries, hospital infrastructure and services for migrants and refugees—just to name a few. I congratulate Gerry and Jayco on celebrating its 35th birthday. He is clearly not a man who seeks recognition, but I certainly believe that, given his contribution to the community, he should be recognised in this House. (Time expired)
Higgins Electorate: Home Insulation Program
5256
5256
09:48:00
O’Dwyer, Kelly, MP
LKU
Higgins
LP
1
0
Ms O’DWYER
—Today I rise to bring the attention of the House to the latest example of the government’s failure in its billion dollar botched Home Insulation Program. After the tragic loss of lives, homes and businesses, the latest victims of the government’s home insulation scheme have been those small business people who have been tasked with cleaning up the government’s mess. Yesterday I was contacted by one of my constituents, Mrs Beverley McCracken, of Armadale. Beverley is a concerned mother and grandmother. Beverley’s son, Steve McCracken, is an electrician who has been contracted by the government through Queensland home electricity safety to conduct safety inspections under the government’s Foil Insulation Safety Program. Mr McCracken has performed over 500 safety inspections in the last two months and he is yet to receive payment for those safety inspections. He is owed $40,000.
The contract with the government says that the government will make payment within 30 days of the work being performed. It has been over 50 days, almost double that period. In Senate estimates only last week, when questioned on the time frame for payments, the department again confirmed that payments would be made within 30 days. Because he has not been paid, Mr McCracken, husband, father of two, has been forced to defer employees’ wages; he has been unable to pay his creditors on time; he has been forced to pay significant bank penalty fees; and he has had to renegotiate his mortgage. The financial stress on his family and his business has been considerable. Is it any wonder that Beverley McCracken called me to ask: ‘If my son is staring down the barrel of bankruptcy, how many other small business people out there are in the same position?’
The government’s priorities are all wrong. They seem to have no problem finding $38 million for political advertising but they cannot scrape together $40,000 to pay a small business man for cleaning up the government’s mess. They seemed to have no problem declaring a national emergency when they saw Kevin Rudd’s poll figures, backflipping on their promise not to fund political ads to spruik their great big new tax. If the government were really serious about governing, rather than politics and media management 101, they would instead recognise that the real emergency here is the threat to people’s lives and property. I do not see them rolling out a national advertising campaign to warn people of their billion dollar home insulation scheme, advising people on how to check their homes for safety. I have written to Greg Combet asking him questions about this latest failure. It is the latest failure of a government that has a pattern of failure. (Time expired)
Dobell Electorate: Health
5257
5257
09:51:00
Thomson, Craig, MP
HVZ
Dobell
ALP
1
0
Mr CRAIG THOMSON
—I rise to speak about health reform on the Central Coast. In particular, I want to talk about some of the initiatives that this government has introduced, such as the GP superclinic. I know that the member for Solomon and the member for Petrie, who are in the chamber, also have GP superclinics in their electorates. What a difference the GP superclinic is already making to the electorate of Dobell. My electorate borders the electorate of Shortland, and the people who live in Shortland will also benefit from this GP superclinic.
The GP superclinic is costing the government $2.5 million, but an additional $16 million is being invested by the private operator. That shows the great value for money that the federal government is getting from this clinic. It will employ over 106 doctors and health professionals and fill a much needed void in the northern part of my electorate. It is within a kilometre of the busy Wyong Hospital, which is the fifth busiest emergency department in New South Wales. One of the great things about these GP superclinics is that they are designed to help take the overload off these busy emergency departments in our busy public hospital systems and, therefore, allow the public hospital system to function more efficiently than it is at the moment.
The second issue that I would like to raise in relation to health reform on the Central Coast is the investment in cancer care. Again, I know that the member for Solomon has had some very large announcements in relation to cancer care in Darwin as well. So this investment is not just happening in my electorate; it is also happening right across the country. For far too long on the Central Coast, people who have been suffering from cancer have had to travel down to Sydney. I have to pay tribute to Kay Smith and the campaign that she has run over many years to try and get proper cancer care on the Central Coast. She started this campaign when the previous government was in office and of course got nowhere in relation to that. For 12 years that government chose to do nothing about cancer care on the Central Coast. It has been the Rudd government that has stepped up to the plate on this issue to make sure that people get proper cancer care at both Gosford Hospital and Wyong Hospital as part of this great initiative. Without it, many people have told me that they simply could not get down to Sydney and that the cancer they were suffering from often did not get treated. Quite frankly, that situation has led to more deaths than would have occurred without this great initiative.
The final issue that I would like to raise is about our area health service. For far too long on the Central Coast, we have been part of the Northern Sydney Central Coast Health Service. With the reforms aimed at running our areas locally, we have the prospect of having a Central Coast area health service. It is something that I have petitioned for. It is long overdue and it is needed for all the constituents on the Central Coast. (Time expired).
Mallee Electorate: Banking
5258
5258
09:54:00
Forrest, John, MP
NV5
Mallee
NATS
0
0
Mr FORREST
—I rise again to express my concerns about the debt recovery practices of banks across Australia, and not just in my constituency, where there is a debt tsunami sweeping across the electorate as a result of 10 years of drought and lack of water for irrigators. I do not retract from the strength of the statements I have made. It appals me that I have to come to this chamber and use the powers at my disposal to expose thuggery and brutal activity by lenders as they brutalise people in the collection of borrowings that they are owed.
The other thing that disturbs me greatly is that the Australian Bankers Association has 24 members and, of those 24 members, there are only two that I can in all conscience recommend to my constituents if they want to consider borrowing money for a risky enterprise. There are only two that I can in all conscience publicly commend: ANZ and Westpac. That leaves 22 others about which I am not confident that, if a borrower got into strife because of circumstances beyond their control—be it drought, be it being badly treated by the government with late payments, as the previous speaker for the opposition raised, or whatever the circumstances—they would be treated decently.
I come to this place with a code of conduct that is driven by my faith position, modelled on the behaviour of He who is the centre of the Christian faith. I do not always meet that standard. It is a pretty high bar. I do not even expect lenders to reach that bar, but I do expect them to behave honourably like proper Australian corporations should and not use their thuggery and their immense power to crush people and, after they have done that, leave the local member with the job of offering moral support and trying to get welfare and counselling for people who have been crushed by the abusive behaviour that they have endured.
Banks are entitled to get their money, yes, and I will do what I can do to assist them in that, but they are not entitled to gouge excessive fees and penalty interest rates, which in one case I am currently dealing with are as high as 22 per cent. That is an indictment of that particular bank. To the bank that I have named: all I am asking you to do is to sign up to the Australian Bankers Association’s code of conduct. If that bank that I have named does not do that, I ask that other members of the Australian Bankers Association do what they can to have them expelled from the Bankers Association because their bad behaviour is reflecting on everyone. (Time expired)
Petrie Electorate: Health
5258
5258
09:57:00
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
HVN
Petrie
ALP
1
0
Mrs D’ATH
—I rise to talk about health reform in my area, Redcliffe peninsula, in the electorate of Petrie. Like the member for Dobell, I am very excited about a new GP superclinic being built in my area. The Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon. Nicola Roxon, and I turned the sod with Steve Hart, the CEO of the Redcliffe Hospital Foundation, on 7 May on the site. This will be a five-storey building on the hospital grounds. What will happen is that people who attend the emergency department will be triaged and, if it is considered that it is not a emergency and they can see a GP, they will be referred straight over to the new clinic and seen by our bulk-billing doctors, who will be operating seven days a week from 8 am to 10 pm.
I have brought a picture of what the new centre will look like. It will be a fantastic centre. We are so excited about this facility. It will not only have extended hours for general practice; there will be a chronic disease management clinic, allied health practitioners—chiropractors, physiotherapists, nutritionists and dietitians—a pathology clinic, a radiology clinic and a pharmacy. The University of Queensland School of Medicine has partnered with the Redcliffe Hospital Foundation to establish this wonderful centre. We are going to have specialist suites. There are going to be 80 health professionals overall. Steve Hart has been quoted as saying:
“We want to create a situation where we can train our GPs and create a local supply,” he said.
“It’s all about developing local expertise.”
The university has projected there will be 40 medical students in training at the facility each year, 30 nursing students and six to 10 students in the School of Dentistry.
We will have a dental school in this facility. About 220 jobs will be created during the 52 weeks of construction for this facility, which is hoped to be open this time next year. There has been criticism on the other side of this chamber about the GP superclinics. Can I say that my community welcomes this announcement. This is going to be a fantastic facility. It is going to bring state-of-the-art health services to our area. I hope that we can build new clinics like this across other electorates, because other communities deserve to have what we are going to have in Redcliffe this time next year.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2010-2011
5259
Bills
R4361
Cognate bills:
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 2) 2010-2011
5259
Bills
R4360
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2010-2011
5259
Bills
R4359
Second Reading
5259
Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Mr Swan:
That this bill be now read a second time.
5259
10:00:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—I welcome the opportunity to rise in this debate to speak about some of the important issues in the federal budget but also some of the important issues economically for Australia, with particular regard to the electorate of Casey. Madam Deputy Speaker, as a fellow Victorian I have said before in this chamber I know your familiarity with the eastern and outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Your electorate is a little more than a torpedo punt away but you are in the vicinity of the outer eastern suburbs. The electorate of Casey comprises outer eastern suburbs, part of the Yarra Valley, part of the Dandenong Ranges. The decisions that are taken here in Canberra in a budgetary sense are very much felt on the ground in the electorate, and I want today to address a number of those as we talk about the Rudd government’s third budget.
Three years ago this government inherited one of the best budget situations of any government in the world. Now as we consider this budget all Australians are very familiar with the policy implementation failures, the waste and mismanagement that have become a feature of the Labor government. We have had billion-dollar blowouts in the Building the Education Revolution, we have had countless examples right across Australia and within my electorate of value for money being abandoned in a rushed project with poor and disastrous policy implementation. No amount of opposition from the government members in this parliament will conceal the fact that the Australian people are a wake-up to what has been monumental policy failure on so many levels.
The parents of school communities across Australia and within Casey know about the failings of the Building the Education Revolution program because they see the waste, they see it in their school community. They know that under the previous government they had a choice about their school’s future through the Investing in our Schools program. Under this government they have no choice and when large amounts of money are spent they know that they are not getting value for money as a result of the mismanagement of this government’s programs.
On the ceiling insulation program—and I know this will be the case for all members of parliament and I know many of those opposite will never say what I will say but they know that what I am about to say is a fact—there has not in recent memory been an example of a government program that has adversely affected so many people in our electorates. The number of phone calls and amount of correspondence about this failed Home Insulation Program has been astronomical. I say that because the experience of Casey residents will be the same as the experience of other residents right across Melbourne, Victoria and Australia.
The Home Insulation Program, which the government belatedly admits was a failure, will be a symbol of the incapacity of this government to deliver policy effectively. It will be a symbol of this government’s waste and mismanagement. I stand here with my friend and colleague the member for Mallee, who has been a member of this House longer than me, and I am sure that he would agree that, once, a billion dollars seemed an incredible amount of money. Of course it is, but with a billion dollar blow-out in the Building the Education Revolution and a billion dollar blow-out in the ceiling insulation program, these are now just rounding errors for this government—rounding errors that occur time after time. The amount of debt we have—and the Leader of the Opposition spoke of this in his budget reply—now sees Australia borrowing $700 million each and every week.
In the electorate of Casey, under the Howard government, community infrastructure projects were funded, despite what those opposite would say. Significant community infrastructure projects were funded between 2004 and 2007—for example, the Monbulk Community Centre hub, to the tune of a couple of million dollars, and the Montrose Recreation Reserve, to the tune of $600,000. These were funded out of surplus budgets. We did not borrow that money.
Casey residents see the federal government racking up debt and deficit and they know that, at the end of the day, that is paid for by them. It is paid for in higher taxes, it is paid for in higher interest rates and it is paid for in fewer opportunities. In three short years, many people across the electorate have seen the government’s form on policy implementation and they rightly pose the question: if the government cannot run a ceiling insulation program, how could it possibly run bigger programs and how will it possibly implement policies into the future? The one thing the electors of Casey know is that the government has revealed its incapacity and that this government cannot and will not get any better in the expenditure of their money here in Canberra.
We have also seen broken promises and mass hypocrisy. The greatest hypocrisy we have seen over the last week—and I know the member for Mallee will agree—has been the decision, and the concealment of the decision, by the government to engage in political advertising on its resources tax. Australians will be interested to know that tomorrow will be day 7 of a national emergency. We will be at the end of one full week. Last Friday we and the Australian public discovered that the government had bypassed its own processes to enable this advertising campaign. Not only that; it spent all week in Senate estimates concealing it.
Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, could not have been clearer when he was the Leader of the Opposition. Last Friday night the news footage showed him as the Leader of the Opposition pledging with his hand on his heart to change the system and inviting journalists to come back if he when in government did not meet his promise. Well, he has not met his promise. He deliberately decided that the emergency of saving his political skin was more important than his solemn promise to the Australian people. People want to know when the Prime Minister decided he was going to break faith with the Australian people. Once he had there was, as we have seen with this government, this incredible effort to cover it up in the inquiries during the week.
The electors of Casey have seen that, if this government makes a promise, it is likely to break it and, if it implements a policy, it will muck it up. They have seen in just a few short years this government make promises to them that it does not keep and this government seek to implement policies and then waste money. When confronted over many weeks and months, as it was with the ceiling insulation debacle and the Building the Education Revolution school halls debacle, there is stubborn refusal to acknowledge the failure. There is not even the slightest attempt to say, ‘Maybe there’s a problem here and we should fix it.’ The government’s first instinct is to deny. This went on for months with the ceiling insulation program and the Building the Education Revolution program.
The sad part for those opposite is that the residents of the electorate of Casey and right across Australia can see this policy failure every day. They see it in their community. More than 40 residents have contacted me with disastrous stories about ceiling insulation. A lady had people knock on her door and proceed to install insulation. They damaged her roof and then disappeared. There are countless examples—
NV5
Forrest, John, MP
Mr Forrest interjecting—
00APG
Smith, Anthony, MP
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—I am tempted to say that maybe the same installers went to Mildura. Sadly, there were so many cases like that. The first instinct of the government was to pretend that it was not happening. In doing that, they knowingly let this bad and catastrophic program continue.
This third Rudd government budget has answered the question for many in the Australian community. This government cannot manage money, cannot implement programs and cannot be trusted on anything it says in the lead-up to the next election. If the government will break promises it made before the last election, it will break promises in the future if it gets a chance. If the government is not competent to implement basic policy, that will never change. At the next election, the people of Australia will have a choice, and they will have that choice having seen the Rudd government over three years of policy failure, broken promises, waste and mismanagement. This budget is a budget that is starkly different from the budgets of the Howard government. Back in those days, those opposite complained about how money was spent in times of surplus budgets. Now, their promises on reducing the deficit and reducing debt must be kept alongside their track record on broken promises to date.
5262
10:17:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
0
Ms SAFFIN
—I welcome the opportunity to speak to the appropriation bills, and I also welcome the budget. For us as a nation, this budget is able to build on a position of strength. That is important as the world is still grappling with the impacts of the global recession. We avoided the global recession—the worst the world has seen—but not all of the fallout from it. There is no way we could escape some of the fallout, but we did not go into recession. People can say that was good luck, but it was not—it was good management. Luck can always feature in a lot of things, but basic good economic management and political management helped make sure that we did not go into recession when almost all other developed countries with advanced economies did not.
Norway would have been one country that did not go into recession. Norway has also gained its richness and wealth over the years from resources. They have been world leaders in the way they manage their resources. I have great familiarity with this—as members of the House know, I lived and worked in Timor-Leste for nearly four years, so the resources sector is not unknown to me, and big mining companies and how they operate are not unknown to me either—some of them have immersed themselves in the debate that is happening here. I have seen the way that they operate in countries around the world, and sometimes it is not a pretty site. The Treasurer said in his budget speech, and I agree:
A position of strength from which we will build a modern tax and retirement income system, invest in renewable energy, and deliver historic health and hospital reform.
He further said:
A position of strength from which we will build the skills base and capital stock we need for a new generation of prosperity.
I want to congratulate the Treasurer not only for the budget but for three budgets, the three successive budgets of the Rudd Labor government. I also want to say to him: credit where credit is due, because often in politics people do not get credit where it is due. The economics editor Tim Colebatch, writing in the Age on 1 June, in an article titled ‘The dirt on dodging the GFC’ said:
And the Rudd government’s stimulus measures put a floor under retail spending, housing and construction activity when it was most needed. Let’s give credit where credit is due.
We should give credit where credit is due. He said some other interesting things in this article and one of them was:
The recession was concentrated in manufacturing, where output fell 11 per cent: mining output fell just 1 per cent. Mining didn’t save us from recession. The impact of China’s stimulus certainly helped us recover, but only after the worst had passed.
The article goes to the heart of the issue of the stimulus and clearly articulates that the stimulus helped save us from recession, and it certainly did. We do not live in isolation. We are members of parliament, we have got electorates, businesses, local people, schools and local economies, and it is clear that stimulus has worked to help keep us out of recession.
We would have seen people in long unemployment queues. I can remember seeing them, and members in this House would remember seeing them, and the queues go on for a long time. Some people I know, who were unemployed years ago, found it nearly impossible to get back into employment, particularly older people, and older males especially. I have seen it when we had high youth unemployment—
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall
—Back in the eighties and nineties.
HVY
Saffin, Janelle, MP
Ms SAFFIN
—Yes, in the eighties and early nineties. So we did not want to repeat that situation, and without the stimulus we could have had that happen. So let us be clear, we needed the stimulus. It saved our bacon, as the saying goes. Yes, we had a reasonable basis to launch from, but far from as sound and perfect as the opposition would have us believe. They often try and remind us that the Labor government inherited all the good things. Yes, some things were good, but there had been all those years of growth preceding the Howard government and through the time of the Howard government.
Let us just have a look at the facts. When in 2007 the Rudd government came to government, there were some really tough conditions. There was inflation, the highest in 16 years, and it had risen to that rate in the last quarter of 2007. The average increase was high in the Reserve Bank’s measures of underlying inflation. It was 1.2 per cent. That was in the December quarter of 2007, just after Labor came into government. But it was to be three per cent higher through the year. Throughout the previous government they had been given 20 warnings about inflation from the RBA. From everything that I have looked at it appeared that those warnings were not acted upon.
We know that productivity was at its lowest level. We have had debates about the 457 visas and, yes, they have been needed so that we could bring people into the market to do certain jobs. But if the productivity had been higher, had it been worked on, had there been policy input, it would have made a difference. The average annual productivity growth over the last five years of the coalition government was lower than in any other equivalent period in 16 years. The productivity growth fell from an average 2.1 per cent a year over the 1990s to an average of just 1.4 per cent during 2000.
There was no investment in infrastructure either. Yes, there might have been little projects, which are very welcome. I have seen some little projects in my electorate, and that leads me to digress to talk about the Investing in Our Schools Program, which the honourable member who spoke previously talked about in his contribution. I have seen some of the projects from that program, and some of them were good projects. But it was done on a competitive basis—not every school got one. When we are looking at schools, if it is good enough for one school then it is good enough for another school. That is why the BER and the NSP and a whole range of those programs can work, because they cover all schools. When we are looking at education, schools should not have to bid on a competitive basis for resources and things needed in their schools.
Child care was an absolute mess, and that takes time to sort out. Health reform had been deemed too hard in some areas. Yes, there had been some things that had happened, but it was ‘too hard’. The opposition leader, the member for Warringah, as the then health minister said it was too hard. He said the Commonwealth should take over the dominant role, but that was too hard to do, and then he ripped a billion dollars out of what is referred to as the Medicare agreement, the Australian healthcare agreement.
Regional development was another area. Yes, they had regional development projects, but we saw the regional development rorts. We all saw the Auditor-General’s reports on that. If you have a look at the map of where those regional development projects went to, it was to a very small range of areas, and some appeared to be favouring certain members of certain parties. And in 1997 they actually axed the department of regional development, which astounded me. I cannot understand how a coalition partner like the National Party, whose rhetoric is that they are the natural party in the country, allowed that to be just ripped out. They watched all of these things go.
Turning back to the budget, one thing that is clear is that without the stimulus we in Australia would have gone back 0.7 per cent in 2009. That was when the advanced economies contracted by three per cent, but Australia grew at 1.4 per cent. So this bodes well for us. Also, to comment on spending, the spending growth is capped at two per cent so it is responsible economic management. Under the previous government the spending growth was around six per cent, even up to 6.6 per cent. So if you want to do a quick check about responsible management, the facts have to match up with the political rhetoric, and they do not.
There were other important measures in the 2010-11 budget, particularly the health investments. There is $772 million to improve access to general practitioners and primary health care and $523 million for training and supporting Australian nurses. There is $467 million to modernise our health and hospital system, and that is e-records. That can sound a bit high-tech, but it is about our health. It is about having less interventions. It is about our health records, with our health status following us wherever we go in the health system so that they can be accessed by whichever practitioner we have to go to for treatment. That is really important. I know, as would other members here, that you can have to go to one doctor and then to another and might have to have multiple X-rays or blood tests. That is not good for us when we are dealing with health issues, because there are risks in that, but it is also an absolute waste of public money. Having the e-records will start to change the system so that a lot of that will not have to happen.
Obviously, one of the key reforms is in the area of hospitals. It is about hospitals being funded nationally and run locally. It is a change welcomed—certainly I welcome it—right across my electorate of Page. We are very engaged in local debate and discussions about how it is going to play out. I notice the honourable member for Lyne is here and I have heard him engaged in that local debate as well. It is a discussion that we do have to have locally to make sure that we have the best fit for our local needs.
I will discuss a couple of other issues in the budget. One is the resource super profits tax. Under it, the government will contribute 40 per cent of the investment in mining projects and take 40 per cent of the superprofits—and it is ‘superprofits’. It is not the regular profits, the standard profits, the normal profits—it is superprofits. This structure means that the tax applies to what the secretary of the Treasury has called ‘supernormal profits’. By taxing only supernormal profits, this tax does not distort production and investment decisions.
Listening to the debate, it is as though all the investments in the resources sector are about to happen now. In fact, they are locked in for years ahead. They are locked in internationally. There is absolute discord between what some of the big mining companies are saying and the reality on the ground. I have never heard such rubbish as when I heard them talking about sovereign risk. In the resources sector, the sovereign risk of a country is associated with a whole range of factors: its stability, its security, its political stability. These mining companies operate in countries all over the world in places where risks are great. In Australia, there is no sovereign risk. It is absolute nonsense when they talk about that in this debate. They are just throwing words around and running this whole fear campaign. The Leader of the Opposition has unashamedly jumped on board and become the champion of fear. His attitude is: ‘Can we scare people? Let’s go out and do it. Let’s run a campaign. We will not have any policy or any well thought out initiatives. Let’s just go out and try and scare people.’
The whole debate as it is being played out is unbelievable, especially some of the numbers and claims that have been bandied about. The mining boss, Clive Palmer, was absolutely ridiculous with one claim about the shutting down of a project in South Australia that did not even exist. It is a bit like the cheese factory that did not exist under the previous government’s regional rorts funding. It is similar absolute nonsense and Clive Palmer is a leader of the LNP, as it is called in Queensland.
We saw the same scare campaign last time a 40 per cent profits based tax was introduced in the eighties and that industry went on to flourish. So this will just get played out. The government’s engagement with most industry representatives has been very constructive. There is a panel set up just for that.
I will just make a couple of concluding remarks. Australia’s fiscal position is the envy of the world. Our net debt peaks dramatically lower and Australia’s unemployment peaks lower. I seek leave to have these graphs incorporated into my speech.
Leave granted.
The graphs were as follows—
HVY
Saffin, Janelle, MP
Ms SAFFIN
—I thank those opposite for doing that and I commend this budget to the House.
5266
10:34:00
Oakeshott, Rob, MP
IYS
Lyne
IND
0
0
Mr OAKESHOTT
—I rise to talk about the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and associated bills, and to do a round-the-world trip of some issues within the Lyne electorate on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. I will start with the central issue for a high-growth area that has traditionally been underserviced by state governments in regard to its own resource distribution formulas in the area of health. In the 2007 Garling report, the whole North Coast window was identified as being underserviced by up to $70 million per year. Our area has been underfunded for too long now due to our high growth rate and our large ageing population cohort. State structures have continually failed to deal with that growth. Therefore, the move by the Prime Minister and others to tackle the issue of health and hospital reform was strongly welcomed by me and others on the North Coast. It was described as a slam dunk for high-growth areas such as ours because it would bypass the perennial problems of state based funding, and the abuse of resource distribution formulas, through direct Commonwealth funding of local health networks. A bit of command and control at a clinical level and at a local level would be very welcome.
That was pre-COAG language. In post-COAG language it is probably less of a slam dunk. We are now at the detailed stage where boundaries are being defined and governance structures in regard to who is going to be involved and how they are going to be involved at a local level are being determined. I flag this as an issue of concern: we have the same foxes in the henhouse of reform—that is, the same state authorities that have been the traditional problem in high-growth areas are now, post COAG, back in a position of command and control over some of the critical issues around boundary definitions and governance of local health networks. Also post COAG, we have the concerning issue of once again putting state funding authorities and state based human discretion into resource distribution. We are potentially repeating the same problems of the past. I hope I am wrong. I hope that this detailed stage fleshes out this new state funding authority, which has been included in the Commonwealth funding direct to local health networks, and that it actually does not mean anything, does not get in the way and does not affect resource distribution formulas. I hope that there is no human discretion element and no ulterior state motives involved in it, which raises the question of why it is there at all. I sincerely hope that it plays a minimal role in deciding where money ends up and that we can be as pure as possible about Commonwealth funding direct to local health networks.
I also raise the concern that it is a state cabinet decision that is essentially being made now in regard to boundary definitions and local health network governance structures. I would hope those decisions are as pure as possible and that the Commonwealth is not walking away from the critical framework decisions that are being made right now. It is in this detailed stage that we will hopefully see a health reform system that is pure and does meet the rhetoric and the language of the Prime Minister when this whole process started. I sincerely hope it does, but I do flag that there are creeping concerns at the community, clinical and political levels. Some of those command and control issues are now creeping back to the area that was the problem in the first place—the state bureaucracy in New South Wales not coping with questions of equity and population movement to high-growth areas like the North Coast of New South Wales.
I sincerely hope that the federal health minister, the Prime Minister and the federal cabinet have not walked away from the detail stage and that they are still very much engaged with what is happening in this detail phase of the proposals. If necessary we do not just use carrot; we also use stick in regard to tied grants and in relation to any mechanisms that keep the rhetoric pure. We see in practice what has been promised in this reform program, which is critical for communities, particularly for high-growth communities such as the mid-North Coast of New South Wales.
Pre COAG I was thrilled that for the first time in the history of the seat of Lyne we had a Prime Minister, regardless of political persuasion, walk through the door of a local hospital in the Lyne electorate. That reflects on the history of the Commonwealth and on the history of political representation nationally and in the seat of Lyne. I will also give credit where credit is due and say I think it reflects well on the Prime Minister that he was willing to get his hands dirty on the topic of health and was willing to get into the regions and meet with clinicians and communities. I know the Prime Minister cops criticism for being overexposed in hospitals but, for regional areas such as mine, when this was a first to have a Prime Minister walk through our hospital’s doors, it was well received, I can assure this place. Again, regardless of political persuasion or who holds office, I would hope that in the future we all encourage prime ministers to get into the regions, to get into regional hospitals and to be willing to get their hands dirty on some of these critical community issues around health services.
I was pleased he came through our doors. By logical extension, when he came back a second time, he was also the first Prime Minister ever to come back. I think that was welcomed as well. I know our clinicians, of all political persuasions, pitched a very strong case to the Prime Minister and did leave an impression, which could be seen in the language when he announced the health and hospital reforms. At the National Press Club it was hospitals in the Lyne electorate, Port Macquarie Base Hospital in particular, that were front and centre in those debates and in those policy releases.
From a community perspective that is very, very welcome because we have a history on the mid-North Coast of division over health. Port Macquarie Base Hospital was the Australian experiment in regard to privatised public services, which caused enormous divisions at a local, state and national level in regard to the ideologies in and around how health services are delivered at a community level. The Prime Minister’s visit was therefore a good moment for us to be a leading example in a positive way rather than one that is dragged down and used to clobber one political party or another over the head as a negative example.
I appeal to this place to keep health and hospital reform on the agenda and ask that no-one walks away now that we are in the detail stage—that we do not leave it to the same decision makers at a state level to make the same decisions for the same poor reasons. The regions matter, and equity in resource dollars also matters. I would hope the Commonwealth stays very engaged on that front.
We have a submission for a fourth wing at Port Macquarie Base Hospital. It is a large project of $70 million but it is to meet the growing needs in our area. None of this reform will fly in areas such as mine unless we deal with the capacity questions that are confronting us on a daily basis right now—that is, the issues of more beds, more bricks and mortar and more capacity for hospitals such as Port Macquarie Base Hospital. That submission sits and waits to be dealt with by, preferably, the state government—because capital is traditionally theirs—but, in this environment where reform is on and capital is in the game, I also have put that submission before the government. I urge them to deal with it sooner rather than later.
As well, we have put a submission in for what will hopefully be the next round of GP superclinics. That program has been broadly welcomed by both the community and the primary healthcare network locally. I am surprised at the politics around it and disappointed that some have chosen to oppose the concept of GP superclinics. It is a model that works. Aligning allied health and primary healthcare organisations generally into the one-stop shop concept is eminently sensible, particularly, I might add—from my old state parliament days—locating them as close to hospital emergency departments as possible to relieve pressures on emergency departments. I would certainly recommend that the minister for health once again look at our submission. It is exactly along those lines and includes a component on GP training. If government is going to make a contribution then there should be a contribution from the GP network to build a long-term GP structure for the future, as part of those who might receive some government support giving a bit of love back.
I flag the issue of mental health. I am not sure whether others have flagged it in this debate. There were a range of concerns expressed—including by the Chair of the National Advisory Council on Mental Health, John Mendoza—around the lack of support within this budget for mental health services. It does matter in regions such as mine. We have been traditionally underserviced. I was pleased we saw a change of budget position with regard to the ability of social workers and occupational therapists to participate in the delivery of mental health services. That was a sensible change after the budget. If it had not been changed, it would have had a huge impact in communities like mine. I make the pitch again, and I am sure there are others who have done so in this debate: mental health services are needed and they need much greater attention from government to get it right, because we have not got it right at the moment.
I noticed that John Mendoza also made some comments about Indigenous health services. The medical centre within my community that deals with 2,000 Indigenous residents made a very strong point to me—that is, there is largely no difference between Indigenous health issues and mental health issues. Of their clients, 70 per cent have mental health issues. We need to get our heads around—pardon the pun—a lot of these issues in a much better way from a policy perspective, because many people in the community are suffering and the services are not on the ground to meet the need.
I also want to mention education, while I have the chance. It is probably a nice segue from comments about silo thinking in public policy on issues such as Indigenous health and mental health. We have submissions before government within the education space around place based thinking. Our region has a pretty good track record of people making it through to year 12, but the figure is still frighteningly low at just over 50 per cent. For that to be the national average, I think, reflects on all of us and is something for us all to think about. Secondary school participation rates, in my view, are low; so why are they generally seen to be accepted?
We as a region have pretty good comparative levels of vocational education and training uptake, but traditionally we have had very poor tertiary education uptake. The Bradley review wants 40 per cent or higher of 25- to 34-year-olds to hold bachelor degrees by 2025, but our current levels on the mid-North Coast are 11 per cent. As a local community we need to get our skates on, but so does the federal government. There is a lot of very exciting work being done within the education space on low SES engagement and within the space of employment-education, and I welcome that, but we still face some challenges. I want to put on the record a comment in the DEEWR report—the government’s own report—that was released this week in the lead-up to the regional loading questions. The report focused specifically on engagement, access and participation rates in regional and remote areas. A comment in this report said that, based on administrative data—the government’s own data:
Regional and remote access and participation rates … have deteriorated over the last five years.
The report did not say ‘slowed’, it did not say ‘declined’; it said ‘deteriorated’. All of us who have read hundreds of government reports know that the language used in such reports is normally incredibly cautious and incredibly conservative. For a report to say ‘regional students’ access and participation has deteriorated’ is, I think, national emergency stuff.
If we treat as a national emergency a dispute with some mining executives then I would ask the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to have a conversation with the Deputy Prime Minister about the crisis of confidence with regional students’ access and participation rates and to get their skates on in turning this deterioration around. If we are serious about the national interest, if we are serious about meeting these Bradley targets—these ambitious and welcome Bradley targets—we need to deal with this issue now and turn around the trend which is saying that regional and remote students are not participating and not accessing education pathways. ‘Why not?’ is the question. And what is the government doing about it when it is a national emergency?
I also very quickly want to put on the record some issues about roads and bridges and the community regional infrastructure program. I am disappointed that this program has been cut. It has been treated as a stimulus only program. For regions such as mine, it was an absolute breath of fresh air to see Commonwealth funding going directly to local councils. It made a huge difference in their capital works programs. I would urge some reconsideration on that front and that it be an ongoing program. You do not have to be too much of a visionary to argue the case that such a program finishes the story around regionalism and the very point of the Commonwealth. You could argue that that job is only half done. Direct funding from the Commonwealth to local councils for community infrastructure was very welcome, and it is disappointing that it has been cut.
I have asked the government before, and I will ask it again, about a national timber bridge fund. It might sound small scale to some in this place but it is not for people who live on the North Coast of New South Wales. This issue affects not only my electorate but also that of the member for Page, who spoke before me. The town of Kyogle has the highest number of failing timber bridges in Australia. In the land of valleys and hills, these timber bridges are the lifeblood of many people. We cannot leave it to local councils to deal with this issue when the bridges are all failing around the same time, en masse. Councils are rate pegged in New South Wales and simply do not have the budgets to deal with this situation. It is a shame that, in 2010, we see one level of government struggling for money while the other two levels of government are splashing it around. I once again ask the government to consider this matter.
5270
10:54:00
Bradbury, David, MP
HVW
Lindsay
ALP
1
0
Mr BRADBURY
—I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011, the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2009-2010 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010. The budget that was handed down by the Treasurer is a responsible budget. It is a budget that will return the financial position of the Commonwealth to surplus in three years time. That is three years ahead of schedule. It is a responsible budget because it recognises that, after having invested in key areas of the economy throughout the global financial crisis and having supported jobs and delivered the economic activity that flowed from the stimulus measures, it is now time for us to build for the future and build for recovery.
I note the success of those stimulus measures. The national accounts which were released yesterday really underlined the significance of the stimulus measures and their impact on the economy. The national accounts show that the economy grew by 0.5 per cent for the March quarter. That is a rate of 2.7 per cent annualised. Australia continues to be, as a result of these measures, one of the best-performing economies in the world. CommSec economist Savanth Sebastian said:
If these measures—
that is, the stimulus measures—
were not in the mix, effectively the Australian economy would have been broadly flat or even negative.
Scott Haslem, the UBS chief economist, said:
Traditionally economic growth has been split 80-20 between the private and public sector. Over the last year it was 60-40 in favour of the public sector as the private sector struggled.
So you can clearly see that, had it not been for that investment by the public sector to support jobs, to stimulate demand, the economy would not have been able to record the growth figures that have been achieved. Justin Smirk, St George chief economist, said:
Domestic demand, fired up by government spending and fiscal handouts, is the key driver for now …
Clearly these respected market economists have concluded that the stimulus measures were integral to the achievement of that growth that has just been reported. I remind the House that those opposite voted against those stimulus measures. Had we not been able to secure the support of others in the other place, then we would not have been able to do what we did in steering the Australian economy through the global financial crisis, supporting jobs and making sure that the economy continued to grow and to grow strongly.
I wish to refer to a couple of graphs, which I will later seek leave to incorporate into the Hansard. In particular I would like to draw attention to a graph that is described as ‘Fiscal position the envy of the world’. When we look at this graph, we can see in very stark terms that, when it comes to our fiscal position—returning the budget to surplus in three years, three years ahead of schedule—Australia is outperforming the rest of the advanced economies. If we look at the graph that is referred to as ‘Net debt peaks dramatically lower’, we see in very stark terms that Australia’s net debt is at much more manageable levels than that of any comparable economy throughout the advanced world. This is as a result of good economic management over many years in this country, over several administrations. Reform initiatives that were undertaken by the Hawke and Keating governments and the budgetary position that was maintained—notwithstanding the escalation in spending—under the Howard government allowed the Australian economy to weather the storm through the good financial management of this government.
I want to refer to a couple of measures that are set out in the budget. In particular, I want to talk about health, because health is one of the key issues that take a very prominent place within the budget. We have delivered $7.3 billion over five years starting from 2009-10, including $417 million for more after-hours GP access, including 24-hour hotlines, and $355 million for 23 new GP superclinics. I heard the member for Lyne, who is very passionate in advocating the needs of his community, talk about the need for a GP superclinic in his community. The member for Lyne had better be quick or he had better hope for the re-election of the Rudd Labor government, because without a Rudd Labor government that program, that investment in GP superclinics, will be ripped away by Tony Abbott. This is the same Tony Abbott who, when he was the Minister for Health and Ageing, ripped a billion dollars out of the health system. He now wants to rip away another $820 million of health funding. He ripped a billion dollars away in government and now in opposition he wants to rip away $820 million. There is no end to his determination to rip away base levels of funding within the health system.
If we have a look at the important area of education we see that there is a further attack that has been mounted by the opposition in relation to trades training centres. I am fortunate to come into this place and represent a community that has secured funding for two trades training centres delivering trades training opportunities in 13 local schools in my community. That program is going to be cut, the heart ripped out of it by the spending cuts that have been proposed by the opposition leader. Computers in schools has been a fantastic program. Come into the schools in my community and see the progress that has been made. So many of them had ratios of fewer than one computer for every eight students and secured funding in the first round of this program. We now have all of our local schools, years 9 to 12, running at a ratio of one computer to every two students. We have a determination to reduce that to one to one. Those on the other side want to rip away the funds that have already been allocated for this program. They want to ensure that the schools in my community will not have the opportunity to move from the ratio of one to two to one to one. I will be fighting hard on this issue because I know how important it is for the educational opportunities of young people in my community. In fact, in my community approximately a thousand computers will not be delivered if there is a change of government. In terms of national partnership funding, I see that there is also an attack on measures that are targeted towards teacher training and teaching quality. Schools in my community are getting the benefit of those funds and they will be subject to those cuts and those attacks.
I want to mention briefly skills, and in particular the Apprenticeship Kickstart program which has been a fantastic program that has delivered massive benefits in a community such as mine. If we have a look at the impact this has had on apprenticeship startups through the global financial crisis, we see that from December 2007 to February 2008 there were 212 apprenticeships taken up. From December 2008 to February 2009 it dropped to 165. Then have a look at what happened after Kickstart kicked in. It got the numbers up to 243, not only returning those figures to pre-GFC levels but exceeding them, giving more young people in my community opportunities to learn trades, to develop their skills and to move into those parts of the economy that require those skills so desperately. Those on the other side would attack these sorts of programs.
I will briefly refer to the resource super profits tax and what an important initiative this is for delivering benefits right across the economy, ensuring that the entire Australian economy, all of the Australian people, secure the benefits from the exploitation of our nation’s mineral wealth. We will ensure that money is directed towards key initiatives that will stimulate and liberate economic activity right across the economy. There are cuts in company tax rates to 28 per cent—we are the only party proposing to cut company tax. Those on the other side, with their paid parental leave, that sham of a policy—
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
HVW
Bradbury, David, MP
Mr BRADBURY
—The member for Moncrieff knows that it is a sham of a policy. I do not believe he would ever have supported this if he was in any party room discussions that decided this because he knows it is a sham. It is an impost that has been imposed upon business, and arbitrarily on big business. Why? Because they had to find the money somehow.
The RSPT is about ensuring that all Australians secure the benefits of the exploitation of our mineral resources. They are a finite resource, they are non-renewable. They are the resources of the Australian people and once they are dug up and shipped off overseas, every time that happens a little bit of Australia’s natural wealth is exhausted, dissipated. That is why it is so important that we are able to capture some of the benefit of that and spread it right across the economy to ensure that communities such as mine in Western Sydney are able to get some of the benefit of that. When the Reserve Bank makes its judgments on whether or not to increase interest rates it takes into account the rapid growth, the capacity constraints and all of the challenges that occur in places like Western Australia and Queensland. Meanwhile, those small businesses in Western Sydney doing it tough get slugged with the same increases in interest rates where those capacity constraints lead to that effect.
What we say is, ‘Let’s share the benefits.’ Let us make sure that small businesses in communities like mine get a tax cut, get an opportunity to build on the investment allowance that we introduced during the global financial crisis and get a one-off deduction of up to $5,000 on their capital items that they purchase to invest in the future of their business.
We say that we should be investing in superannuation. I note that those on the other side always want to tell us, in the debate that we are having at the moment, that they support superannuation and that they think we should increase it but just not yet. With all of these things it is: ‘Just not yet.’ Their attitude is: ‘Yes, we believe in an adequate retirement savings, but most of the people that we represent, well, they can adequately provide for that above and beyond what might be compulsory contributions, so the rest of the unwashed masses should be happy with nine per cent until we determine at some future point that they might be entitled to it.’
They have never supported superannuation. They opposed it from the start and they continue to oppose it today. I want to quote the Leader of the Opposition because this particular quote puts in very stark contrast the position of this side, the government, and what we want to do for working people to boost their retirement savings, and the approach of the Leader of the Opposition. He said this in 1995, but I have to say that comments he has made more recently reinforce this view. In 1995 he said:
Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.
It is not a con job; it is an initiative that has delivered one of the biggest funds management sectors in the world. There is $1.1 trillion under management. It has assisted in steering us through the global financial crisis. This is a great achievement this country has put in place and we want to build upon it. We want to make sure that everyday people in my community are able to retire with a decent standard of living.
I would like to conclude by saying that the trilogy response to the budget was like a play within a play within a play. But, when we finally drilled down to what the response was, it was about opposing the things that will build a more prosperous future for Australia, going into recovery. It was about opposing health spending—but are we surprised, from someone who has a record of ripping money out of the system? It was about opposing superannuation—but are we surprised, from someone who is on record as saying it is the biggest con job ever foisted on the Australian people? It is about opposing infrastructure spending—but are we surprised, from those who spent all of those years in government failing to invest in the infrastructure needs of this country and building capacity constraints that ultimately led to the interest rate increases that they told us we would never have because they said they would keep them at record lows. All they did was lie to the Australian people. They failed to tell the Australian people that the Reserve Bank makes these judgments independently. To the extent that they could contribute to taking the pressure off interest rates by investing in infrastructure, they were asleep at the wheel and failed.
We have someone who is also opposed to the resource super profits tax and opposed to putting a price on carbon. This is an opposition led by leader that is opposed—
10000
May, Margaret (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mrs MA May)—I draw the member’s attention to the word ‘lie’ and I ask him to please withdraw that comment from his statement.
HVW
Bradbury, David, MP
Mr BRADBURY
—If that suits you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. What the opposition and particularly the Leader of the Opposition stand for is opposing things—oppose, oppose, oppose. If you really want to have a look at what it is that they stand for, when you strip away all of the hot air that is the opposition of the opposition, they stand for one thing and that is Work Choices. They stand for ripping away the standards, the conditions and the wages of working people. They did it when they were in office and the sad reality is that they failed to hear the message the Australian people sent them at the last election, and that was: ‘Get your hands off our penalty rates, get your hands off our unfair dismissal protections and get your hands off the protections that mean that we are not forced to go into workplaces and bargain one-on-one with an employer that has vastly superior bargaining power.’ They were the messages that they sent to the former government. The failure of this opposition to hear those messages is something I intend to spend every waking hour between now and the next election informing and advising my community about. I seek leave to have the graphs I referred to incorporated in Hansard.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I advise the member that a previous speaker also sought to have similar documents incorporated. I advise you that the incorporation of the documents will only be granted if the documents meet the Speaker’s requirements. The graphs appear on page 5265 of today’s Hansard.
HVW
Bradbury, David, MP
Mr BRADBURY
—I understand that.
5274
11:10:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
0
Mr CIOBO
—I am certainly pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the cognate debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and related bills—in other words, on the Rudd Labor government’s most recent budget. It is instrumental when looking at the Rudd Labor government’s performance over the past almost three years to look at the way in which this government has truly come to fruition in terms of the promises it has made to the Australian people and how much it has actually delivered. It is instructive when you look at the journey of the Rudd Labor government and at the state of the nation’s economy to look at who it is we now have governing this country and what their philosophical and ideological beliefs are.
We know in 2007 that the Prime Minister stood before the Australian people and said, ‘Elect me because I am fiscally responsible, I am economically conservative and you can trust me.’ Shortly after being elected the Prime Minister wrote a treatise effectively in which he spoke about the dangers of neoliberalism, about the great concerns that he had about capitalism and about the structures that this country and others have had in place for decades. He did it in the context of global economic tumult as a consequence of the so-called GFC. I have no doubt that, within the core of the man who is our Prime Minister, there is a wholly unreconstructed socialist who is pulling the levers of the economy of this country.
As a young man growing up I often heard comments about former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Gough Whitlam is heralded as being among the greatest of the Labor pantheon. He was a man who represented all the greatest ideals of the Australian Labor Party. His approach to government in a short period of time—I would argue, with my knowledge of history, it was too long a period of time—did incredible economic damage to this country. A common statement was that the very last thing Australia needed was another Gough Whitlam. I almost thought it was common knowledge. Unfortunately, that is where we find ourselves with this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister and his Labor government in less than three years have brought profound change to this country, and I predict it will take decades to repair the damage that has been done.
We know the former coalition government, in 12 years in office, did a number of notable things. Among them was the full repayment of $96 billion of Labor Party debt. The Labor Party have form when it comes to managing the nation’s finances and their form is to spend big and to tax big. Every time Labor are in power in this country they spend recklessly and then have to raise taxes to pay off their debt. Every time Labor are in power they drive the budget into deficit. Every time Labor are in power there is a reason why it has to happen. This government once again, true to form, have done exactly that.
So after 12 years of diligent, disciplined, safe stewardship by the former Prime Minister, John Howard, and the Treasurer, Peter Costello, the coalition paid off in full Labor’s $96 billion debt. We effectively lifted a burden off future generations of young Australians so that they would not have to pay the price for the ridiculous and reckless spending of the previous Labor government. We got the budget back into the black, and because we had paid off the debt and had the budget back in surplus, we were able to ensure that instead of paying billions of dollars every year towards the repayment of Labor Party debt, that money was better able to be channelled into the programs that the Australian people needed.
It was done in two ways. One was through investment in issues like health, education and infrastructure, and the second was through the provision of tax cuts, meaningful tax reform and personal income tax cuts. Those tax cuts, when it came to personal income taxes, amounted to around $150 billion. Our tax reform package, which Labor opposed, included the abolition of wholesale sales tax, which was being levied—I think from memory—at 12, 22 and 32 per cent, and it was replaced by a single growth tax, the GST, with all the funds flowing directly to state governments so that they had an ongoing source of revenue. That was the tax reform legacy of the coalition. More than that, the previous coalition government brought about reforms which actually reduced this nation’s unemployment level to a 30-year record low, to below four per cent. So I believe on any measure that Australians can be justifiably proud of the performance of the previous coalition government.
Contrast that with what we see happening under the appropriations bill and the performance of this government. We know that there was global economic tumult. We know that there was some need for some stimulus of the Australian economy. But the problem is that what the Labor Party gave the Australian people was not what they promised or what the Australian people wanted. What the Labor Party has given all Australians—and, most distressingly, future generations of young Australians—is debt and deficit. In the short course of around two years this Labor government has racked up what is expected to be net peak debt of around $95 billion. So we spent 12 years paying off the debt that Labor gave us, only to have them in two short years turn around and deliver another $95 billion of debt. That is the indictment on the Australian Labor Party, because it will be my children and the children of tomorrow that have to pay off Labor’s debt.
Frankly, I—and, I know, many other people in the community—get fed up with Labor Party politicians and with this Prime Minister and this Treasurer marching around the country claiming to be Santa Claus, saying, ‘If you do not like spending on schools, then get out of our way. If you do not like spending on these projects, get out of our way. If you do not like spending on this new initiative that we have got, get out of our way.’ I say right back to the Australian Labor Party—what I believe in and I know young Australians believe in—and that is: let us have sustainable spending and value for money, not the kind of ridiculous, wasteful, reckless spending that we see from this government, which has absolutely scant regard for value for money and for what Australian taxpayers work damned hard for. Australian taxpayers can spend their money a lot better than Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan, and it is disgraceful that the Labor Party would dare to stand up and argue that $600,000 school canteens and $1 million covered outdoor learning centres, which only two years ago had a cost of around $200,000, are in some way justifiable given the economic tumult.
It is absurd that Labor Party politicians would say to future generations of Australians: ‘Yes, we know we promised that we were going to provide a computer to every child in school between year 9 and year 12. We know we have only delivered 25 per cent of that—one in four. And we know that the cost has doubled to now be in excess of $2 billion. But that doesn’t matter. It’s only a billion dollars!’ So a billion dollars on computers in schools, several billion dollars under the so-called Building the Education Revolution, billions of dollars wasted under the solar program, homes burning down under their completely bungled and botched insulation program—and Labor members have the audacity to look Australians in the eye and say, ‘We’re doing a good job.’ How patently absurd.
I went to the opening recently of one of these new so-called education revolution buildings at one of my schools in Moncrieff. I endured a Labor senator standing there and waxing lyrical about how visionary the BER was and how it was a record investment in Australia’s school needs. I had the opportunity to speak, and when I stood up in front of those children I said to them: ‘You should enjoy this building. The community should own this building because, you know what, the community is going to take decades to pay off the debt that put that building there—decades to repay the $95 billion of debt that needs to be repaid.’
We hear the sophistry of the Treasurer when he says, ‘We’re going to get Australia back in the black in three years time,’ as if in some way it is a credit to their economic stewardship. But they will not have Australia back in the black in three years time. They might, if everything goes exactly according to their overly optimistic forecasts, get Australia’s budget a billion dollars back into surplus, but the $95 billion debt will still be there—and it will be there for decades. So when I see people like the member for Lindsay, who spoke prior to me, stand up and crow that Labor has Australia in the lowest net debt position in the Western world, I am forced to scratch my head over what an incredibly misleading tale Labor members provide in this parliament. The reason that Australia has the lowest level of debt in the Western world is because of the starting point: zero net debt—in fact, nearly $50 billion worth of assets.
E09
Owens, Julie, MP
Ms Owens interjecting—
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr CIOBO
—How incredible that Labor members sit in the chamber now and shake their head, no. Fifty billion dollars of net assets is an inescapable fact, and it has been your government that has eroded that $50 billion of assets and left us now with $95 billion of debt. The members opposite can laugh—
E09
Owens, Julie, MP
Ms Owens
—Laughing at your ignorance!
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr CIOBO
—but that just highlights how completely ignorant they are of the facts. Labor members do not appreciate when you go from a net savings position of $50 billion of surplus—which they have expended in full—to leaving Australia with net peak debt of $95 billion, that in some way that is wrong.
E09
Owens, Julie, MP
Ms Owens
—It’s wrong!
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr CIOBO
—Well, I would dearly love to hear from Labor members who claim that that is wrong. I would love to hear them explain how that is wrong and attempt to justify to future generations of Australians that they have to pay off the debt that this government has left. I would dare say about the robustness than their arguments that, frankly, this piece of paper would have more strength.
What else have Labor said they will be able to do? What else have they promised the Australian people that they have absolutely failed to deliver on? We know that Australians are justifiably very concerned about the state of health. On the Gold Coast, Australia’s sixth largest and fastest-growing city, we have a number of unique pressures on the public health system. That is part of the reason the former coalition government put so much emphasis on driving people who could afford to pay into private health insurance through incentivisation. We knew that the more people there were in the private health system, the less pressure was placed on the public health system.
Unfortunately, our good work in the area has been undone. When in government, we lifted the level of private insurance coverage from the low 30s up to, in my electorate for example, the mid-50s. That meant that more people were using the private system because they were incentivised and they could afford to use the private system. But, because of Labor’s absolute ideological commitment to socialised health, we have now seen them slowly unpick at the edge of that. Kevin Rudd, prior to the last election, stood up and said that he promised not to touch private health insurance, but, as with so many of the promises of this Prime Minister, it meant nothing. One of their first acts in government was to start to erode the effectiveness of the private medical insurance scheme by playing around with thresholds. There are projections that this would force up to a million people who were privately insured onto the public system. That is Labor’s solution: to push people who were not a burden on the public system and who were actually utilising the private system back into public hospitals.
To compound the problem, the Labor Party said it would deal with this effectively through the rollout of what it called GP superclinics. Apart from the fact that the GP superclinic model has been lambasted by medical practitioners, we also know that in a city like the Gold Coast, Australia’s sixth largest city, not a single GP superclinic has been built or promised—not one. The Gold Coast is Australia’s sixth largest city, with a population of 500,000 people, and this government, which hails itself to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, has neither promised nor built a single GP superclinic there. The government has made the problem worse by taking people from the private system into the public system. Is it any wonder that Australians are scratching their heads about what exactly this Labor government is up to? It is not delivering services. It is, in fact, compounding problems. It is little wonder that the Gold Coast hospital is so frequently on bypass. It is little wonder that Gold Coast residents and residents in my electorate are forced to go up to Brisbane because of the incredible neglect of the public health system on the Gold Coast.
Another promise that was made by Rudd Labor ahead of the election was to end the double drop-off. How many times did we hear the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister talk about how Labor would end the double drop-off? They were going to create 260 childcare centres across the country that would enable working mums and fathers to make a single drop-off of their children at school and child care at the same time. Now, as with all the other false and hollow promises of Rudd and of Rudd Labor, this has also been axed. This was yet another promise where, suddenly, apparently the market radically transformed itself in two years, so now they no longer need to build these childcare centres.
The truth is that the Rudd Labor government would say anything to get elected and then just junk it after the election. That is what has happened. But we were warned. The current Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, the member for Kingsford Smith, said—and was in fact quoted by a radio announcer ahead of the last election when he made a remark in one of the airport lounges—that it did not really matter what Labor said, because they would just change everything once they got elected. Now we see the absolute truth of that statement.
So it is little wonder, then, when it comes to Labor’s performance, that this Prime Minister says he is an economic conservative, but then writes extensively boring essays on neoliberalism, runs up $41 billion of debt in this budget alone and has $95 billion of net debt forecast for this country. It is little wonder when he promises a computer for every child from grade 9 to grade 12 but then only delivers, in my own electorate for example, 16 per cent of those computers. This is a Prime Minister who promises the Australian people that he will not touch private medical insurance but then seeks to unpick it and pull it apart; a Prime Minister who promises that he will be strong on border protection but then does everything he can to completely dilute and water down our border protection policies; a Prime Minister who says that he knows and understands small business but then creates incentives which are totally ineffectual because they rely on small business cash flow; a Prime Minister who says that he understands the needs of older Australians who are self-funded retirees but then proposes an obscene 40 per cent extra tax on the industry that has helped to make this country strong and the economic powerhouse that it is; and a Prime Minister who erodes the retirement savings of older Australians, both those who hold shares in mining companies and, through his threatened exploitation of Telstra’s provision of copper cable, those who hold shares in Telstra.
On each of these fronts, is it any wonder that Australians have lost faith, confidence and trust in our Prime Minister? The track record of this Labor government is appalling. Australians can see straight through this Prime Minister and straight through this Labor government. It is best summed up in a comment that was made by one of my colleagues. He said that Kevin Rudd is just like Gough Whitlam but lacking the conviction.
5278
11:30:00
Rea, Kerry, MP
HVR
Bonner
ALP
1
0
Ms REA
—I rise to give my very strong support to the budget that was delivered by the Treasurer in this House a couple of weeks ago. In so doing I also acknowledge comments that were made by the member for Moncrieff regarding Gough Whitlam. I think it is important to remind the House and those listening that, if he was such a terrible Prime Minister and if it was not for the investment in social infrastructure, support for community services and development through education thus ending discrimination and other measures, my colleague the member for Parramatta—indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister and many other women in this House and I—would not be here. Unfortunately we would see a parliament still full of people mostly like the member for Moncrieff, which I am sure everybody would agree is not necessarily a good thing. We need different perspectives in this parliament and sometimes we need the facts.
I congratulate the Treasurer for the budget that he has delivered, but I offer just one piece of advice to him, which is the fact that he has undersold his achievements in this budget. We heard from the Treasurer that this would be a no-frills budget, a fairly financially conservative budget and measured in its response to dealing with the global financial crisis. It is certainly setting Australia down the path of returning to surplus and is looking at ways in which we could reduce our deficit and be a responsible economic government. However, what the Treasurer has not done is acknowledge that he has managed to do all of that. He has managed to produce a budget that is financially responsible, that sets the nation in good stead for the years ahead, that takes us down a path which will see peak debt halved and will see the budget return to surplus in just three years, which is some three years less than was originally predicted.
He has done that and at the same time also delivered some very key, important economic reforms to all sectors of the Australian community. Whether you are a young person looking for a job, or a woman in the workforce caring for your family, or someone looking at going into the aged care system or someone who is concerned not just about our economic sustainability but about our environmental sustainability with the Renewable Energy Fund, there are a whole range of measures in this budget which deliver some very important reforms and very important initiatives to support the Australian community. At the same time we are doing so in a very responsible economic environment which sees us addressing the issue of the deficit and reducing our debt. I commend the Treasurer on the budget that he has delivered and I think it is a very significant one for the times that we are currently living through.
I will particularly mention a few of the things in here that I think are very important not just to the nation but to the community of Bonner, which is the electorate that I represent. To begin with, we have the health announcements. Nobody can possibly decry the significance of a $7.3 billion spend on health. We all know that wherever you are in this country, whether you are in a metropolitan city or a rural and regional area, there is an issue with accessing good-quality health services when you need them. This budget goes a long way to improving those services for people regardless of where they are. In particular I am very interested to see more around the Medicare Locals and e-health initiatives. There is $417 million for Medicare Locals, a service which will give people the sort of after-hours access to medical advice and care that they currently cannot get. They cannot get it because there are not enough doctors in our suburbs to be able to service that need. They cannot get it because we have not been clever about the way we can use the skills of nurses, doctors and allied health professionals to see more people receiving advice more quickly.
As I have said many times before in this House, we all know—and I know personally as a mother of three—that, if a child is going to get an ear infection, it is not going to happen from nine to five, Monday to Friday. You can almost count on that being the very time it is not going to happen. The fact that people will now be able to seek after-hours advice through GP services, that they will be able to either contact the National Health Call Centre Network or get advice from a nurse or a doctor or be sent to a service in their local area that they know is open after hours and that will be able to see their children, is a fantastic initiative that will not just see extra dollars go into health but see extra dollars go into health that are going to make a difference for the wellbeing of our community.
On top of that, there is the $467 million set aside for e-health and developing e-health records. When I have spoken to my health professionals in Bonner, they have said to me that the one thing they believe could improve the health system significantly is the opportunity for a national e-health system. They see so many people unnecessarily hospitalised or unnecessarily traumatised because, in an emergency in particular, health professionals dealing with that person do not have the data and the background of their overall health record. They do not necessarily know all the medication they are taking. They do not know their past health history. If they were able to access that instantaneously, it would reduce the amount of trauma that people go through when they are being wrongly diagnosed or given medication that is not compatible with other medication that they are on. It can actually prevent people needing to go to hospital because you can provide a much better diagnosis based on their whole medical history. It is a very significant initiative and one that I know is welcomed by the profession.
Of course, health is not the only winner in this budget. We have heard a lot of discussion about environment policy, the issues of climate change and the support for a trading scheme. Personally, I am incredibly disappointed that the opposition did not take the initiative in the Senate to support the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I am very disappointed that the Greens, who have set themselves up as the party that most cares for the environment and is most committed to seeing a reduction in emissions, did not take the opportunity to see a trading scheme go through the Senate when they had it. I think it is one of the biggest disappointments that I and my local community have seen in the last couple of years. But I know that we as a government have not resiled from our commitment to put a price on carbon and to look at ways to get the big polluters and the industries involved to pay their fair share in reducing emissions. Nevertheless, we know that this is an ongoing debate and one that we the government will not walk away from until we get a good result.
In the meantime, the Treasurer has had the foresight to put into this budget some $652 million for a renewable energy fund, because we all know that, if there is one single way in which we can reduce emissions, it is changing our dependence on carbon and fossil fuels. We have to look at ways we can boost renewable energy. It is not going to happen overnight but it is going to happen. It is going to happen with a government that is prepared to put funding into research and development and to support the small initiatives out there that will probably one day become mainstream with the right level of support and endorsement. We are going to encourage the community to reduce their emissions by changing the source of their energy and by looking at ways in which they can seek alternative energy sources that are renewable. So this fund is a significant step in the government’s commitment to dealing with climate change and taking action—not paying lip-service but actually putting in place initiatives and policies that will see genuine outcomes on the reduction of carbon emissions across this country.
I am also very pleased to see that there is $661 million—in fact more than that—in this budget for skills training and support for youth employment and education policies. One of the biggest things that has confronted us and something that industry has been saying for years in this country—and it has become crystal clear throughout the global financial crisis and the government’s response to it—is that, while we were benefiting from a major resources boom and while the accounts of the country were rising significantly, we were not planning for the future to make that boom sustainable. We were not investing in the infrastructure that we need to support our export industry, particularly the resources industry. We were not investing in the ports, the rail, the roads and all of that very important physical infrastructure required to get the stuff out of the ground and get it to wherever it needs to be.
More importantly, we know that industry was also saying that we were not investing in the workforce. We were not putting much-needed programs and policies in place that were skilling up our young people to take advantage of a continued and more sustainable resources boom. Luckily for the young people in Bonner and for the young people across Australia, we now have a Rudd Labor government that understands the cry from industry and has answered their call. This government understands how important long-term secure employment is not just for economy prosperity but for social prosperity. We are putting money into much greater skills and training programs that will see a long-term benefit over the forward years.
As I said, we have invested over $661 million in reforms and programs to increase our skills base. This will ensure that our training system is responsive to the skills that our economy needs to prosper. It will provide the sorts of jobs that people need in terms of economic growth. It will mean that young people, regardless of who they are or where they come from, will have opportunities to contribute to that growth. This will mean that they can seek the advantages of those programs and they can be valuable contributors to economic growth in this country.
The Skills for Recovery Program will provide, over four years, $299 million—nearly $300 million—to look at capacity constraints and to create up to 39,000 training places. It will supply $242.5 million over four years to develop training systems that will support participation, support training and support the link between the training that is needed and the businesses that are looking for employees. The Foundation Skills Package will help 140,000 Australians build core foundation skills such as language, literacy and numeracy.
I know that, when the huff and puff of various debates is set aside, every single member of this House will acknowledge the enormous contribution that people who have come here from other countries have made to the building of Australia. I know that everyone in every electorate across this country can identify those migrant communities and individual people who have migrated here who have built up an enormous strength in terms of their contribution both socially and as part of the economic growth of this country. In fact, we could not have done it without them. Here is a program that will provide support for another 140,000 Australians who, with the benefit of some basic skills—such as literacy, numeracy and language—will be able to continue that very valuable contribution that people from other countries who have migrated here have made.
I also acknowledge the significant contribution in this budget to the aged care system. We all know we are facing an ageing population. We all know that aged care, in a sense, is the elephant in the room. It is the very huge financial and social policy debate that we will have in the next couple of years. If we do not get right the mix between adequate funding and good programs to support both the not-for-profit and private sectors in providing aged care facilities, many Australians will not get in their older years the care that they deserve. In this budget there is $907½ million over the next four years to deliver better aged care workers, greater training, more staff and capital support—that is, all of those things that go into making an aged care facility not just good or adequate but actually a lovely place to be, a place where people will enjoy their retirement and enjoy all the support that they need as they get older and frailer.
There are many other initiatives in this budget that I unfortunately have not got the time to talk about. I just want to acknowledge the increase in funding for international development assistance, particularly in my role as Chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. I am so pleased that, even despite financial constraints, we are committing to increasing funding to support our goal in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. I am also very pleased to see the historical increase in funding for legal assistance. We all know that the difference between getting legal aid and not having access to good quality legal assistance can make the difference for a young person between getting their life back on track and going completely off track for the rest of their life, with them being a burden rather than a contributor to our community. It is a very important part of the budget and I commend this and the other programs and congratulate the Treasurer on his efforts.
5282
11:47:00
Haase, Barry, MP
84T
Kalgoorlie
LP
0
0
Mr HAASE
—I rise to address the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and related bills. The third budget handed down by the current Labor government will go down in Australian history books as being the hypothetical budget. It is based on a wing and a prayer. It is based on robbing the resource industry and it is based on dreams and hypotheses. This budget is not worth the paper it has been written on. The Rudd government took office with a coalition created surplus to the tune of $45 billion. Three years later, here we are looking down the barrel of debt, debt and more debt. Reckless spending and gross mismanagement of taxpayers’ dollars will result in Australian families wearing the millstone of debt for many years to come. Prime Minister Rudd’s unfettered access to the taxpayers’ money is akin to Scrooge McDuck going for a daily dip in his cash filled bins. I can picture Mr Rudd throwing the cash in the air and yelling: ‘Ah, mirth and be merry. My worries are over! I will kill the golden goose. I will make resource companies pay the highest tax in the world, and that should make Australia the richest land in duck world.’
It is now time for the Labor government to put their comic books down, to stop imagining themselves as cartoon characters and superheroes and to understand the gravity of the situation they are about to place all Australians in with the introduction of what they call a tax on ‘superprofits’. Superprofits are apparently profits in excess of just six per cent. The Labor government believe that, by taxing the resource industry at the highest rate in the world, they will increase investment. This creative and imaginative thinking may be applicable in duck world but the reality is that it will not work in the real world.
So why is the Rudd government willing to put at risk the living standards of all Australians? I will tell you. Firstly, he needs to claw back revenue to cover the cost of his cash splash that is now costing all Australians in higher interest rates. Secondly, his polling of south-eastern Australia has convinced him that he can keep people from the truth and con them into believing he is some sort of modern day Robin Hood, robbing the rich to give to the poor. And thirdly, he believes, or so he tells us, that miners are not paying enough tax.
On Monday, 31 May in the House, the Prime Minister said in defence of his great big new tax on mining: ‘Whichever way you cut the cake the return to the Australian people via the taxation system is infinitely less than it was a decade ago.’ On Tuesday, in a question to the Prime Minister, I asked him how he could reconcile that statement with data compiled by Access Economics, Treasury, ATO and ABS which show that the total tax-take from mining over the last decade has increased from $2.6 billion to $21.9 billion. How could he describe tax revenues, which have increased by more than eight times, as ‘infinitely less’? Mr Rudd gave no explanation whatsoever.
Let us look at some cold, hard facts. Australian projects compete with other projects in other countries for capital. Obviously, less profitable projects will not be looked upon as favourably by investors as those which are more profitable. This is just plain common sense. The Labor government has assumed there will be no change to the perceived level of sovereign risk in Australia with this new super tax. Capital and currency market initial reactions to the announcement suggest the perceived sovereign risk has increased. According to the Australian, Macquarie Bank advised clients that Australia was ‘now seen as being a high sovereign risk destination to invest’ and there was a ‘significant risk of major capital flight out of Australia’. BHP Billiton CEO Marius Kloppers warned that Australia was in danger of ‘tarnishing’ its reputation as the ‘gold standard’ of investment destination for mining companies. According to Mr Kloppers, ‘it would be extremely unlikely to think that we can approve a major investment while this uncertainty hangs over us’.
The impact that this tax will have on investment and projects is immeasurable. The resource industry of Australia, the very same industry that has fed and clothed Australians for many years, did not happen by chance. Ingenuity, planning, resourcefulness, belief and, most importantly, hard work, often in the face of great adversity, have all contributed to the now successful industry. Many towns in regional Australia have been built on the back of resource companies. These companies provide the population with infrastructure such as airstrips, hospitals, schools, police stations, ports and roads that local towns and communities enjoy.
The mining sector has paid $80 billion in tax over the last decade. That is $80 billion dollars back into the communities of Australia, and the Rudd government has the audacity to tell us that putting this tax collection at risk will not affect the living standards of everyday Australians. What gibberish! This same sector paid eight times more tax last year than it did a decade ago.
The Treasurer’s Economic Note dated 23 May 2010 stated:
… wholly-domestic mining companies paid an effective tax rate of only 17 per cent and multinational mining companies paid an effective tax rate of only 13 per cent—both dramatically below the headline company tax rate of 30 per cent.
In reality ATO statistics show that for 2007-08 the mining industry as a whole paid 27.8 per cent effective corporate tax rate, and that rate equates to 41.3 per cent when royalties are included. BHP Billiton, year ending June 2009, had an effective tax rate inclusive of royalties of 43 per cent. BHP Billiton alone, between 2004 and 2009, paid total taxes of over $24 billion. These taxes are helping to support the entire nation—a nation where the majority of the population is on the eastern seaboard and the majority of whom have never even seen a remote mine site. Yet these same people are being conned by the Labor government and lulled into a false sense of security that there will be more money in the coffers for them. Well, let me tell you: there will be no extra cash coming from my patch if this great big new tax is introduced.
Already Fortescue Metals has put $17.5 billion of its projects on hold, due entirely to this great big new tax and its far-reaching effects. Steve de Kruijff, Chief Operating Officer for Xstrata Copper North Queensland, said in a press release:
We have decided to suspend exploration activities in north Queensland until there is greater certainty on the fiscal regime for future mining developments. Exploration activities are high risk and, while the targets we had identified are prospective, the proposed tax has introduced great uncertainty about the potential impact on the economics of developing resources into viable operations in Australia. It would also change the relative economics of these prospects compared with exploration programs that Xstrata Copper is pursuing in other parts of the world.
Oz Minerals chief executive, Terry Burgess, in a statement to shareholders regarding the impact of this great big new tax on the Western Copper project in South Australia, stated:
… in light of the proposed resources industry tax, we will be unable to make a decision on this project until we have certainty on the proposed tax arrangements and therefore the economics of the project.
According to Ivor Ries, Head of Research at EL&C Baillieu Stockbroking, as published in the Eureka Report:
There are 270 major resource projects in Australia undergoing feasibility studies and financing with a total capital value of $320 billion. These projects would have employed somewhere around about 120,000 people during the construction phase. The Resources Super Profits Tax has stopped them dead in their tracks. All of those projects are now frozen.
Never before has a proposed government policy had such a direct effect on my electorate. You, Mr Rudd, are dudding the people in my patch and we won’t stand for it.
Ashok Parekh, a local chartered accountant with over 3,000 clients in the Goldfields, has been a chartered accountant for 32 years and has been operating his own company for 25 years. In 2003 he received a Centenary Medal from the government and last year he was awarded the highest award of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Meritorious Service Award. Here is what he has to say:
I have lost faith due to the recent performance of the Rudd Government. I think they have lost the plot. What the Federal Government is doing is very similar to the old communist system. The tax is bad for all Australians. We have suddenly become a sovereign risk with all the mining companies in the world. Already mining companies are finding it difficult to raise funds because of this tax. We are also finding in the Goldfields there is reduction in turnover for retailers because the general public are scared of what is going to happen. The idea that lots of small businesses are going to benefit from the company tax, reducing from 30 to 20 per cent is misleading. Most small business are set up in structure of either number one, a sole trader, number two, a partnership and number three, a family trust. None of the structures will get the benefit in the company tax because they are not companies.
In Kalgoorlie we have an electronic notice board, or a ticker board, on the Palace Hotel, the most prominent position in town. While it usually displays financial information, right now it says ‘Kevin Super Tax, High-Interest, Insulation Rudd has got to go, no batts about it.’ If this does not indicate the feeling of true Australians, true Australians who have not fallen prey to Kevin Rudd’s spin about the great big new tax, what does? The Labor Party need to listen to the people of Australia, the people who are about to have the rug pulled out from under them.
Two people aware of this are Derek Johnston of JNS Mine Management and Pat Schimanski of GWH Equipment. On Saturday, 29 May, they took it upon themselves to inform the people of Kalgoorlie of the dire consequences of the resource tax. Nearly 600 people signed their petition in the few hours they were in St Barbara’s Square in Kalgoorlie. Pat Schimanski of GWH Equipment said:
The purpose of the petition is to raise awareness of the tax. These politicians—
and I am sure he was not speaking of me—
think miners are an easy target. They think we are easy beats. If these Labor clowns don’t get kicked out we here in Western Australia should cut the cord to the rest of Australia. This tax will affect the food on the table of all Australians.
JNS’s Derek Johnston said:
My business has dropped since the announcement of the tax; it has dropped off because everyone is now looking at costs.
Let us look at what some of the profits from some of these resource companies do for local communities, something our eastern seaboard friends are either unaware of or unashamedly do not care about. You see, our friends in the eastern cities have doctors, nurses, teachers, bitumen roads and the flashest coffee beans you can buy, all at their fingertips. This is not so over in remote Western Australia.
Let us look at the Telfer mine. Telfer provide between $5m and $6m a year for the Martu people—who cover six language groups from Wiluna to Fitzroy Crossing; that is an area about the size of New South Wales—through the following community programs: health, education, training, employment, sport and recreation, and community, cultural and social events. They ensure that remote community stores have fresh fruit and vegetables, and they are installing bar code systems in stores. They have supplied fuel to communities that have run out. They fix community sporting ovals, and Telfer’s airstrip has been used to bring up support specialists for schools and to enable nurses and teachers to go home on R and R. Many Martu communities have no doctors, no post office and no police station.
Many houses in the communities have no phone lines, and there is no mobile communication. The chances of members of Indigenous communities getting employment in this remote area is severely restricted. Telfer recognise the need for Indigenous employees and mine managers to balance Martu cultural traditions and beliefs, such as the need to attend funerals in various parts of the state. Telfer’s emergency response is the only emergency response team in the area, thus providing an essential service to remote communities. This company and other mining companies in Western Australia are providing essential services and jobs to remote communities. Keep this in mind: bigger tax equals less profit equals fewer jobs—it is as simple as ABC.
Rio Tinto have engaged in comprehensive efforts to maximise Aboriginal participation in the resources industry. A $200 million contract going to a joint venture with a strong local Aboriginal participation will help traditional owners to build capacity in mining services, and in this way traditional owners will increasingly participate in the resource development taking place on their own country. This initiative is over and above the $112 million that Rio Tinto will spend through Aboriginal contractors this year. More than $50 million of this will be spent through members of the Pilbara Aboriginal Contractors Association, or PACA. Again, bigger tax equals less profit equals fewer jobs—it is as simple as ABC. Eight out of 10 jobless Indigenous people are presently unable to work because of illiteracy, alcohol or other psychological problems. In some rural areas, 70 per cent of children do not regularly attend school. The Indigenous unemployment rate is around three times higher than that of non-Indigenous people. Rio will spend more than $10 million this year on Indigenous education and training in the Pilbara. Remember: bigger tax equals less profit equals fewer jobs—it is as simple as ABC.
These companies and many more like them provide life opportunities for the people of rural and regional Western Australia—not just an existence, which is what the Labor government want the people in my patch to return to. If this super profits tax is such a great thing, such a godsend for Australia, why the need for the Labor government’s obscene spending on advertising it? It has been confirmed that the government began doing market research in March and had prepared an advertising campaign by April—before the tax was announced in May. That completely blows apart Mr Swan’s argument that the mining industry’s campaign against the tax justifies the government’s decision to do its own advertising.
The Rudd government has breached its own advertising guideline on the basis of a national emergency and is spending $38.5 million on a taxpayer-funded television and newspaper advertising blitz promoting the resource super profits tax. Mr Rudd’s excuse for losing his moral compass is that we have a national emergency. Let me assure you: a greater threat to the nation is the introduction of a great big new tax on mining. This threat will impact all Australians and is cause for real concern. Killing the golden goose will do nothing to secure investment, jobs, taxes and royalties into the future. The only way to guarantee the future prosperity of this country is to drop this dud government and elect a Liberal coalition government.
5286
12:05:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport
1
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—I would like to use this opportunity to talk specifically about the remarkable contributions that this federal budget makes towards sport. This budget delivers a record $1.2 billion for sport over the next four years, including $325 million in additional funding for the Australian Sports Commission and incorporating $195 million in new funding for sport. To put this in context and to make it very clear, what we have announced is the biggest single funding injection into Australian sport in our nation’s history. Unlike the previous government, our government will be providing long-awaited security to Australian sports as we signal the end to the previous government’s short-term bandaid solutions and provide another example where the government have delivered on our commitment to be a strong financial partner of sport.
Along with the record funding increase, on 11 May this year I released Australian Sport: The Pathway to Success, which provides a new vision for Australian sport that will help forge the way to a healthier community and a stronger sporting sector. I think it is important to note that the government has always made it clear that there is a need for us to better support sport and to help tackle emerging challenges in our society and also maintain our status as one of the world’s greatest sporting nations. We have understood from day one that sport is critical to the wellbeing and good health of our individuals; to bringing communities together; to teaching life skills; to uniting the nation; to sending positive reflections to the international community; to boosting trade, tourism and economic activity; and to giving moments of pure joy, pride and inspiration.
We are committed to strengthening sport, and we have outlined the process by which we will achieve this. I am really proud of our record in just over 2½ years in government, from last year investing the biggest ever injection into Australia’s community sporting infrastructure, as part of our response to the global financial crisis, to reforming the leadership of the Australian Sports Commission, to funding EuroHub to assist Australian athletes in their international endeavours, to working with Football Federation Australia, state and territory governments and sporting codes to lodge a fully compliant bid for the FIFA World Cup, to successfully legislating to put in place a strengthened anti-doping structure in the reformed ASADA, and introducing the Local Sporting Champions Program to better support our developing athletes—to name just a few initiatives.
Over the past decade, sport in Australia has been promised leadership and direction but, under the former government, report after report gathered dust on the shelf. I have read the Oakley report, which the former government heralded would be the biggest reform to sport in decades—but was left sitting on a shelf, not responded to and soon effectively forgotten. We as a government know the challenges that this has posed for sports and for the sports sector in this nation, as the previous government squandered the opportunities and the momentum that developed from the Sydney Olympics. That is why we committed to act. That is why, upon coming to government, we released our new directions paper, which outlined the crisis that sport was facing and the case for reform. We announced that we would appoint an independent panel to help direct the best way forward, and that is why, at the Olympics in 2008, the Prime Minister declared that our government would be strong financial partners of Australian sport into the future. And it is why, upon receiving the Crawford report, we publicly stated that we would increase funding to both community sport and elite sport. This year’s budget did just that. The funding announcement within it, along with the release of the government’s policy document, shows just how committed this government is, has been and always will be when it comes to backing Australian sport.
In terms of our high-performance athletes and systems, the government is committed to ensuring that Australia not only cements but builds on our reputation as a world leader in elite sport. In doing so, we will provide not only new money to support Australia’s talented sports men and women but also long-term stability for sport through locking in previously terminating funding into baseline funding going forward for sports budgets.
This equates to an additional $42 million of funding to support high-performance sport alone each and every year. This funding will ensure that our national talent identification program is doubled, broadening the net to uncover more of our potential champions and boosting the development pathway. It will provide further support to our high-performance coaches, because our government recognises just how important high-performance coaches are to our system. This investment will ensure that we retain as many of our high-performance coaches as possible. The government will also boost direct assistance to athletes, providing greater levels of financial support to an increased number of Australian athletes, assisting them and allowing them more flexibility to dedicate to their training.
In addition to this support, the government will underpin this investment through the recent landmark agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories to establish the first national sport and recreation policy framework to help guide the development of sports policy across Australia. This agreement will better enable cooperation across the pathway, increasing the alignment of our institutes and academies of high-performance sport.
We know that sport is not just about supporting the dreams of our future champions; it is also about gaining opportunities and experiences. Australian sport should be bustling with children lining up to play their favourite sports, keeping healthy or just having fun. Sport should have a strong community and development sector, providing a pathway to keep all of us involved and active and to nurture our future champions as they develop. Our government has committed $18 million of new funding each and every year to strengthen our sporting system and increase participation and activity. The government is committed to working in partnership with sport to see a real increase in the number of Australians being active.
According to the OECD, Australia has the fifth-highest rate of adult obesity in the developed world. The dramatic increases in body weight that we have seen over recent years have already seen the number of Australians with diabetes triple over just the last two decades. And, according to ABS data, participation rates have stalled over the last decade amongst Australian children. We know that, during the 12 months to April 2009, one million children aged from five to 14 did not participate in any organised sport outside of school hours, with a higher proportion—some 44 per cent—of girls not participating in organised sports compared with 30 per cent of boys. In a recent survey, approximately 11.8 million Australians, or 73 per cent, reported no involvement in organised sport. In 2005-06, approximately 5.5 million people reported that they did not participate in any sports or physical recreation activities of any kind over the preceding year.
So, in order to reinvigorate re-engagement in sport amongst our community and to regain our competitive edge, we need to look at ways to do things differently. We need to place a strategic focus on collaboration, reform and investment across the entire sporting pathway, from the grassroots up. We want to work with sport to achieve this goal, because it is sports and national sporting organisations that already have the connections with state sporting organisations, local communities and state and local governments to support and grow sport at all levels.
In recognition of the essential role sports play in leading and growing the sporting base, the government, through the commission, will, for the first time, provide funding to national sporting organisations to provide direct assistance to community clubs and organisations in support of initiatives that aim to expand participation. This will be done through comprehensive participation plans that we, through the commission, will ask national sporting organisations to put in place about how they drive participation within sport and within their local communities. In addition, the government will double the Local Sporting Champions program to support 8,000 junior athletes to participate in competition and to boost opportunities for up-and-coming athletes to compete in domestic competitions.
Alarmingly, we have also seen a decrease in sport in our schoolyards. Despite there being an obvious partnership between sport and education, when it comes to achieving both health and educational outcomes in our children we have seen a decline in the quality of sport and physical activity being delivered in our primary and secondary schools. Whilst there has previously been a national requirement for schools to provide a minimum weekly allocation of two hours of physical activity, the requirement did not specify the level or intensity of activity required in line with health guidelines and did not provide any detailed information as to how physical activity was delivered or met.
The Australian government has announced our commitment, in partnership with the state and territory governments, to prioritise sport and physical education in our national school curriculum. In a landmark agreement, state and territory ministers agreed in response to the Crawford report that the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority prioritise physical education in the development of phase 3 of the national curriculum and further agreeing that the number of hours committed to physical activity in the school curriculum must be maximised. Getting sport right in schools will not only help tackle the serious health issues that we face as a community but also help sport tap into Australia’s sporting talent on an unprecedented level.
It is important that we recognise that sport in Australia is largely dependent on the volunteer and that Australia has a proud history of volunteering. Who could forget the worldwide recognition of those volunteers who helped make the Sydney Olympics ‘the best Olympics ever’? Whether it be the volunteer coaches or officials who help run our local sporting competitions, this government recognises just how important these volunteers are to sport and to the broader community. In this budget, we will provide funding to support volunteer coaches and officials and those volunteers who play such a remarkable role in sporting clubs across the nation. This funding will provide additional coaching and officiating training opportunities for up to 45,000 community coaches and officials, including subsidies for the costs associated with training for 5,000 new community coaches and officials.
In addition, we will provide funding support to national sporting organisations to deliver coaching and officiating education programs, especially in regional areas, deliver funding to support mentoring to community coaches and officials, deliver a national sport volunteer strategy and introduce a national sports volunteers awards program to reward those volunteers and promote their contribution to sport and the wider community.
We also believe that sport has a unique capacity to bring communities together. But sport needs to be more conclusive and a sector which better reflects our diversity—and that means both genders. Our government has great ambitions for women’s sport, both on and off the field. One of our biggest challenges, of course, is getting women seen, heard and supported by our media so that we can end what seems to be the never-ending cycle of no media coverage equalling no resources for women’s sport. Recently we released the report Towards a level playing field, which reveals that in 2008 coverage of women in sport made up just nine per cent of all sports coverage in Australian television news and current affairs. On the other hand, male sport occupied a whopping 81 per cent of television news and current affairs reporting and 86 per cent of non-news programming on television. To put this in context—the nine per cent of coverage dedicated to women’s sport—horseracing alone receives more airtime than all women’s sports combined in Australian television news.
I am really proud of the steps that we have taken so far to address these issues and to help promote women within sport. Over our 2½ years in government we have undertaken several measures including a $2.4 million investment to Netball Australia to support the transTasman netball competition, $400,000 to support and promote the free-to-air coverage of this wonderful championship and also delivery of funding over four years to the Football Federation of Australia, which included the condition that they support a televised women’s Westfield W-League. In support of raising the profile of women’s sport and as a result of the funding included in this measure I can announce that we will also be funding Women in Sport awards to recognise exemplary initiatives, which provide special support for women’s and girls’ participation in sport whether as players, coaches, administrators or officials, and to recognise and reward outstanding media reporting.
The culture of sport itself is long overdue for a significant shake-up and we have signalled that this is exactly what we intend to do. Our government will require all national sporting organisations to annually report on the gender representation of their boards with the information then being published. Too often we have heard excuses about the frequently dismal representation of women on sporting boards such as, for example: ‘If there were women with the appropriate skills then of course we’d appoint them.’ Well our government is happy to work with sports to help them find these women.
I was pleased to announce that the government will establish a register of women with appropriate skills and experience to assist sport to improve their record. The Women in Sport register will enable women to register their skills and interest in being involved in sport and sporting organisations can readily access potential candidates and find a match to their needs. This initiative is not only about growing the number of women on Australia’s sporting boards, it is also about working from within to promote healthy cultures in Australian sport and that requires women.
Labor governments have a fine tradition when it comes to supporting sport. It was under Labor and under Hawke that we established the Australian Sports Commission. It was Labor under Keating who gave sport, up until this budget, the record funding boost to prepare us for the Sydney Olympic and Paralympic Games. While both these governments injected significant resources into sport they also drove innovation and reform, putting in place the foundations for Australia’s future sporting success.
In this budget we proudly build upon this tradition. Through renewed focus and strategy, enhanced partnerships across tiers of government, a close cooperative approach with our sporting organisations and the biggest increase to sports funding in Australia’s history, we map out the course for Australia’s continued sporting excellence. Of course the implementation of this strategy will require a dedicated partnership approach. We as a government are committed to this because, ultimately, we recognise that sport is important and we need to work to keep it as the strong central thread that it has become to Australian life.
The success of sport cannot be measured in simplistic terms alone. We need a bolstered participation base, we need strengthened development pathways and we need successful elite performances if we are to cement our place as a truly great sporting nation. I am really pleased with the contributions that this budget has made to achieve these goals with a record funding increase; the biggest amount of funding ever dedicated to sport in this country in our nation’s history.
5290
12:23:00
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
SE4
Mackellar
LP
0
0
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—In rising to speak to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2010-2011 and related bills I do so in the heat of what is a full-on debate about a brand new tax, a supertax. It is well named because it is a tax on superprofits but it is also a tax on people’s super. As I have said before, for every dollar that goes into Mr Rudd’s pocket by way of taxation that is a dollar less for people’s superannuation. This impacts on the standard of living for Australians who are on fixed incomes provided by their savings in their superannuation.
Last night I attended, as many others did, the Mineral Council’s dinner. We heard many fine speakers point out just how bad the big new tax on so-called superprofits is for Australia. We are seeing advertisements that are being put out currently by the Labor Party in the guise of legitimate government advertising but which, in fact, are just plain old Labor Party advertising paid for by the taxpayer—$38 million worth. The main content of their advertising is to try and say that mining companies do not pay their fair share of tax. They conjured up this figure of somewhere between 13c and 17c in the dollar by finding some obscure report put together by a PhD student supervised by a professor, which was submitted to the Henry review as a footnote. They have seized on this report, which was a mixture of Australian and New Zealand figures and so unreliable that it was withdrawn from the draft upon which the government is basing its statements.
Yesterday in the parliament we quizzed the Treasurer continually about the pie chart that he has put out asking him whether it had any modelling significance, any real basis, or was it just dreamt up in his office. For question after question he obfuscated. He talked around the side of it, he would not answer the question and finally he did say it was made in his office. We should understand that the Treasurer has form. Back in 2000 he was exposed on The 7.30 Report by a journalist called Wayne Sanderson who brought to light the fact that the now Treasurer and then member for Lilley, who lost his seat in ‘96, had tried very hard to keep it by giving a brown paper envelope to Lee Birmingham which contained $1,400 in $50 notes. The envelope was then taken by the said Lee Birmingham to the Democrats campaign manager with whom Mr Birmingham said Mr Swan had spent some time only a day or two before. Lee Birmingham delivered the brown paper envelope containing $1,400 to the Democrats and the Democrats in return gave their preferences to Mr Swan.
This matter Mr Swan said was a terrible thing. He had not paid for those preferences at all—high dudgeon. It was referred to the Australian Federal Police. Mr Swan came out and said he had been cleared, but I think what was actually said by the spokesman for the Australian Federal Police was, ‘There is no further action in relation to Wayne Swan.’ The Federal Police spokesman said, ‘I can’t say there was no case to answer, but no further action will be taken.’
This is the same Wayne Swan who is telling us that the mining companies in fact do not pay their share of tax when the Taxation Office’s own figures show that they are paying in excess of 40c in the dollar. When you count up royalties paid and corporate tax paid, that is the amount that they are paying. Yet in these deceptive and lying ads there is no mention made of the corporate tax which those mining companies are paying. It is no wonder that they are in high dudgeon and angry about the way in which they are being derided and ridiculed as an industry when, in fact, they are—I like the words—the new sheep’s back on which we ride to prosperity.
We have seen the promise that the Prime Minister made when he was Leader of the Opposition that he would never allow an advertising campaign to be rolled out unless the Auditor-General gave it the tick-off. Never mind politicising the Auditor-General, he was going to be the stamp of approval for the integrity of the ads. So what are they like? They did not like the job the Auditor-General was doing, so they created a new committee headed up by Mr Alan Hawke who found that the Auditor-General was undermining the authority of the secretaries and that the Auditor-General should be sacked and guess what? Mr Hawke got the job. But that was too much for this Prime Minister—he sacked him too and used the let-out clause so that he could get the Cabinet Secretary to respond to the Treasurer and say, ‘It’s a national emergency, we’ve got to spend this money.’
10000
Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr KJ Thomson)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Mackellar will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
ADJOURNMENT
5292
Adjournment
Ms GRIERSON
(Newcastle)
12:30:00
—I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
Mayo Electorate: Building the Education Revolution Program
5292
5292
12:30:00
Briggs, Jamie, MP
IYU
Mayo
LP
0
0
Mr BRIGGS
—Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon on adjournment in relation to a very important issue in my electorate: the waste and mismanagement of the Building the Education Revolution building program which we are seeing in my electorate—massive waste, massive mismanagement and examples of cost shifting by the incompetent Rann state Labor government. It relates to possibly the worst scheme ever implemented in the Australian parliament’s history. Estimates of up to $5 billion of waste have been suggested in recent days in this program alone.
In particular, in my electorate we have now seen several examples of different types of waste and mismanagement and the failure of this Deputy Prime Minister to implement a program properly and coherently in Kangaroo Island and eastern Fleurieu schools last year: three schools on Kangaroo Island that have had $100,000 in architectural fees for drawings they already had; Eastern Fleurieu School, which was mistreated by the state government’s decisions; and Meadows Primary School, which could not build what it wanted to build on the site because of the mismanagement of this program.
More recently and more worryingly, we have seen the example of five Adelaide Hills schools: Yankalilla, Basket Range, Macclesfield, Stirling East, and Eden Hills—which is in the member for Boothby’s seat. The issue is fire water tanks and cost shifting by the incompetent Rann state Labor government, who have used the opportunity of the bucket of money provided by the BER because they have run out of their money to implement a state program, something that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister made very clear would not be allowed to happen. In fact, on 3 February 2009 the Prime Minister of our country said:
This Government will adopt a zero tolerance approach to any state government, whatever its political complexion to any substitution of effort.
The Deputy Prime Minister, on 16 June 2009, said:
We have been very clear, with very tough penalties for states that do not maintain effort in their forward estimates in school capital. We are very clear about that and we will be very vigorous with any state that does not acquit its obligations under the Building the Education Revolution guidelines.
So there were very clear and very stark statements by the two most senior members of this government. However, when it comes to the rubber hitting the road, they have taken no action at all. These schools are therefore missing out on significant sums. In a Stateline story last Friday night, the sums being taken out of their entitlements were stated. At Basket Range Primary School, Felicity Playford stated that the sum was $104,000; Anna Richards from Yankalilla Area School stated that it was $103,000; Carmel McNamara from Stirling East Primary School stated that it was $88,000; and Tom Shepperd from Eden Hills Primary School stated that it was $116,000. There was a similar amount from Macclesfield Primary School.
This is purely a state government responsibility; let us not misunderstand. This is a decision made by the state government to apply a bushfire rating to schools which are in dangerous bushfire zones. Of course, protecting schools from bushfires is something we support. However, these are community water tanks. They are not just for the schools’ use but for community use. This is a state government issue, a state government responsibility and something that they should be looking after. However, because the incompetent Rann state Labor government have run out of money, they have found a bucket of money that they can use to implement this program. So stark is this that, after the initial quotes were given for the buildings in these schools, they were changed after the event to include the additional money for the firefighting tanks. Clearly, what that says is that this incompetent Rann state Labor government saw the opportunity to pass this type of expenditure on to this program. As usual with the Labor Party, who do not have the courage to front up when things are difficult—like the Prime Minister last night—they sent out the chief executive officer of the Department of Education and Children’s Services, who made the situation even clearer last Friday night in a Stateline interview. This is mismanagement. This program is completely mismanaged and it is costing these schools. The Deputy Prime Minister should take some action and fix it before it is too late.
Shortland Electorate: Trades Training Centres in Schools Program
5293
5293
12:35:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—I am shocked to hear the previous speaker state that the Building the Education Revolution program was the worst program ever introduced. Just for his information, I would like to put on the record the regional rorts program that was overseen by the Howard government. In my area that program saw money used to dredge Tumbi Creek, but it was cleared in one downfall of rain. Also, the Howard government’s contribution to education was to put in place Australian technical colleges. I thought I would share with the House some of the benefits of the Australian technical college in my electorate. The Shortland electorate covers both the Hunter and the Central Coast. The Central Coast ATC actually never came to fruition and the Newcastle-Hunter ATC was dogged with problems.
E0H
Laming, Andrew, MP
Mr Laming
—Unions.
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms HALL
—No, not at all. Parents had to build the workbenches because the ATC was so disorganised that they could not even provide workbenches for their students. Compare that with what the Rudd Labor government have done. The Central Coast ATC that could never get off the ground has now been placed in the schools within the region. That will really benefit people in the Shortland electorate. High schools in the area are quite spread out. Members opposite living in the inner Brisbane seats would not understand what it is like to have to travel long distances to get to a technical college. The ATC has now been situated in the schools so students can utilise the program. It has been welcomed by all the teachers and all the students, and it is a program that is working really well.
Along with that, schools on the Central Coast have all been given trades training centres. Lake Munmorah High School, Gorokan High School and Northlakes High School have all received trades training centres. In these trades training centres they will study carpentry and hospitality. That will benefit people in an area that has a very low school retention rate. Actually, the Central Coast has the lowest retention rate of anywhere in Australia. These schools are linking into what the students need and giving them the skills that they need to find jobs. The Central Coast has one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the country. This program is putting in place centres within schools so students can learn trades so that when they leave school they will be ready to either continue to study or enter the workforce.
I would have to say that this is in stark contrast to what the opposition has planned for these schools in the Shortland electorate. The Leader of the Opposition has been very vocal in saying that he is going to rip these trades training centres out of the schools that have had approval in round 2. This will severely disadvantage those students, particularly on the Central Coast where they have to travel long distances to undertake training. This is a wonderful initiative. It is providing training and skills to young people while they are still at school, and it is in stark contrast to the failed ATC program where the college did not even get off the ground on the Central Coast. I would like to commend the minister for her initiative in the trades training centres and in putting the ATCs in the schools on the Central Coast.
Cowan Electorate: Crime
5294
5294
12:40:00
Simpkins, Luke, MP
HWE
Cowan
LP
0
0
Mr SIMPKINS
—Wherever I go in the electorate of Cowan, whether it is in shopping centres, or at people’s front doors or at sporting complexes around Cowan, one of the major issues that people bring to me when I ask, ‘What are the problems on your local street?’ is law and order. Assaults, burglaries and car theft—as well as graffiti and hooning—are the sorts of things that people speak about.
I always get the weekly figures of crime throughout the electorate of Cowan. In the last year or so what I have seen in the crime figures is that they are going down. There was a time, several years ago, when I would see the crime figures for suburbs like Girrawheen—socioeconomically challenged place—and there would be 30 burglaries in a month. Fortunately, we are now at the level where there might be three a week, so there has been a dramatic reduction. In fact, across the whole electorate there has been a dramatic reduction in crime.
But that is not to say that we should ever say, ‘Well, that is enough; that is all we need to do.’ The reality is that we must continue to try hard to eliminate crime forever. I know that that is unlikely to ever be achieved, but we must always aim for that—no burglaries, no break-ins, no assaults, no graffiti and no hooning in our suburbs. I doubt that will ever happen, but that is what we should be aiming for.
I see this being achieved through a combination of things. I have seen areas in the electorate of Cowan where there is such community strength and we should all be very proud of that. There are streets you can walk along where people will come up to you very politely and just say: ‘Hey, how’s it going? What are you doing here?’ Those are the sorts of streets we want—where people push their control, as good neighbours and good citizens, beyond the front door of their houses into the street. So anybody up to no good walking down that street will be noticed. That is exactly the kind of strong community that we want. But that is not everywhere.
I talk in schools about community awareness and the need for young people to be involved. Through my Cowan community watch and my junior Cowan community watch, I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of young people who are very keen to be actively involved and to take responsibility for their local area. They want to report stuff; they want things to be better. That is a very encouraging thing. We need a whole lot more adults as well. There are a lot of adults involved—with Neighbourhood Watch, that is also encouraging. But we must always remember that it cannot just be about government. It must also be about local people taking responsibility, exerting control over their area and working to make it as good a place as it can be.
In the past we have talked about CCTV. Certainly, the previous government and this government are interested in CCTV, and I am very happy about that. I am also very keen on speed humps to combat hooning and I was very pleased when the state government picked up a suggestion of mine to introduce movable speed humps—non-permanent speed humps—that can be put into streets where local people are very happy to have them.
So I see opportunities for government to work with the will and strength of local communities to achieve reductions in crime. It is not down to one and it is not down to the other. It is a matter of combinations and it is a matter of communities wanting to be as good as they can be and working hard for that—with the support of governments in regard to CCTV, speed humps and funding to support local community ventures.
These are the things that I see as very important, and these are the things I have pursued within the electorate of Cowan. As I said before, the crime figures are down, and that is greatly reassuring. They will never be down as far as I would want them to be—that is, to the zero level—but I do applaud the state government for the work they have done. While some may say that the jails in Western Australia are very full, I would say that real accountability is at last being shown. I welcome the fact that community and government are working together and I look forward to more of it in the future.
Isaacs Electorate: Community Services
5295
5295
12:45:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
1
0
Mr DREYFUS
—I rise to speak about my recent visits to two important locations in my electorate that offer assistance to people in our local community, the Lyrebird Community Centre in Carrum Downs and Wellsprings for Women in Dandenong. The Lyrebird Community Centre runs many valuable programs for the local Carrum Downs and Skye community, offering child care and a wide range of classes, meeting spaces and youth activities. It also hosts annual events like the Christmas festival and carols by candlelight, which last year drew 4,000 people to celebrate the yuletide festivities.
When I went to Lyrebird a few weeks ago the centre manager, Fiona Dannock, who provides excellent leadership to the centre, showed me through some of the classes, including a class taking the certificate of general education. This class was made up of people for whom English was a second language, or in some cases a third or a fourth language, and they were taught general life skills—from the basics of filling out forms to how to speak better English. Participants came from all over the world, but there was a very strong spirit and camaraderie among the group. I was very touched as the class performed two beautiful songs for me, before we discussed some of the stories of the remarkable lives of this group of mostly women. It was fantastic to hear from the students that the two teachers of the class, Judy Treloggan and Jenny Brown, were very patient, helpful and extremely respected. Some students told me that this was the first time in many years that they had made real progress with English.
Classes like this are important to build the confidence of people in our society who otherwise might feel somewhat isolated or uncomfortable undertaking certain tasks. Some students told me they had recently lost their long-time partners and had had to develop skills that they once relied on their partners for. It is my hope that the program can continue to be accessible and assist those in the local community who can benefit from the support and educational experience that this course offers.
While at Lyrebird I dropped in on the Carrum Downs Senior Citizens group, which meets every Tuesday at the centre to play bingo, shoot pool, sell homemade produce—and I must admit that I took home a jar of tasty cumquat jam—and go out on trips. Last year I hosted a seniors morning tea at Lyrebird. It was fantastic to see the centre supporting the lively seniors community in the Carrum Downs area. I was told that some members loved the Tuesday sessions at Lyrebird so much that they continued to come even after having moved away from the local area to places like Mentone.
Earlier that day I went to the Wellsprings for Women centre, on Langhorne Street in Dandenong, to get an update on how the centre was assisting migrant women settle into Australian society. Veronica Hassett, who runs the program with the help of several dedicated staff and volunteers, showed me through the centre, which aims to support women and provide women from migrant communities with a comfortable setting to learn about Australia, the English language and skills that they can use at home or in the community. Wellsprings for Women operates from an ordinary suburban house, which is close to the centre of Dandenong and is a far preferable location—a much more comfortable location—than it would be if Wellsprings for Women were to operate from an office building. It was great to see at the centre so many of the women with their young children. It really gave the place a strong community feeling and will help the children with their own language skills and personal development.
On the day I visited some of the women and children were celebrating their birthdays, so the entire staff and participation group gathered with several cakes to sing Happy Birthday in several different languages—some of them from Africa, some from South Asia and some from Afghanistan—before singing Happy Birthday in English. It was explained to the women why in Australia we celebrated with birthday cakes and that in Australia people kept a close watch on their age, while the children were taught to blow out candles on the cake and told that they got to make a wish. These may seem like very basic things, but these exercises help these women and children learn about Australian culture in a respectful and fun way and can only benefit them and their families in becoming more settled in their new home. I hope that Wellsprings for Women are able to continue their excellent work for many years to come in the very convenient and comfortable location that they have had now for some years in central Dandenong.
Grey Electorate: Telecommunications
5296
5296
12:50:00
Ramsey, Rowan, MP
HWS
Grey
LP
0
0
Mr RAMSEY
—Last week, I had the opportunity to visit one of the most beautiful parts of my electorate, the iconic Flinders Ranges. The primary reason was to attend a community meeting at Blinman, which was called to discuss the possibilities of installing a mobile phone service in the area. The meeting was attended by John Tonkin from Telstra Countrywide.
The Flinders is growing in popularity as a tourist destination, offering a unique experience, with hundreds of individual attractions clustered in this spectacular and ancient mountain range. While part of the attraction is the remote experience, tourists are a demanding lot and, while some crave the outback experience, others expect to have first-class service in accommodation, catering and packaging. Gone are the days when the majority of tourists came to the area with a trailer and a tent and were prepared to rough it in the ‘outback’. Local operators have driven the shift from a rural pastoral economy to one where tourism is by far the biggest industry.
Supplying a first-class service comes at a significant cost. Apart from a few properties in the south, most electricity is generated locally by diesel, costing many times what urban Australia pays. Water supplies are difficult, predominantly coming from limited underground aquifers. The advent of a bitumen road from Blinman south has made a huge difference to accessing this beautiful region and is helping to drive the industry growth, but the links to the northern Flinders and back to the main highway at Parachilna and Leigh Creek are tough for tourists in standard cars. Phone services are provided by the Telstra radio phone links—state-of-the-art 30 years ago but inadequate in today’s world.
The power of the product, the Flinders Ranges, has enormous potential but progress will always be slowed until these issues are addressed because, for all of the market demand for a unique experience, customers demand that the product be price competitive, and the Flinders tourism operators deal with a very high cost of delivery. The growth in the market has and will continue to come from urban tourists who often have little remote area experience. For many, it comes as a rude shock to find their mobile phones do not work in the area, and there are no emails and no ability to keep an eye on business. An unfortunate by-product of the tourism industry is lost and injured bushwalkers. Mobiles would provide a safety net.
Internet access is limited to satellite. As a user of satellite broadband, I am well aware of its limitations. Local residents using School of the Air to educate their children are continually frustrated by cost, speed and reliability of the service. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you would be familiar with all these issues.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—Absolutely.
HWS
Ramsey, Rowan, MP
Mr RAMSEY
—Businesses can struggle with what should be the simplest of transactions. A mobile service would address all of these issues. Last Friday, about 20 locals gathered to meet with Telstra to pursue the options. Technical complications abound, backhaul capacity from the nearest access point to the Telstra network is limited to the radio-microwave link from Leigh Creek to Hawker, which is at full capacity—no room for a mobile service! A replacement optic fibre, which surely must happen at some stage, will cost in the vicinity of $3 million. Should this eventuate—to hook Blinman, 30 kilometres to the east, through the ranges to Parachilna—it will require a new radio link. The erection of the station and the link would cost a further $750,000 and the facility would service just the immediate district around Blinman but not the rest of the Flinders. Telstra have said that they would require external funding to that level before they would install. Clearly, this amount of money will not be raised by the local community. It will require support from elsewhere.
The community is not deterred. Nothing ever gets fixed by doing nothing, so they are forming a lobby group with representation drawn from all groups of influence in the area to push for a solution for the region. Unfortunately, the Labor government have no plan for telecommunications in regional Australia, apart from the fall-back position in their economically flawed National Broadband Network proposals, where communities like Blinman, with fewer than 1,000 people, receive the default satellite option—the same inadequate service they have now.
If rural and regional Australia is to pay 10 per cent of the cost of the $43 billion broadband experiment, it is fair to think that there should be investment in addressing their issues. The government’s National Broadband Network plan is status quo only and simply not good enough. Having robbed the telecommunications fund set aside to meet just this type of circumstance, the government deny regional Australia any chance of a fair deal. Good governments govern for all Australians, not just those who support them. I will assist this group in any way that I can to help address the regional imbalance.
Petition: Asbestos
5298
5298
12:54:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
1
0
Mr MURPHY
—This afternoon I would like to update the House on my campaign to improve awareness of the dangers of asbestos and to ban the global mining and sale of asbestos products. In March this year, I presented more than 1,000 signatures to the Standing Committee on Petitions that called on this House to ensure that Australia takes a leading role in establishing a treaty to prevent the mining and export of asbestos worldwide and to promote the teaching of business ethics in our schools and universities. I am pleased to announce that the petition was recently considered by the committee and has been certified as being in accordance with standing orders. It is with great pleasure that I present the petition in the House today.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:
-
The Bernie Banton Foundation estimates than in 10 years time some 40,000 Australians will have contracted asbestos-related cancer.
-
The poisoning of Australians by asbestos is a modern day industrial catastrophe which Karen Banton, the wife of the late anti-asbestos campaigner, Bernie Banton, has warned could happen again.
-
There was a great violation of trust of Australians by executives of James Hardie who lied to workers about the dangers of asbestos.
-
Whilst asbestos has been banned from use in Australia, many countries, such as Canada, continue to mine and export asbestos.
We therefore ask the House to ensure that Australia takes a leading role in establishing a treaty to prevent the mining and export of asbestos worldwide and to promote the teaching of business ethics in our schools and universities.
from 1,046 citizens
Petition received.
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr MURPHY
—The poisoning of thousands of Australians by asbestos is clearly an industrial catastrophe. The Bernie Banton Centre is attached to the Concord Repatriation General Hospital in my electorate of Lowe and is named in honour of the late Bernie Banton, a heroic anti-asbestos campaigner and victim of mesothelioma. The centre was granted $5 million by the Rudd government and is currently researching the deadly disease in order to find a cure for mesothelioma and asbestos related diseases and treatments to enhance and prolong the lives of sufferers. I recently attended the Bernie Banton Centre to visit the new facilities and meet with the scientists undertaking this very important task. During the visit, the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the New South Wales Premier, Kristina Keneally, launched the new mesothelioma registry.
Mesothelioma is a rare chest or abdomen disease which is linked primarily to exposure to asbestos fibres. The new registry aims to collect more accurate information and help reduce the number of potentially avoidable deaths. I welcome the new registry, as Australia suffers one of the highest rates of incidence of mesothelioma in the world, with estimates of 13,000 cases by 2020 and a further 40,000 cases of asbestos related cancer. The dreadful statistics indicate that the rates of incidence of this awful disease are not expected to peak until 2017, while survival rates are poor, with only five per cent of patients alive five years after diagnosis. I know that the evidence collected through the registry will significantly contribute to the international policy debate on globally banning all forms of asbestos.
While Australia and many other developed nations have banned the use of asbestos, many developing countries, including India and other countries in South Asia, are still employing the deadly products. Karen Banton, the wife of the late Bernie Banton, has warned that the industrial catastrophe could happen again. Unfortunately, I believe Mrs Banton is right. It is because countries like Canada are unscrupulously selling this deadly substance to developing nations, knowing full well the risks it poses. How can we allow this situation to continue as we fund research, care for our sick and condemn James Hardie for the fatal effects of asbestos? How can we allow our innocent brothers and sisters in India and South Asia to be exposed to this lethal substance? As global citizens we must not allow other countries to mine or export asbestos or asbestos products. As I have raised previously in this place, we must stand up for what is right, not what is politically expedient.
An attempt to list chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam treaty in 2006 failed. Listing chrysotile asbestos under the treaty would require importing countries to be warned of risks associated with hazardous substances. The failure to list this deadly substance leaves many citizens of developing countries importing the product at grave risk. If previous attempts to have asbestos listed have failed, I would like to see further international efforts to have the mining and export of asbestos banned worldwide. This is a call that has been supported by the more than 1,000 signatories to the petition I present today.
While I am proud to be a member of a government that is so committed to supporting victims of asbestos, I believe we can build on this good work through a national awareness campaign and by removing this substance from public places and the international market. The petition I present today reflects the strong emotions among members of my community, some of whom have been directly affected by asbestos, as I have previously noted in this House. For the victims—and the families who have witnessed most cruelly the dangers of asbestos—their lives should not be in vain. We should not forget that, as long as asbestos is used in the world, more mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, friends and colleagues are at risk of acquiring asbestos related diseases. I repeat the call for Australia to take a leading role in establishing a treaty to outlaw the mining and export of asbestos worldwide, and I have a motion on the Notice Paper to that effect. Bernie Banton would expect nothing less.
Question agreed to.
5299
13:00:00
Main Committee adjourned at 1.00 pm
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
5300
Questions in Writing
Hawker Britton
5300
5300
1236 and 1237
5300
Briggs, Jamie, MP
IYU
Mayo
LP
0
Mr Briggs
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 24 February 2010:
-
Have you and/or your departmental officials met with representatives of Hawker Britton this Parliament; if so, (a) on what dates and at what addresses, and (b) who attended each meeting.
-
Has Hawker Britton arranged meetings with other organisations and you and/or your departmental officials this Parliament; if so, (a) on what dates and at what addresses, and (b) who attended each meeting.
5300
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Stephen Smith
—On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Responding to this question would require departmental officials to review calendar and diary entries since December 2007 to identify information about meetings with, or arranged by Hawker Britton. This would require the manual examination of a large number of diary and meeting records, which is an unreasonable diversion of government resources.
Conducting the same searches across the diary records of current ministers and parliamentary secretaries in this portfolio would be an unreasonable diversion of resources for similar reasons.