2010-09-30
43
1
1
REPS
0
0
2010-09-30
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins)
took the chair at 9 am, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
AUTONOMOUS SANCTIONS BILL 2010
259
Bills
R4432
First Reading
259
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr Rudd.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
259
259
09:01:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
0
Mr RUDD
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The
Autonomous Sanctions Bill 2010
was previously tabled before the House by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Stephen Smith MP, on 26 May 2010.
I commend to the House the speech the former minister made on that occasion in which he laid out the rationale for this bill.
The bill introduced today is unchanged from the bill that was tabled in parliament earlier this year.
It is appropriate in reintroducing this bill to mention the importance of autonomous sanctions in international diplomacy.
These are specifically targeted measures that are intended to apply pressure on regimes engaging in behaviour of serious international concern.
Iran’s persistent failure to abide by legally binding United Nations Security Council decisions and to provide the necessary cooperation to enable the International Atomic Energy Agency to confirm that its nuclear activities are solely for peaceful purposes is a consistent threat to international peace and security.
In response to this threat, members of the international community, including Australia, the United States, the European Union, Canada, Japan and the Republic of Korea have imposed autonomous sanctions to reinforce and supplement United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iran.
In the past it has been possible to apply such sanctions using other existing instruments intended for other purposes.
Most recently a package of measures were applied against Iran with the support of the opposition during the caretaker period.
Australia does not take its obligations to international peace and security lightly.
It is imperative to support like-minded states in maintaining international peace and security.
This recent concerted international action targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile programs demonstrates the urgent need to strengthen Australia’s autonomous sanctions regime by allowing greater flexibility in the range of measures Australia can implement, beyond those achievable under existing instruments.
This will ensure that Australia’s autonomous sanctions can match the scope and strength of measures implemented by like-minded states.
Impact of sanctions on regimes
Closer to home, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea continues its belligerent behaviour in defiance of the United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted on 14 October 2006 and 12 June 2009.
Earlier this year, North Korea’s threat to regional stability was on display again with its unprovoked attack on the Republic of Korea naval vessel, the
Cheonan.
Autonomous sanctions further augment pressures on regimes where Security Council sanctions have been adopted, such as those with Iran and North Korea.
Autonomous sanctions are also a critical tool in applying pressure on regimes whose behaviour raises serious international concerns—whether it be human rights violations or acts of aggression—and are not subject to UNSC sanctions.
I commend to the House the very thoughtful and considered views in support of the bill, expressed by members from both sides when the bill was debated in the House.
During the second reading debate on the bill, the honourable member for Curtin raised the important matter of domestic privacy implications of part 4 (and clause 5) of the bill relating to the collection, flow and use of information for purposes associated with the administration of sanctions laws.
I would like to take this opportunity to assure the House that these considerations were very much at the forefront during the drafting of the bill.
The measures in question are in accordance with section 14 of the Privacy Act 1988, which sets out the information privacy principles.
They do not allow a record keeper who has possession or control of a record that contains personal information to disclose the information to a person, body or agency (other than the individual concerned) other than as authorised under the measures in part 4 (this is in accordance with subparagraph 1(d) of information privacy principle 11).
They also do not allow a person, body or agency to whom personal information is disclosed pursuant to part 4 to use or disclose the information for a purpose other than the purpose for which the information was given (in accordance with paragraph 3 of information privacy principle 11).
The Australian government will continue to review regularly autonomous sanctions with respect to the ongoing need to apply pressure on particular regimes as well as the sanctions measures applied to that particular regime.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Chester) adjourned.
AUSTRALIAN CIVILIAN CORPS BILL 2010
260
Bills
R4418
First Reading
260
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr Rudd.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
260
260
09:06:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
0
Mr RUDD
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
When a country experiences a natural disaster or conflict, the capacity of its government to provide security and basic services for its citizens is often limited.
Hard-won development gains can be undermined and poverty exacerbated.
More needs to be done in the aftermath of natural disasters and conflict to assist stabilisation, recovery and development efforts.
Australia has responded to this need by putting in place a new capability to assist countries affected by such crises.
The Australian Civilian Corps is a select group of civilian specialists who deploy to countries experiencing or emerging from natural disaster or conflict.
The corps supports stabilisation, recovery and development planning.
It will assist crisis-affected countries to restore essential services and strengthen their government institutions.
One such example would be the deployment of an Australian water and sanitation planner to assist local government officials rebuild water infrastructure following a natural disaster.
Another example would be the deployment of an Australian senior government official with expertise in budget administration to assist a country with budget control following a conflict.
The work of the corps will build on initial emergency humanitarian relief efforts, and help set the foundation for long-term sustainable development.
Between now and 2015 Australia expects to double its official development assistance and continue to work alongside the international community to help reach the Millennium Development Goals.
The Australian Civilian Corps is just one important new capability in the Australian government’s development assistance program which is improving the lives of millions of people in developing countries.
The government announced the initiative at the East Asia Summit in Thailand on 25 October 2009 against the backdrop of the multiple disasters in Samoa, Tonga, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines and the ongoing challenges and insecurity in Afghanistan.
This
bill
provides for the establishment and management of the Australian Civilian Corps.
Members of the corps will be drawn from a register of civilian specialists selected for their technical skills and ability to work in challenging international environments.
They will have expertise in areas such as public administration and finance, law and justice, engineering, agriculture and health administration.
They will be sought from all levels of government and the broader Australian community.
A number of civilian specialists have already been selected, screened and trained for inclusion on the Australian Civilian Corps register, which will be built up progressively to 500 by the year 2014.
The bill provides for these civilian specialists to be engaged as a new category of Commonwealth employee in order to deploy with the corps.
Members of the Australian Civilian Corps will be a unique category of Commonwealth employee, engaged to work in crisis environments overseas for specific periods before returning to their regular employment.
As Commonwealth employees, these individuals will represent the Australian government in highly challenging environments abroad.
They will have all of the rights and protections afforded to Commonwealth employees, and be covered by the same minimum standards of employment as other Australian employees under the Fair Work Act.
The central purpose of the bill is to create a legal framework for the effective and fair employment and management of Australian Civilian Corps employees.
The bill provides for terms and conditions and other employment arrangements that are specifically designed for this unique kind of employment.
AusAID will administer the Australian Civilian Corps, in cooperation with other Australian government agencies.
The Director-General of AusAID, who manages the vast majority of Australia’s international development assistance program, will be responsible for managing the Australian Civilian Corps.
The bill gives the Director-General of AusAID the power to engage Australian Civilian Corps employees and determine their remuneration and other terms and conditions.
These terms and conditions will be tailored to the particular requirements of Australian Civilian Corps employment.
The Australian Civilian Corps will have a set of values prescribed by regulation, which will define the principles, standards and ethics to be embodied by the corps.
The Director-General of AusAID will be required to uphold and promote the values.
A code of conduct for the Australian Civilian Corps will also be prescribed by regulation, setting out the standards of behaviour and conduct expected of Australian Civilian Corps employees.
The bill provides for sanctions to be imposed in the event that an Australian Civilian Corps employee breaches the code.
The bill also facilitates the transition of civilian specialists between Australian Civilian Corps employment and their regular employment.
The Prime Minister is given a power under the bill to issue directions to Commonwealth employers about the participation of their employees in the corps.
The bill also includes a provision to ensure that all employers can grant leave without pay to their employees for the purpose of undertaking Australian Civilian Corps service.
The Australian Civilian Corps will have the flexibility to deploy in a stand-alone capacity or alongside international partners or other Australian operations, including military and police.
The corps will work closely with bodies such as the United Nations, and the bill provides for secondments of members of the corps to such bodies.
The bill also deals with various other employment arrangements including assignment of duties, suspension and termination from employment.
The Australian Civilian Corps is a valuable new capability that will enhance Australia’s ability to meet requests for assistance following natural disasters and conflict.
The corps will work in partnership with crisis-affected countries in our region and beyond to assist with stabilisation, recovery and development efforts.
It will build on Australia’s proud history of providing assistance in times of crisis and affirm our status as a good international citizen.
For this initiative to be successful it is essential that a framework exists for the effective and fair employment and management of Australian Civilian Corps employees.
This bill puts such a framework into place.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Chester) adjourned.
AIRPORTS AMENDMENT BILL 2010
262
Bills
R4454
First Reading
262
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
262
262
09:15:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I am reintroducing into the parliament the
Airports Amendment Bill 2010
to give effect to many of the government’s airport planning and development policies that were announced in the aviation policy white paper,
Flight path to the future. These policies have been subject to extensive consultation with stakeholders in the aviation industry and the community and also with state, territory and local governments. I introduced this bill into the last parliament but the bill lapsed when it was prorogued. At the time, the bill was referred to the Senate Standing Legislation Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. The committee commenced an inquiry into the bill. However, it did not have the opportunity to fully examine the bill before the caretaker period began. I want to thank those people and businesses that took the time to prepare submissions for the inquiry. This bill is a priority for the government and I welcome further debate.
Significant reforms are needed to get the balance right between the need for ongoing investment in aviation infrastructure, community consultation and the integration of airport planning with local, state and territory planning regimes.
This government is committed to ensuring sustainable growth in aviation, underpinned by meaningful engagement and consultation with the community and stakeholders.
As airports get busier and our major cities grow, airport planning assumes an increased importance.
Airports are not islands. Better integration of on- and off-airport planning is in everyone’s interests—airport operators, airlines, fare-paying passengers, local communities and businesses.
The public rightly demands better information and consultation when it comes to airport development, especially the impacts of aviation on neighbouring communities close to our airports. The Gillard government is committed to better urban planning, and the reforms contained in this bill complement and support our national agenda on major cities.
The amendments contained in this bill underscore the objectives of the Airports Act, including:
-
to promote the sound development of civil aviation in Australia;
-
to establish a system for the regulation of airports that has due regard to the interests of airport users and the general community; and
-
to promote the efficient economic development and operation of airports.
The need to strengthen airport master plans was a recurring theme in submissions and meetings during the 20-month consultation and development period for the national aviation policy white paper.
The
Airports Amendment Bill 2010
will strengthen airport master plans through a number of new requirements.
Firstly, airport master plans will need to include a ground transport plan which shows how the airport’s facilities connect with the surrounding road and public transport system.
Secondly, airport master plans will need to include additional detail on proposed use of land in the first five years of the plan, including detailed information on proposed non-aeronautical developments.
Thirdly, airport master plans will need to have information on the number of jobs likely to be created, anticipated traffic flows, and the airport’s assessment of the potential impacts on the local and regional economy and community.
Fourthly, airport master plans will need to include detailed analysis on how they align with state, territory and local government planning laws, as well as a justification for any inconsistencies.
Fifthly, airport environment strategies will now be part of airport master plans. This will ensure that the community has comprehensive information about proposed developments at airports and that airport operators can focus on a single public consultation and approval process.
Community consultation over major developments at airports is very important, and this bill will add an important extra trigger for major development plans.
As a result of this bill, any proposed development that is likely to have a significant impact on the local or regional community will be required to go through a major development plan process. Similarly, any alteration of a runway, including a runway alteration that changes flight paths or patterns of levels of aircraft noise, will be subjected to public consultation under a major development plan approval process.
These are important amendments to improve community consultation and the oversight of airport developments.
Given that the primary purpose of an airport is the provision of aeronautical services, a range of activities, such as long-term residential developments, residential aged or community care facilities, nursing homes, hospitals and schools, are likely to be incompatible with the long-term operation of an airport. Under this bill, these incompatible developments will be prima facie prohibited unless the airport is able to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances for taking the development to the next stage.
In recognition of the economic importance of our major airports, this bill allows developments covered in detail in the master plan to be considered for a reduced period of public comment if the development proposal is consistent with the master plan and, importantly, does not raise any issues that have an impact on the community.
The bill also allows for the approval process for aeronautical developments to be streamlined where appropriate safeguards are met.
Other minor technical and housekeeping amendments be made by this bill include:
-
removing certain items made redundant by previous amendments to the act;
-
updating the names of a couple of airports; and
-
clarifying the operation of certain sections of the act.
The changes to the act are supported by other non-legislative reform contained in the government’s aviation white paper. These include the requirement for all leased federal airports to have community consultation groups with independent chairs, and for capital city airports to also have a high level planning forum with the state government and my department.
The government’s white paper was Australia’s first ever national blueprint for aviation. This bill furthers the implementation of the reforms contained in that document. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Chester) adjourned.
PROTECTION OF THE SEA LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
264
Bills
R4426
First Reading
264
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
264
264
09:21:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I am reintroducing into the parliament the
Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. This bill was originally introduced into the House of Representatives on 3 February 2010. It was agreed by the House on 18 March 2010 and introduced into the Senate on 11 May 2010 but was not debated. The bill lapsed when parliament was prorogued for the general election. The bill that is being reintroduced today is essentially the same as the lapsed bill except for a minor amendment to the commencement provision, which originally provided for schedule 1 to commence on 1 July 2010.
Nearly 4,000 ships carry commodities to and from Australia’s shores each year, involving 99 per cent of our imports and exports by volume. Australia has the fifth largest shipping task in the world.
It is inevitable that with such a large amount of shipping there will be pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. As a government, we are committed to preventing and reducing marine pollution wherever possible.
This bill will amend two acts to strengthen Australia’s comprehensive marine pollution prevention regime.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has adopted a number of conventions which are intended to reduce pollution by ships.
The most important of these conventions is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships which is generally referred to as MARPOL.
MARPOL has six technical annexes which deal with different aspects of marine pollution. These are pollution by oil, noxious liquid substances in bulk, harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form, sewage, garbage and air pollution.
About 150 countries have adopted at least some of these annexes.
Australia has adopted all six.
Schedule 1 of this bill will implement amendments to annex VI of MARPOL. Annex VI is intended to reduce air pollution by ships.
Annex VI places an upper limit on the emission of nitrogen oxides from marine diesel engines, limits the emission of sulphur oxides by limiting the sulphur content of fuel oil and prohibits the deliberate emission of ozone depleting substances from ships.
Amendments to annex VI, which were agreed to by the IMO in October 2008, entered into force on 1 July 2010. The main effect of these amendments is to provide for a progressive reduction in the permitted sulphur level in fuel oil used in ships.
The current maximum sulphur content of 4.5 per cent will be reduced to 3.5 per cent from 1 January 2012. Subject to a review to be conducted in 2018 by the IMO, it is further proposed that the sulphur content of fuel oil be reduced to 0.5 per cent from 1 January 2020.
The IMO has agreed that some parts of the seas which are close to heavily populated areas be designated as emission control areas. An emission control area is an area in which there is a proven need for a further reduction of emissions from ships for health reasons.
At present, only two areas have been designated as emission control areas—the Baltic Sea and the North Sea.
The permitted sulphur content in fuels used in emission control areas was reduced from 1.5 per cent to one per cent from 1 July 2010 and will be further reduced to 0.1 per cent from 1 January 2015.
In order to implement the progressive reduction in permitted sulphur content of fuel oil, the bill provides for the maximum sulphur content to be set by regulation.
The proposed reduction in sulphur fuel content to 3.5 per cent from 1 January 2012 will have little practical impact on vessel operations in Australia. That is because the average sulphur level in world-wide fuel oil deliveries and the sulphur levels in fuel refined in Australia currently fall below the 3.5 per cent cap.
Another important aspect of this bill is to provide protection for persons or organisations who assist in the clean-up following a spill of fuel oil from a ship.
It is essential that persons or organisations not be deterred from providing assistance following an oil spill because they think they may become liable if their actions inadvertently lead to increased pollution.
The bill also includes a so-called responder immunity provision to protect persons and organisations who respond to a spill of fuel oil from liability provided they have acted reasonably and in good faith.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Chester) adjourned.
NATIONAL BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
266
Bills
R4430
First Reading
266
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
266
266
09:27:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The
National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2010
amends the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (ABC Act) and Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 (SBS Act) to introduce a new merit based appointment process for the ABC and SBS boards and to restore the position of
staff elected director on the ABC board.
The intention of these amendments is to achieve better long-term outcomes for both boards and consequently improve governance in our national broadcasters.
This bill fulfils two important and longstanding commitments by the Labor Party. First, we undertook in our national platform in 2007 to end political interference in the ABC by introducing a transparent and democratic board appointment process that appoints non-executive directors on merit, and we undertook to deal with SBS board appointments in the same way as with the ABC. Second, we committed to restore the staff elected director on the ABC board.
Merit based appointment of non-executive directors
ABC and SBS board appointments were previously made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the government of the day, as per the ABC and SBS Acts. These acts specify general criteria against which candidates are to be assessed but provide no process for appointments and no requirements around transparency in how candidates are selected.
In practice this has raised concerns about ABC and SBS board appointments being politically motivated. Commentators have also perceived that political appointments may have diminished the level of expertise of particular board members on complex technological and financial issues facing the national broadcasters.
Therefore the government has developed a new appointment process whereby an independent panel will conduct a merit-based selection process for non-executive directors to the ABC and SBS boards and advise the government on suitable appointments.
Guidelines were released in October 2008 outlining the new process, with appointments being made in March 2009 and June 2010. The merit-based selection process takes the politics out of the appointment process and focuses on getting the best candidates on boards.
These amendments will formalise this new appointment process in the legislation for both broadcasters and ensure it is used consistently for all future non-executive director vacancies. The legislation also ensures the nomination panel conducts its selection process at arm’s length from the government of the day.
Features of the new process include:
-
Assessment by an independent nomination panel at arm’s length from the government.
-
Vacancies will be widely advertised, at a minimum in the national press and/or in major state and territory newspapers, and on the website of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.
-
Assessment of candidates will be made against a core set of published selection criteria which may be supplemented by additional criteria where appropriate for specific positions, for example to address particular skill gaps.
-
The nomination panel will provide a report to the minister with a short list of at least three candidates for each vacant position.
-
The minister will select a candidate from the short list and will write to the Governor-General recommending the appointment as required under the acts.
-
In accordance with the government’s election commitment, the appointment of current or former politicians or senior political staff will be prohibited.
-
Where the vacancy is for the chair of the ABC board, the Prime Minister would select the preferred candidate in consultation with the minister. The Prime Minister would confer with cabinet and once cabinet approval was granted, the Prime Minister would consult with the Leader of the Opposition before making a recommendation to the Governor-General.
The legislation provides for the nomination panel to be appointed by the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and sets out processes for its operation. The nomination panel is independent and the legislation states it is not subject to direction by the government.
While the minister (or in the case of the chair of the ABC board, the Prime Minister) may select a candidate who has not been recommended by the nomination panel, they are required to table a statement of reasons in both houses of parliament within 15 sitting days of the announcement of the appointment. This is consistent with the principle of ministerial responsibility whereby the ultimate responsibility for government appointments is with the relevant minister.
The new legislation will provide increased certainty for the boards regarding appointments and tenure. It will strengthen the process and entrench clear rules of appointment and security of tenure for the nomination panel. It will set out how they function and underscore the independence of the panel from government.
Staff-elected director on ABC board
Prior to 2006, the ABC Act provided for the inclusion of a staff-elected director on the board.
The staff-elected director enhances the ABC’s independence by providing the board with a unique and important insight into ABC operations. The staff-elected director is often the only individual with the expertise to examine the advice to the board from the ABC’s executive.
The staff-elected director has the same duties, rights and responsibilities as all other non-executive directors. Like any other ABC director, the staff-elected director’s primary duty is to act in the best interests of the corporation. The only difference between the staff-elected director and other ABC directors is their means of appointment.
There is nothing in the present act or amendment that says the duties of the staff-elected director are different to those of the other non-executive directors on the board.
It is the responsibility of the board to ensure that all directors are aware of their primary duty to act in the interest of the corporation as a whole. This point was made by the Australian National Audit Office in 1999 when it noted in its discussion paper about corporate governance that a written code of conduct, approved by the board, setting out ethical and behavioural expectations for both directors and employees was a ‘better practice’ governance principle for the board of a Commonwealth authority or company.
Conclusion
The measures in this bill deliver on the government’s commitments. They will increase the transparency and democratic accountability of the ABC and SBS boards and help ensure they continue to provide Australians with high-quality broadcasting services, free from political interference.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Chester) adjourned.
RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT BILL 2010
268
Bills
R4422
First Reading
268
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
268
268
09:34:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The
Radiocommunications Amendment Bill 2010
proposes amendments to the Radiocommunications Act 1992 (the act) to:
-
give the independent radiocommunications regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA for short), greater flexibility in the timeframe in which it can commence reissuing spectrum licences;
-
allow the ACMA to issue class licences in the same spectrum space allocated or designated for spectrum licences (coexistence);
-
vary the treatment of certain ministerial determinations and directions made under the act; and
-
provide additional clarity for ministerial directions to the ACMA relating to spectrum access charges.
In the late 1990s, the government commenced auctioning a number of spectrum licences to support a market-based approach to the licensing of radiofrequency spectrum.
The licences had a 15-year tenure, flexible conditions and were fully tradeable. Australia was amongst the first countries in the world to issue licences on this basis.
Many of these licences are now used by telecommunication carriers to provide mobile phone and wireless access services to millions of Australians.
The first of the 15-year licences are due to expire in 2013 with the remainder by 2017.
Currently the act requires the ACMA to publish a notice advising which spectrum licences are due to expire within the next two years, and inviting expressions of interest in the spectrum, but prevents it from doing this earlier.
The ACMA is also restricted from issuing draft spectrum licences as part of their marketing plan until two years prior to the licences’ expiry.
Incumbent licensees have consistently called for greater certainty about licence reissue.
Without such certainty it is claimed that there will be a reluctance to maintain investment in infrastructure and service provision with potential adverse impacts on coverage and service quality.
The bill amends the act to remove the current timing constraint which restricts the ACMA to publishing notices about expiring spectrum licences and publishing draft spectrum licences to two years prior to licence expiry.
Removing this time constraint will provide greater flexibility for the ACMA in terms of when it can commence licence reissue processes and allows the industry greater certainty, which it is calling for.
The ACMA would still be required to seek expressions of interest for spectrum licences prior to expiry.
The bill also amends the act to permit coexistence of class licences and spectrum licences in the same spectrum band.
New technologies are being developed that could greatly increase the technical and productive efficiency of spectrum use, and allow devices to share spectrum with traditional radiocommunciations without harmful interference.
Over time there will be widespread adoption of new technologies in a range of devices that would be readily available in Australia.
These new technologies may be authorised for use in Australia by the ACMA under class licences.
Under current legislation, in bands subject to spectrum licensing, the only way to accommodate these new technologies is through a third-party authorisation by the incumbent spectrum licensee. To date, experience has shown this to be problematic.
It is important that the Australian radiocommunications regulatory framework is sufficiently flexible to meet such challenges and to
enhance the effective management and allocation of spectrum.
The bill makes additional amendments to clarify the operation of provisions relating to the variation of existing class licences to coexist with spectrum licences in the same spectrum allocation.
The bill includes adequate safeguards.
Before applying any coexistence provisions involving class licences in a spectrum licensed allocation, the ACMA would be required to develop adequate safeguards through consultation with industry.
The ACMA would also need to satisfy itself that the new technologies coexist without unacceptable interference to primary services and are in the public interest.
The amendments on coexistence will not affect current spectrum licences and licensees. The new arrangement will only impact future new or reissued spectrum licences issued after the amendments take effect.
The bill amends the act to make ministerial determinations specifying classes of services for which reissuing the same licence to the same licensee is in the public interest—legislative instruments that are not subject to disallowance.
These determinations will, however, be published on the Register of Legislative Instruments.
These changes are proposed in order to minimise unnecessary delays in the reissuance process. Delays from the possible disallowance of a determination could have a material negative impact on conducting licence reissue discussions with incumbent licensees, particularly those licences which are due to expire in mid-2013.
The bill further amends the act so ministerial directions to the ACMA concerning spectrum access charges are not legislative instruments.
The measure is consistent with existing provisions in the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 that instruments of this kind are not legislative in nature.
The amendment will also protect commercially sensitive pricing information relating to the licence reissue discussions from being published before ACMA reissue processes are completed.
Consistent with current practices, it is expected the ACMA would make known the prices paid for reissued licences once the reissuance process is complete.
Finally, the bill makes a minor amendment—for the avoidance of doubt—that a ministerial spectrum access direction may require the charge to reflect the amount the minister considers to be the value of the spectrum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Chester) adjourned.
CIVIL DISPUTE RESOLUTION BILL 2010
270
Bills
R4423
First Reading
270
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr McClelland.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
270
270
09:41:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased today to introduce the
Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010
into the parliament.
The bill encourages parties to take genuine steps to seek to resolve their dispute where possible before commencing proceedings in the Federal Court or a Federal Magistrates Court. It builds upon the enhanced case management powers that were legislated by this government in the previous parliament.
The bill will encourage parties to turn their minds to the issues in dispute, the outcomes they are seeking and how this can best be achieved before commencing litigation.
Launching into litigation is not always the best approach. Parties can benefit from exchanging information, narrowing the issues in dispute and exploring options for resolution that will lead to more matters being settled by agreement earlier on, before significant costs have been incurred and positions become entrenched. Even if matters do progress to court, costs will be saved as the issues in dispute will be better understood and, hopefully, narrowed.
The bill is also a further step to moving from the adversarial culture of litigation to one where resolution is actively sought. Of course, not all matters can be resolved, and some do need the clarity of a judicial ruling. However, the general aim of considering resolution where possible should be fostered. In doing so, the bill does not undermine the critical role of the courts as ultimate adjudicators of legal issues. Equally, courts are already taking a modern approach, which should be recognised. They are actively promoting judges to facilitate agreements between parties, for example, through court referred alternative dispute resolution. This bill does not displace that process but encourages parties to genuinely negotiate before commencing litigation. A further aim of the legislation is to encourage lawyers to fully inform clients about options to resolve disputes and alternatives to legal action.
The bill does not introduce a mandatory alternative dispute resolution or prescriptive or onerous pre-action protocols, nor does it prevent a party from commencing litigation. It is deliberately flexible in allowing parties to tailor the genuine steps they take to the circumstances of the dispute. In doing so, it encourages parties to genuinely turn their minds to what they can do to attempt to resolve the matter.
I am pleased that other jurisdictions are taking a similar approach. I note the passage of the Civil Procedure Bill 2010 in Victoria and the consideration by the New South Wales Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, of recommendations made in the blueprint for alternative dispute resolution. It is heartening that my colleagues in other jurisdictions are seeking to take similar approaches.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Chester) adjourned.
HUMAN RIGHTS (PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY) BILL 2010
271
Bills
R4420
First Reading
271
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr McClelland.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
271
271
09:45:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010, together with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010, implements legislative elements of Australia’s Human Rights Framework, which was released on 21 April this year.
The changes in the framework are aimed at enhancing understanding of and respect for human rights in Australia and ensuring appropriate recognition of human rights issues in legislative and policy development.
The bill contains two important measures that are designed to improve parliamentary scrutiny of new laws for consistency with Australia’s human rights obligations and to encourage early and ongoing consideration of human rights issues in policy and legislative development.
The government believes that Australia can, and should, live up to its obligations under these important treaties, not simply because this is the right thing to do but because the principles that are contained in those documents provide a protection against unwarranted, unjustified or arbitrary interference in the fundamental rights enjoyed by all individuals irrespective of their colour, background or social status.
Essentially the implementation of these two measures—that is, statements of compatibility on human rights and the establishment of a new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—establishes a dialogue between the executive, the parliament and ultimately the citizens they represent.
First, the requirement of statements of compatibility on human rights will establish a dialogue between the executive and the parliament whereby members and senators will be able to consider the impact of proposed legislation on the citizens they represent.
And in turn, the new parliamentary committee will establish a dialogue between the parliament and its citizens whereby the members of the committee can canvass the views of the public, including affected groups, as to how they will be affected by proposed legislation.
In that sense, these measures incrementally advance the concept of participatory democracy by providing additional means for citizens to have input into the legislative process.
In terms of how these measures will operate in practice, it is appropriate to provide a brief overview.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
The first of these measures, as I mentioned, is to establish a new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.
The reference point for the committee will be the rights and freedoms recognised or declared by the seven core United Nations human rights treaties as they apply to Australia. The treaties are:
-
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
-
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
-
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
-
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
-
The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
-
The Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
-
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The committee will examine and report to parliament on compatibility of bills and legislative instruments with Australia’s human rights obligations under these seven core human rights treaties.
It will also be able to examine existing legislation and conduct broad inquiries into matters relating to human rights as referred to it by the Attorney-General.
Statements of compatibility
The bill also introduces a requirement for statements assessing compatibility with human rights to accompany all new bills and disallowable legislative instruments.
When parliament comes to consider bills and legislative instruments, statements of compatibility will alert parliament to the relevant human rights considerations and will assist in informing parliamentary debate.
Where appropriate, statements may justify restrictions or limitations on rights where such restrictions are in the interests of other individuals or society more generally as permitted by the human rights treaties.
A statement of compatibility and a report of the joint committee on human rights will not be binding on a court or tribunal.
However, as with other explanatory material, courts may refer to a statement of compatibility or a report of the committee to assist in ascertaining the meaning of provisions in a statute where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous.
Conclusion
The measures in this bill will deliver improved policies and laws in the future by encouraging early and ongoing consideration of human rights issues in the policy and law-making process and informing parliamentary debate on human rights issues.
The bill contributes to enhancing community confidence that our laws reflect our human rights obligations, and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Chester) adjourned.
HUMAN RIGHTS (PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY) (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2010
273
Bills
R4425
First Reading
273
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr McClelland.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
273
273
09:51:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010, together with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010, implements legislative elements of Australia’s Human Rights Framework, which was released on 21 April 2010.
The Commonwealth has a comprehensive and extensive framework for independent review of administrative decisions.
The Administrative Review Council is an independent body established to review and inquire into the Commonwealth administrative law system and recommend improvements that might be made to the system.
The proposed amendments will ensure an appropriate human rights perspective is integrated in the views of the Administrative Review Council by including the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission as an ex-officio member of the council.
In addition, the proposed amendments will integrate statements of compatibility into existing procedures for tabling legislative instruments.
This package of reforms, along with the other changes in the framework, will inform parliamentary consideration of human rights and enhance the understanding of and respect for human rights in Australia.
I commend the bill.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Chester) adjourned.
NATIONAL SECURITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
273
Bills
R4435
First Reading
273
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr McClelland.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
273
273
09:53:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Introduction
Today I reintroduce the
National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, which lapsed when parliament was prorogued on 19 July 2010 and I would refer honourable members to my previous second reading speech for additional explanation.
The bill implements the government’s responses to a number of independent and bipartisan reviews of national security and counterterrorism legislation.
After extensive public consultation, the bill was considered by the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the government has taken the recommendations of that committee into account in reintroducing the bill.
Specific Amendments
1. Treason and sedition (urging violence)
The name of the sedition offences in the Criminal Code will be changed to ‘urging violence’ to better reflect the nature of the offences.
The urging violence offence will be expanded to include urging force or violence on the basis of ‘ethnic’ or ‘national’ origin.
The offence will also be expanded so that it applies to the urging of force or violence against an individual, not just a group, and covers the urging of force or violence, even where the use of the force or violence does not threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.
2. Part 5.3 measures
The bill will make amendments to improve the terrorist organisation listings provisions, including extending the duration of listings from two to three years, consistent with a recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
3. Part 1C of the Crimes Act
The bill will also clarify and improve the practical operation of the investigation powers in part 1C of the Crimes Act, in direct response to the issues raised in the Clarke inquiry into the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef.
4. Enhanced police powers to investigate terrorism
The bill will amend part 1AA of the Crimes Act to provide police with a power to enter premises without a warrant in emergency circumstances relating to a terrorism offence where there is material that may pose a risk to the health or safety of the public.
The bill will also modify the existing general search warrant provisions in the Crimes Act to provide more time for law enforcement officers to re-enter premises under a search warrant in emergency situations.
5. Bail provisions for terrorism offences
The bill will amend the bail provisions relating to terrorism and serious national security offences in the Crimes Act to include a specific right of appeal for both the prosecution and the defendant against a decision to grant or refuse bail.
6. Charter of the United Nations Act 1945
The bill will amend the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 to improve the standard for listing a person, entity, asset or class of assets, and to provide for the regular review of listings under the Charter Act.
7. Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986
The bill will amend the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act to enable the Inspector-General, on the request of the Prime Minister, to extend inquiries beyond the six Australian intelligence community agencies and inquire into an intelligence or security matter relating to any Commonwealth agency.
Concluding remarks
The Australian government is committed to fulfilling its responsibility to protect Australia, its people and its interests, while instilling confidence that our national security and counterterrorism laws will be exercised in a just and accountable way.
I am confident that this package of reforms delivers strong laws that protect our safety while preserving the democratic rights that protect our freedoms, and helps prepare us for the complex national security challenges of the future.
I commend the bill.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Chester) adjourned.
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT BILL 2010
274
Bills
R4428
First Reading
274
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr McClelland.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
274
274
09:58:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I reintroduce the
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010, which lapsed when parliament was prorogued on 19 July 2010 and I would refer honourable members to the second reading speech which I made at the time of introduction.
This bill, along with the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill, forms part of the package of reforms being progressed by the government to Australia’s national security legislation. These reforms are aimed at promoting transparency and ensuring that our laws are appropriately accountable in their operation.
The bill will improve oversight of the activities of the Australian Federal Police by establishing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, which will replace and extend the functions of the current Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission.
The new committee will be responsible for providing broad parliamentary oversight of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission.
It will continue the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission by also monitoring and reporting to parliament on the performance by the Australian Crime Commission of its functions.
The committee will also have the ability to examine trends and changes in criminal activities, practices and methods and report on any desirable changes to the functions, structure, powers and procedures of the Australian Crime Commission or the Australian Federal Police.
The establishment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement exemplifies the government’s commitment to improving oversight and accountability in relation to the exercise of the functions of Commonwealth agencies.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Chester) adjourned.
SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
275
Bills
R4459
First Reading
275
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr McClelland.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
275
275
10:01:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the
Sex and Age Discrimination Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The bill implements two election promises by the Gillard government:
-
to strengthen protections against sex discrimination and sexual harassment by improving on the existing
Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and
-
to introduce a new dedicated position of Age Discrimination Commissioner in the Australian Human Rights Commission, as part of the government’s commitment to ensure that all Australians are able to participate in Australian society, regardless of their age.
Amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act
As I mentioned, the bill includes amendments to enhance protections against sex discrimination and sexual harassment. These amendments form part of the government’s response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s
Inquiry into the effectiveness of the Sex Discrimination Act in eliminating discrimination and promoting gender equality.
Other recommendations in the report will be considered by the government as part of its review of antidiscrimination laws under Australia’s Human Rights Framework.
There are four key amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act.
First, it will ensure the act provides equal protection to women and men.
Second, it will broaden the prohibition on discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities to provide equal protection from discrimination, including indirect discrimination, to both men and women in all areas of their work.
The Gillard government is committed to taking action to support working families and to ensure there are adequate protections in place. Likewise, to be competitive, it is in the interest of Australian workplaces to provide greater flexibility to workers to allow all Australians to fulfil their caring responsibilities.
Third, it will establish breastfeeding as a separate ground of discrimination, rather than as a subset of sex discrimination.
Finally, it will strengthen the protections against sexual harassment in workplaces and schools.
-
Recent events have highlighted that sexual harassment continues to be a widespread problem in the workplace. In addition, younger victims of sexual harassment are facing the growing problem of cyberbullying and harassment by electronic means.
These amendments send a strong message that sexual harassment in any form is totally unacceptable.
Age Discrimination Commissioner
I am also pleased that the bill includes amendments to the Age Discrimination Act 2004 to establish the position of Age Discrimination Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission.
The commission already has powers and functions under the act to seek to address the problems of age discrimination in our society. To date, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, has been responsible for age discrimination issues. I would like to acknowledge and thank her for her strong advocacy in this area.
However, Australia’s ageing population has highlighted the need for a dedicated commissioner to engage with stakeholders, including industry and community representatives, to address discrimination in the workplace and in the community, to promote respect and fairness, and to tackle the attitudes and stereotypes that can contribute to age discrimination.
The bill includes a number of amendments, which are largely administrative in nature, that provide the mechanism for appointment and the terms and conditions of employment for the new commissioner. The bill also ensures the commissioner is a member of the commission and has the same advocacy powers as the other commissioners.
Conclusion
These amendments will strengthen protections for working families and also send a strong message that sexual harassment is unacceptable, especially in the workplace.
The establishment of an Age Discrimination Commissioner is also vital to address the continuing occurrence of age discrimination in the workplace and the broader community.
I commend the bill.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Turnbull) adjourned.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
277
Bills
R4456
First Reading
277
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr McClelland.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
277
277
10:06:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The
Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010
reintroduces measures contained in the bill that I introduced into the House on 24 June 2010 which lapsed when parliament was prorogued, and I would refer honourable members to my comments in the second reading speech introducing that bill.
The bill amends three acts to facilitate greater cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies and removes legislative barriers to information sharing within Australia’s national security community.
Interception assistance
Currently, under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, law enforcement agencies can seek the assistance of other law enforcement agencies in exercising an interception warrant.
This ability has enabled smaller agencies with limited interception capability to rely on larger agencies to intercept on their behalf.
However, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation does not fall within the group of agencies from whom such assistance can be sought.
The bill will amend the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to enable ASIO to intercept on behalf of other agencies and to ensure that ASIO has greater flexibility to support whole-of-government efforts to protect our communities.
In assisting law enforcement agencies, ASIO will continue to be subject to the existing legislative requirements set out in the interception act and also the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.
Other assistance
The bill also contains amendments to the ASIO Act and the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to enable the intelligence agencies to cooperate more closely and to provide assistance to one another in a wider range of circumstances than is possible under the existing legislative framework.
This will facilitate greater interoperability in multi-agency teams and enable agencies to harness resources in support of key national security priorities.
Amendments are also included to enhance information and intelligence sharing among Australia’s national security community.
The amendments set out in the bill retain the important accountability frameworks within which the agencies are required to operate.
Other amendments
The bill also makes several amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act that will improve the operation of that act.
Carriers and carrier service providers will be required to inform the communications access coordinator of proposed changes, such as maintenance and support, that could significantly affect their ability to comply with their statutory obligation to assist interception agencies.
Early notification of such changes will avoid the need for costly alterations once a change has been implemented.
Amendments are also contained in the bill that will support police forces to find missing persons and to solve crimes where the victim cannot be found or cannot consent to their communications being accessed.
Constraints on the disclosure of this information are also included in the bill as there are circumstances in which missing persons may not want their location revealed.
The operation of the act will also be improved by allowing a carrier or service provider representative who has been authorised by the managing director to receive notice of the issue of an interception warrant.
Finally, the bill makes several minor and technical changes to address formatting and typographical errors and to better reflect plain English drafting conventions.
Conclusion
Ensuring our national security and law enforcement agencies have the ability to respond to threats to our national security is a key priority for this government.
By shaping and supporting a national security community we will strengthen the capacity of all agencies to protect our communities from criminal and other activities threatening our national and personal wellbeing, and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Turnbull) adjourned.
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2010
278
Bills
R4421
First Reading
278
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr Snowdon.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
278
278
10:11:00
Snowdon, Warren, MP
IJ4
Lingiari
ALP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Indigenous Health
1
0
Mr SNOWDON
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present my first piece of legislation in my new role as Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, and in doing so I want to thank my predecessor, the Hon. Alan Griffin, the member for Bruce, for the magnificent work he did within the portfolio during his tenure.
This legislation will benefit a number of deserving Australians and addresses some anomalies to make the system work better for the very people that it is designed to serve.
These measures will improve support services for veterans and serving Australian Defence Force personnel.
For example, under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, the
bill
will extend the period for lodgement of claims for non-treatment related travel expenses from three to 12 months.
This change creates greater flexibility for veterans and their dependants who, for example, are required to travel to attend review meetings or obtain medical evidence.
In addition, the bill will extend eligibility for non-liability health care for malignant neoplasia under the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act to certain Australian Protective Service officers involved in the British nuclear tests between 20 October 1984 and 30 June 1988.
The bill will also tighten the processes regarding the serving of legal documents and notices. Protection of these processes will assist the delivery of services under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
Importantly, amendments in the bill will ensure that the policy relating to the aggravation of an initial war- or defence-caused injury or disease by service under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, and the payment of a pension to the dependant of a veteran who was a prisoner of war, operate as originally intended.
The bill will also enable Defence Service Homes Insurance to collect a state emergency service levy from policy holders, to assist the New South Wales government with the cost of providing emergency services in that state.
The bill will also enhance the operation of the Specialist Medical Review Council by making it clear that the Specialist Medical Review Council may review a decision of the Repatriation Medical Authority to not amend a statement of principles.
Furthermore, the Specialist Medical Review Council will be able to review both versions of a statement of principles even if the applicant has requested a review of only one of the statements.
This will protect the integrity of the regime and ensure that the statements of principles for a particular condition are aligned.
Importantly proposed amendments will protect the interests of certain compensation recipients under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act by requiring that the compensation payments are made to bank accounts in the recipients’ names.
Finally, Victoria Cross and decoration allowance recipients will be eligible for both a Victoria Cross or decoration allowance under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act plus a similar allowance or annuity from a foreign country.
The proposed changes, whilst relatively minor, will result in more positive outcomes for the veteran and service communities.
Ongoing review of the system that serves those who have served us is a promise that this government will keep. With this bill, I present changes that not just are of benefit today but will secure essential support for our veterans into the future.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Turnbull) adjourned.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT) BILL 2010
279
Bills
R4438
First Reading
279
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr Shorten.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
279
279
10:16:00
Shorten, Bill, MP
00ATG
Maribyrnong
ALP
Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation
1
0
Mr SHORTEN
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This
bill, together with the supporting bill, the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2010, introduces a new research and development tax incentive to replace the outdated and complex R&D tax concession.
The bills were introduced in the previous parliament, which was prorogued before they could be debated in the Senate. In response to the report on the bills by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, minor changes have been made to the lapsed bills to clarify that the new R&D tax incentive supports experimental activities for the purpose of generating knowledge in the applied form of new or improved materials, products, devices, processes or services. This was always the intention of the legislation and the changes make this even clearer.
The new incentive is the biggest reform to the business R&D landscape in the last decade. It is all about boosting investment in R&D, strengthening Australian companies and supporting jobs. It provides for increased assistance for genuine R&D and redistributes support in favour of small- and medium-sized enterprises—the engine room of our economy.
Our intention is to lift Australia’s R&D performance by encouraging many more businesses to benefit from the scheme, ensuring Australia’s place as a clever country. R&D activities contribute to innovation by creating new knowledge and technologies—increasing productivity, jobs and economic growth, and allowing Australia to respond to present and future challenges.
The two core components of the new incentive are:
-
a 45 per cent refundable tax offset for companies with a turnover of less than $20 million; and
-
a 40 per cent non-refundable tax offset for all other companies.
The 45 per cent refundable tax offset doubles the current base rate available to SMEs, and the 40 per cent non-refundable tax offset raises the base rate for larger companies by a third.
The tax offsets are calculated on the basis of expenditure on eligible R&D activities and the decline in value of depreciating assets used for eligible R&D activities.
Small innovative firms are big winners from the new R&D tax incentive, with greater access to cash refunds for their R&D expenditure and more generous rates of assistance.
For example, suppose a company with a turnover of $10 million spends $1 million on eligible R&D activities in an income year and is in a tax loss position. Under the new R&D tax incentive, that company will be entitled to a cash refund of $450,000.
Under the existing R&D tax concession, the company will only receive a tax deduction worth $375,000, and there is zero benefit until the company starts to turn a profit. In this way, the new incentive will help small innovative companies when they need it the most.
The new R&D tax incentive better focuses public support towards genuine R&D activities. The key elements of this approach are:
-
a clearer definition of core R&D activities;
-
a robust test for supporting R&D activities; and
-
enhanced administration of the tax incentive.
Recognising the pervasive nature of information technology in a modern economy, the new R&D tax incentive will ensure most software R&D is treated consistently with R&D occurring in other sectors.
Activities that were specifically excluded from being considered core R&D activities have been substantially rationalised to further improve the incentive.
These changes will ensure that the new R&D tax incentive rewards a company’s genuine R&D, not business-as-usual, activities.
Importantly, this bill:
-
further opens up the new R&D tax incentive to foreign corporations that are resident in Australia and those that carry on R&D activities through a permanent establishment in Australia; and
-
ensures the new incentive will be available for expenditure on eligible R&D activities conducted in Australia, regardless of where the resulting intellectual property is held.
This will strengthen the case for companies to conduct R&D activities locally.
The bill ensures that public support for R&D is sustainable. On an underlying cash basis, the new R&D tax incentive is expected to be budget neutral over its first four years of operation.
To ensure a smooth transition to the new R&D tax incentive, the 2009-10 budget provided an additional $38 million over four years for administrative agencies to support companies through the transition.
To improve certainty for taxpayers, AusIndustry will provide comprehensive public guidance material and will introduce a new system of private binding rulings, called ‘advance findings’.
This bill also represents a significant step in simplifying the income tax law. In addition to being drafted in plain English, the new provisions to be inserted in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 are less than one-third of the length of the provisions they replace in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.
The Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2010 will deliver much-needed reform to public support for business innovation. It will deliver a substantial incentive for companies to conduct R&D in Australia. It recognises that the innovation dividend for the economy will come from refocusing public support on genuine R&D, not routine business activities.
Full details of the amendments in this bill are contained in the combined explanatory memorandum to this bill and the supporting bill, the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2010.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Turnbull) adjourned.
INCOME TAX RATES AMENDMENT (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT) BILL 2010
281
Bills
R4442
First Reading
281
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr Shorten.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
281
281
10:23:00
Shorten, Bill, MP
00ATG
Maribyrnong
ALP
Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation
1
0
Mr SHORTEN
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This
bill
supports the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2010, which introduces a new research and development tax incentive to replace the outdated and complex R&D tax concession.
Together the bills simplify the treatment of government grants under the new R&D tax incentive.
Where an entity’s research and development expenditure eligible for an R&D tax offset is funded from a government grant or recouped from government, the potential double benefit is clawed back.
This is effected by the entity paying an additional amount of income tax equal to 10 per cent of the relevant grant or recoupment amount. This form of adjustment is much easier for taxpayers and administrators than the current arrangements because it avoids the need to recalculate tax offset entitlements for previous years.
This bill contains the necessary amendments to the Income Tax Rates Act 1986,
which in accordance with normal government practice are contained in a bill separate from the other amendments.
Full details of the amendments in this bill are contained in the combined explanatory memorandum to this bill and the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Turnbull) adjourned.
FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
282
Bills
R4434
First Reading
282
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Mr Gray.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
282
282
10:25:00
Gray, Gary, MP
8W5
Brand
ALP
Special Minister of State and Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity
1
0
Mr GRAY
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The
Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill 2010is an omnibus bill that would, if passed, affect 31 acts, involving the amendment of 25 acts and the repeal of six.
This is the seventh Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (FFLA Bill) since 2004 and is in substantially the same form as the FFLA Bill I introduced on 23 June 2010. These amendment bills build on improvements to the Commonwealth’s financial governance framework and have traditionally had broad parliamentary support.
This bill contains three themes: first, the repeal of redundant special appropriations; second, the improvement to the laws underpinning the Commonwealth’s financial governance framework; and, third, updating the financial governance of specific bodies.
On the first theme, the bill would, if enacted, repeal 20 redundant special appropriations, including six acts in their entirety. This continues the government’s commitment to regularly review special appropriations, as given in the government’s response of December 2008 to the report by former Senator Andrew Murray,
Review of Operation Sunlight: overhauling budgetary transparency.
Second, the bill would improve the governance framework established by the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, known colloquially as the ‘FMA Act’ and the ‘CAC Act’.
The bill would allow ministers to delegate certain functions under the CAC Act to departmental secretaries, relating to the oversight of Commonwealth authorities and Commonwealth companies. Introducing such specific delegation powers would strengthen existing arrangements, that currently rely on authorisations by ministers, for obtaining budget estimates and monthly financial statements.
The bill would also address the situation of FMA Act agencies, and Commonwealth authorities operating under the CAC Act, that are interjurisdictional in nature, by amending those acts to empower relevant state and territory ministers to request information about their operations. This power would be commensurate with the power currently held by Commonwealth ministers in this regard, with the details to be set out in regulations. This would enable full consultation to occur between the Commonwealth and relevant states and territories, before such requirements are put in place, and would allow the requirements to be calibrated on a case by case basis.
The bill would also strengthen the reporting to parliament of the Commonwealth’s involvement in companies. Currently the CAC Act obliges responsible ministers to inform parliament when the Commonwealth acquires or disposes of an interest in a company. The bill would relocate this requirement more appropriately to part 5 of the FMA Act, which currently deals with the investments by the Commonwealth.
Third, the bill would clarify the governance arrangements of several specific bodies. These have been developed after consultation with relevant ministers, departments and agencies.
In particular, the bill would consolidate the Australian Institute of Criminology with the Criminology Research Council into a single agency, while at the same time transferring them from the CAC Act to the FMA Act. The bill would also transfer the governance of the Australian Law Reform Commission from the CAC Act to the FMA Act.
Further, this bill would bring the governance of the National Transport Commission under the CAC Act, because the Commission currently operates outside existing frameworks, other than for its annual reporting.
This is consistent with the finance department’s governance arrangements for Australian government bodies and the government’s policy on governance arrangements.
Finally, the bill would repeal legislation that had established the
Office of Evaluation and Audit for Indigenous Programs, in recognition of this function having now been successfully absorbed into the Australian National Audit Office.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Turnbull) adjourned.
THERAPEUTIC GOODS AMENDMENT (2010 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2010
283
Bills
R4429
First Reading
283
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Ms King.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
283
283
10:30:00
King, Catherine, MP
00AMR
Ballarat
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport
1
0
Ms KING
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This
bill
makes a number of amendments to improve the regulation of therapeutic goods in Australia under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.
The government is committed to maintaining the position of Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration as a leading global regulator of therapeutic goods.
This means we need to update the legislation under which the TGA works, to meet emerging issues and ensure that the act gives the regulator the necessary powers to exercise its functions fairly and effectively.
This is the fifth in a series of amendment bills since 2008 to make much needed improvements to the act. As a government we have now disposed of the backlog of amendments to the act that had been stockpiled in the lead-up to the introduction of the now postponed joint regulatory agency with New Zealand.
Schedule 1 of this bill will introduce measures allowing for the short-term exemption from the act of medical devices to serve as substitutes for devices that are registered by the TGA but are unavailable or in short supply, and medical devices that have no substitute registered in Australia. These provisions mirror those already included in the act at section 19A in relation to medicines.
The existing section 19A provision is widely used to deal with disruptions to the availability in Australia of important medicines caused by supply chain problems, such as refurbishment of manufacturing facilities. While the unavailability of medical devices under such circumstances has not been a major problem in Australia, the government believes that including a similar provision in the act will allow appropriate flexibility in the medical device regulatory framework.
Under the proposed amendments the secretary may grant a person approval to import, or import and supply, a device to act as a substitute for a registered device if the device is marketed in a country specified in the regulations or if an application has been made to register the device in Australia and the secretary considers the approval is in the interests of public health.
If the application is to import, or import and supply, a device where there is no substitute registered in Australia, the secretary may grant the approval only if an application has been made to register the device in Australia and the secretary considers the approval is in the interests of public health.
These provisions do not take away the ability of a doctor to supply an unapproved medical device in an emergency situation. Rather, they operate to deal in a systematic way with the unavailability of approved medical devices. Other amendments allow the secretary to gather information on the supply and use of devices covered by an approval and allow for the recall of the devices under certain circumstances.
The schedule also contains consequential amendments to the offence provisions related to medical devices.
Schedule 2 of the bill includes a range of amendments to various provisions in the act.
One of the more significant will include an explicit pathway for sponsors of medicines already registered or listed by the TGA to list an export-only variant of the medicine. Although section 26 currently allows medicines to be listed for export, there is no link between these medicines and a medicine already on the register.
The new provision will allow the secretary to list a variation of an existing medicine as long as the variant differs from the existing medicine only in respect of characteristics specified in a legislative instrument. The government intends that these characteristics will be colourings, flavourings and excipients.
This provision will support Australian companies wishing to export medicines by allowing them to state to authorities in the importing country that the medicines are a minor variation on a medicine available on the Australian domestic market and to point to the provision in the act that allows the listing of such variants.
Another group of amendments in the schedule improve the TGA’s ability to obtain information from persons who have registered or listed medicines.
The act already includes powers for the TGA to obtain information on a wide range of subjects. However, while the secretary’s delegates in the TGA can impose conditions on the registration or listing of medicines, there is no explicit power for the TGA to obtain information relating to compliance with these conditions. The amendments include such a power.
The amendments also add a power for the TGA to obtain information on whether registered or listed medicines have been imported into or supplied in Australia, or exported from Australia. While this information can be very important in assessing the risk arising from an identified deficiency with a medicine, sponsors have in the past refused to provide it. These amendments put beyond doubt the TGA’s ability to obtain that information.
The schedule also amends the provisions relating to reconsideration by the minister of initial decisions by the secretary and her delegates in the TGA. Under the current provisions persons affected by an initial decision may apply to the minister for reconsideration within 90 days of the decision, and the minister must then reach a decision on the reconsideration within 60 days.
It is not uncommon for persons to apply for reconsideration but not supply any supporting information at that time. They then supply additional information well into the 60-day period during which the minister must reconsider the decision. Indeed, there is nothing to prevent the provision of additional information on day 59.
The amendments to section 60 address this by requiring persons applying for reconsideration to submit at the time they apply any information they wish the minister to consider. The amendments then preclude the minister from considering any further information provided by the person seeking reconsideration, unless it is information provided in response to a request by the minister or information indicating that the quality, safety or efficacy of the therapeutic goods involved is unacceptable.
These amendments will ensure that reconsideration by the minister is based on a deliberate analysis of all the relevant information, and avoid the need for hasty review of information supplied at the last minute.
The schedule also amends the provisions allowing the minister to determine lists of permitted ingredients to be included in medicines. These amendments are essentially technical changes to improve the workability of the provisions by allowing the list of permitted ingredients to include ingredients with restrictions or conditions on them.
Finally, the schedule clarifies that where a medical device is required to be audited before it can be approved the assessment fee for this audit is to be payable in accordance with the act or the regulations. This will ensure that all applicants pay the appropriate fee.
Together with the earlier regulatory reforms introduced by the government, this bill ensures that the TGA can continue to operate effectively as one of the leading therapeutic goods regulators in the world.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Turnbull) adjourned.
FOOD STANDARDS AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND AMENDMENT BILL 2010
285
Bills
R4419
First Reading
285
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by
Ms King.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
285
285
10:38:00
King, Catherine, MP
00AMR
Ballarat
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport
1
0
Ms KING
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am very pleased today to be introducing the
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010
which implements a reform agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments on 3 July 2008.
This amendment reflects the government’s strong commitment to microeconomic reform. In particular this amendment supports the goal of reducing the level of unnecessary or poorly designed regulation, with its resulting negative impact on Australian business.
This amendment is part of a package of reforms being pursued by the government in relation to the regulation of chemicals and plastics, which followed a study by the Productivity Commission in 2008. The reforms have been agreed to by all states and territories through COAG, as part of the ‘Seamless National Economy’ reform agenda.
Specifically, this reform will address the delay and uncertainty for users of agricultural and veterinary chemicals, who are typically primary producers, which results from overlapping regulatory responsibilities for setting maximum residue limits of chemicals allowed to be present in food.
Under the existing arrangements, both the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) have a role in establishing safe limits for agricultural and veterinary chemical residues. The APVMA does this in the course of issuing registrations and permits for agricultural and veterinary chemical products. FSANZ, with its role in establishing and maintaining food standards, is responsible for incorporating maximum residue limits into the Food Standards Code.
Both regulatory systems are charged with the protection of public health and safety. Both rely on rigorous scientific assessment. But while both systems work well to ensure the safety of Australians, the overlapping regulatory responsibilities of the two agencies lead, in certain circumstances, to significant delays in decisions which mean a product might be grown on a farm but cannot be sold as a food for some months later.
This results from the time lag of nine to 12 months which occurs between when the APVMA establishes a maximum residue limit in relation to an agricultural or veterinary chemical product, and when FSANZ is able to effect a corresponding modification to the Food Standards Code.
Amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, designed to improve the operation of the food regulatory system in response to consumer, industry and government feedback, were most recently made in 2007. These included changes intended to streamline the process for establishing maximum residue limits in the Food Standards Code. The amendments achieved a modest reduction in the time lines for modifying the Food Standards Code, through giving FSANZ early notice of any applications to the APVMA for chemical products that would be likely to result in a change to a maximum residue limit.
However, the 2007 amendments did not address the fundamental problem with setting maximum residue limits: the duplication of the scientific assessment and decision-making process, and the resulting significant time delay for primary producers.
The amendments I am presenting in this bill today will resolve this issue by streamlining the decision-making process for determining maximum residue limits. Under the new system, if the APVMA makes a decision on setting a maximum residue limit, in the course of approving a chemical product registration or permit application, then the APVMA can use that decision to vary the maximum residue limits standard in the Food Standards Code. FSANZ, as the scientific experts in food safety, will retain responsibility for the dietary modelling that the APVMA will rely on to establish safe chemical residue limits.
These amendments will not jeopardise the protection of public health and safety in any way. In over 10 years of the system’s operation, there has never been an occasion where FSANZ has not adjusted the Food Standards Code in line with the maximum residue limits set by the APVMA. Instead, these amendments reduce duplicative administrative processes, and herald a new era of better integration of the roles of the two regulatory agencies.
All states and territories, which are partners in the joint food regulation system, have been consulted on the bill and are committed to ensuring the system continues to protect public health and safety, whilst also promoting improvements in regulatory efficiencies.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Hunt) adjourned.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH
286
Governor-General's Speech
Address-in-Reply
286
Debate resumed from 29 September, on the proposed address-in-reply to the speech of Her Excellency the Governor-General—
May it please Your Excellency:
We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, express our loyalty to the Sovereign, and thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to the Parliament—
on motion by
Ms O’Neill:
That the Address be agreed to.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—I call the honourable member for Werriwa.
287
10:43:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Fowler
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—Before the debate was adjourned, I was explaining to the House the significance of the Liverpool GP superclinic and the specialised early childhood centre for children with autism, which is also located in Liverpool. These local solutions have been tailored to meet local needs, and I am very proud to be associated with them. They will go a long way to assisting families in my electorate.
I would now like to focus on another issue—one which really requires great and clear national leadership. I am talking here about climate change. When preparing this speech, I had a look at what I said about climate change in a contribution I made in 2008. I said:
It is time that we started taking responsibility not just for the problem but for actually developing solutions.
The need to develop and implement solutions to address climate change and to enhance activities that are already going on in so many households, businesses and enterprises throughout the land not only present us with challenges but, quite clearly, also open up opportunities for us. I know there will be difficulties in commercialising supportive technologies—particularly renewable energy technologies—unless there is an effective price on carbon emissions.
Drawing upon my experiences and background in working with organisations, particularly in the renewable and sustainable energy sector, I believe that the best way of addressing climate change is through an emissions trading system, and I do not say this simply because the member for Wentworth is sitting at the table! I think his views in respect of an effective measure for addressing climate change are well known to this House and are respected. I believe that an emissions trading scheme would provide the necessary balance between developing a sustainable economic position and making clear the development aspects of addressing serious environmental impacts, which must be confronted—not in the future, it must be confronted now.
One thing that is certain is that the cost for not taking action on greenhouse gas emissions far outweighs the cost of taking action to protect our environment, to support our future and, clearly, to develop long-term economic sustainability. These are fundamental and they are things that members of this place cannot walk away from. We are in a unique position in time where we are confronted with the opportunity to make decisions to redress these matters. With these sentiments in mind, I warmly welcomed the establishment of the multiparty climate change committee earlier this week. I hope that it will build on consensus and how this country will move to tackle the issue of climate change.
Another matter I would like to briefly speak about is the very different situation we find ourselves in today. Many people in this country, along with various social commentators, thought that a hung parliament would lead to a new spirit of cooperation between the major parties. Indeed, a hung parliament has led to the historic agreement on parliamentary reform and the amendments to standing orders that were passed only yesterday. However, the opposition’s decision to renege on part of that parliamentary reform, particularly in respect of pairing of the Speaker, is a disappointment not only to me but to most people. It appears that one thing that remains certain is that the opposition will put political point scoring ahead of good governance, such is their conviction for their right to rule. The focus on wrecking government, traducing honoured parliamentary traditions and walking away from agreements—signed agreements at that—all indicate one thing: the opposition will maintain a position of opposition for opposition’s sake. I would have thought that the Australian people deserved better. It will remain the position of this government, however, to always act responsibly and work in goodwill with our partners to deliver effective government to all Australians.
There are matters that we raise in this place that are important to parliamentarians and not just to do with whether or not we are supporting or opposing legislative proposals. Over the years I have lobbied for the greater recognition of two commemorative days which I am very passionate about, the first being the National Police Remembrance Day, which was held yesterday. I had the opportunity to speak on that matter last night during the adjournment debate. The other matter concerns White Ribbon Day. I am very privileged to be an ambassador to White Ribbon Day, which is an international day for the elimination of violence against women. The white ribbon campaign is led by men who are willing to take a stand and be positive role models to other men in the community. Violence against women is one of the most widespread human rights abuses in the world today. Every day, thousands of women and girls are abused in their own homes. We all share a responsibility for effectively addressing this sad reflection of modern day society. Remembering our fallen police officers and trying to prevent violence against women are two issues that I will continue to advocate in this parliament as long as I have the opportunity to do so.
It also goes without saying that we would not be in this House without our having the confidence and trust of our electorates. We would also not have our success here without the support of our respective parties and campaign teams. To that end I would like to pay regard, in my case, to the ALP members in Fowler. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the various members and supporters who worked so tirelessly on my campaign and everyone who helped work for the one goal we had in mind, which was the election of a Gillard government. They supported the election of a government that had fairness at its heart and a positive vision for this country’s future. In particular, I would like to give my thanks to my campaign director, Mel Atlee, who regrettably has just resigned from my employ to take up other opportunities. I wish her well. She was backed by Gai Coghlan, Alicia Bowie, TK Ly, Huy Tran, Tri Vo, Renata Cekic, Tania Huynh and Casey Tran. They all worked very diligently on my behalf. I would like to particularly mention James Chan, who deserves specific recognition, together with his wife, Jenny. They have befriended me over the last five years and their support for me has been extremely humbling.
To all the branch members of Fowler I offer my sincere thanks for their support. I look forward to working with each and every one of them over the coming term of this parliament to have greater Labor successes throughout the south-west of Sydney. I would specifically like to mention Dave Saliba, Ian McNamara, Frank Carbone, Brad Parker, Chris Dunn, Sharyn Henry, Misha Karajcic, Adrian Wong and the great Dr Ali Saffraz, who seems to be at every multicultural event I turn up to in my electorate. All of those people played an important role in Labor’s success in Fowler. I would finally like to thank my wife, Bernadette, and my whole family. I am indebted to all of those who came from distant parts of the state to man my booths and I will try to catch up with many of them over the course of the next few weeks at a family reunion.
I would like to conclude by reiterating the comments I made earlier on my fundamental commitment to the people of Fowler—that is, I will ensure that the voice of south-west Sydney is heard and that the people of Fowler will be represented strongly in this place. That is my pledge and that is what I am committed to.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I thank the honourable member. Before I call the honourable member for Flinders, I would like to apologise for referring to the honourable member for Fowler by his prior manifestation as the honourable member for Werriwa.
289
10:53:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—We all come to this place with different hats. First, we come as local members and in my own case, other than the agreement of my wife, Paula, to take my hand, being the local member for Flinders has been the great honour of my life. Second, if we are so fortunate, we come to have portfolio responsibility. Third, we come as national legislators, irrespective of our party and irrespective of our origin. It is in that third capacity that I wish to address and respond to the Governor-General’s address-in-reply today. I will have ample opportunity elsewhere to set down the local agenda for Flinders and the portfolio agenda in the area of environment and climate change. This is the one chance to set out in this particular, unique parliament the three primary legislative agendas I have as an individual member of parliament on a non-partisan basis for this coming term.
Let me begin first with my own family situation. The last time I saw my mother before she passed was in a mental health institution in Goulburn. She suffered from a form of bipolar related to manic depression. It is not something about which I have talked much. I do not want to overstate the circumstances. Her condition was not permanently debilitating but it was significant. The final occasion on which I saw her was in the institution in Goulburn and it was a shock. I mean no disrespect to those of good faith who served that institution, but it was a difficult circumstance. It has stayed with me ever since I saw her for the last time in 1992. When she passed away subsequently, I was overseas and she was living at home.
As a consequence of that fact, I was approached recently by the Satellite Foundation. The Satellite Foundation is an organisation dedicated to assisting the children of mental health patients or mental health sufferers. There has been much good work done over recent years in this parliament about the issue of mental health, work done on both sides of the chamber, but it is unfinished business. One element, however, which I believe to be entirely inadequate is the subject of the work of the Satellite Foundation—that is, the care, protection, development and maintenance of those children of mental health sufferers, those children who have parents with much greater debilities than that of my own mother, Kathinka Hunt. It is a need that is profound and significant in the cases of many children throughout Australia today. So the first legislative goal which I will pursue as a member of this parliament, not as a member of either party, and on which I will seek bipartisan support is to work with the Satellite Foundation to establish a national program for the children of mental health patients.
I would like to see two elements to this program agreed upon during the course of this parliament. First, that there should be a national program of camps for young people under the age of 24, not just under the age of 18, who are the children of mental health sufferers. This is a way of providing them with respite, a way of providing them with support, a way of providing them with joy, a way of providing them with a sense that they are not alone and that there is a way forward. The second element of this program is that there should be a permanent national counselling regime set in place across state and territory borders, which will give these young people a way forward during the course of their life and a sense that there is national support, state support, local support, and above all else community support to make sure that they do not walk this journey alone. It is important; it is profound; and this notion of a national program for the care, protection, development and maintenance of children of mental health sufferers, is a goal to which I am committed and for which I will seek to work with members of both sides of this House over the course of this term. I will not rest until we have a program for the care and protection of children of mental health sufferers, which is an unintentionally neglected part of the mental health program that needs to be addressed.
The second program which I want to deal with as a member of parliament rather than as somebody who is partisan either way—so working with members on both sides—involves a very simple task—that is, to establish a school to give parents of vision impaired children in Victoria the choice as to whether or not there will be specialist education for blind and vision impaired children. The genesis of this program came from Alan Lachman and his wife, Maria. They have a beautiful daughter whom I have met. She attends Pearcedale Primary School. This beautiful girl has profound blindness but does not have access to specialist care. By my understanding, there are over 80 specialist schools that do magnificent work in Victoria. It is an unacceptable situation that not one of these schools is dedicated to assisting vision impaired children. That must end and I have made a commitment to Alan Lachman to work with both sides of this chamber to ensure that that opportunity as to vision impairment is provided for children throughout Victoria. I would like to see this occur so there is at least one school set aside throughout each state in Australia for vision impaired children so parents may have a choice as to whether or not to mainstream such children.
The third of the personal goals which I will work towards with both sides of this House is a national Indigenous blindness program for the eradication of avoidable Indigenous blindness in Australia. The inspiration for this has been Professor Hugh Taylor. Professor Taylor is the Harold Mitchell Chair of Indigenous Eye Health at the Melbourne School of Population at the University of Melbourne. In brief, the facts are these. There are 1,400 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are needlessly vision impaired from diabetes. I take this from an article of Professor Taylor’s in the
Canberra Times
on 6 August this year. There are 3,000 Indigenous people who have lost vision from avoidable cataract blindness and that is 12 times more than the national average. In addition, what we hear from Professor Taylor is the belief that 94 per cent of vision loss in Indigenous Australia is avoidable. We must set the task together, as members of this parliament, to seek to eradicate avoidable Indigenous blindness in Australia and during the course of this term I will work with both sides to ensure that there is a program or a practice, with legislation if necessary, to guarantee that a national initiative to eradicate avoidable Indigenous blindness is in place.
They are three simple goals: firstly, care and protection for the children of mental health patients; secondly, a school for the blind in Victoria so as to give parents choice, not obligation; and, thirdly, a genuine national Indigenous blindness initiative to eradicate avoidable Indigenous blindness in this case. There will be many opportunities for partisan issues and for grievances across the chamber, but with respect to my mother for the first time in this House I acknowledge the conditions she suffered and I hope to be able to do some good work for others in that space. I will cut this speech short in respect of the historic opportunity for the member for Melbourne to give his maiden speech in representation of his party.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—Is the member seeking to continue his remarks later?
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr HUNT
—No, Mr Deputy Speaker.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! Before I call the honourable member for Melbourne, I remind the House that this is the honourable member’s first speech. I therefore ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.
291
11:03:00
Bandt, Adam, MP
M3C
Melbourne
AG
0
1
Mr BANDT
—I am enormously thrilled and proud to be here as the first member of the Australian Greens elected at a general election and especially to be representing the electorate of Melbourne. I spent the first 10 years of my life in South Australia, in Whyalla and Adelaide, and the next 13 in Perth and Fremantle. But the longest stint of the next 15 years has been spent in the electorate of Melbourne.
Melbourne is an amazing place. It has the highest proportion of young people and tertiary students in the country, bristling with creativity and a desire for a better world. It is the electorate with the most public housing dwellings and also one of the highest number of professionals. It has one of the highest concentrations of research, educational, sporting and cultural institutions. It is the new home of many recently arrived refugees, and now the much older home of many others who have raised one or two generations since their arrival. And Melbourne is home to many people who share a growing feeling that the way we were doing things in the 20th century simply is not sustainable environmentally, economically or socially.
As human beings we have an amazing capacity to interact with our natural environment. But we have also sought to tame and master it, and now we have learned that in the long run such a relationship is unsustainable. Our actions in heating the planet have led us to a very real climate emergency. In 2007, the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, said, ‘This is an emergency, and for emergency situations we need emergency action’. In recent congressional testimony in the US, the NASA climate scientist, James Hansen, warned:
We have reached a point of planetary emergency … climate is nearing dangerous tipping points. Elements of a perfect storm, a global cataclysm, are assembled.
We would not get on an airplane if it had a 50 per cent risk of crashing or even a 15 or a five per cent risk. Yet these are precisely the kinds of risks we seem prepared to take with the planet and all its inhabitants. Accepting the science means accepting the science, not what we would like the science to say. Their consensus is a heart-rending cry for urgent action, imploring us to cut greenhouse gas emissions massively within a decade, after which it may be too late. The scientists have spoken; it is now over to politics to craft solutions. We urgently now need to master our relationship with the natural world, not the natural world itself.
Real sustainability means thinking again about how we live every aspect of our lives. Many people for many years have been leading the way, showing us that a green life is a healthier, happier and more secure one, where a global outlook means that the bonds of the local community are strengthened. Now these ideas are well and truly breaking out of the private realm and are taking their place firmly on the national political stage.
A sustainable future means rethinking our infrastructure priorities, industry policy and the regulation of energy supply. Maybe it is something in the water in the electorate of Melbourne that makes its member think about revenue and finance, but urgently in need of review is the allocation of public spending: every dollar that goes to backing losers in the fossil fuel industry is a dollar that is not creating a clean energy future. The former member for this electorate, Lindsay Tanner, for whom I have great respect, also said that he thought a key question for us is: ‘What will Australia sell the world in 15 years time?’ A good question, but on current policy settings it seems the answer is coal, with us on track to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest carbon exporter in the next 15 years. This is not global leadership on climate, but failure.
We will also be required to tackle head on that brand of economics that prioritises endless growth over sustainability and that leads to economic crisis, for if there is one lesson from the recent financial crisis it is that things have not changed. Our economy continues to lurch from boom to bust and history repeats itself repeatedly, rarely as farce and almost always as tragedy. Our world has become more unequal over time. And in a replay of past economic crises those who preached free markets and deregulation during boom times were the first to come cap in hand for public support and intervention when they were in trouble.
I am not advocating any simple nostalgia, suggesting we go back to some mythical time when we had the balance right. Nor can we simply presume government intervention and regulation will solve all social ills. Indeed, in many areas—like our rapidly growing communications technologies—we are now so globally interconnected that the last thing we need is government seeking to regulate what we can and cannot do as new global citizens.
My experience representing power workers in the Latrobe Valley in the aftermath of privatisation has taught me that governments need to provide real assistance in times of transition so that as governments close polluting power stations like Hazelwood we never forget there are real workers and families involved to whom we have a responsibility as we move to a clean energy future.
Imagine if we reacted to the financial crisis in the same way as the climate crisis, with global meetings deferred for years at a time. Perhaps if the planet were a merchant bank, we might see the speedy, internationally coordinated and massive government activity we saw during the financial crisis. Keeping Australia out of recession and avoiding double digit unemployment is of course the right thing to do. I simply hope our institutions of government here and abroad will extend to the planet the same courtesy that they do to the finance sector.
Equality is more important now than ever. As neoliberalism and the ideology of market dominance have defined the social and economic polices of successive governments led by each of the old parties, and sometimes ripped apart local communities, devastated small producers and prioritised free trade at the cost of fairness, so has the idea of full substantive equality receded from public life.
In our new times, chance has replaced equal entitlement, opportunity has replaced equal right. Worse, we now do not even blink at treating some people as less equal than others. There are so many exceptions to the principle of full equality that the exception is becoming the rule. We all have the right to get married, unless your partner is of the same gender. We pride ourselves on our great sovereign nation and then excise parts of it as being not really Australia for the purposes of migration. We say human rights are indivisible and then we suspend them for Indigenous Australians.
Having spent many years standing up for the rights of workers and their unions, I know that equality should not stop at the office door, that democracy should not disappear at the factory gate. The name ‘The Greens’ has its origins in the activism of community members and workers who in the 1970s joined together to prevent the destruction of important parts of our built and natural environment. Petra Kelly, visiting Australia at the time, was so impressed by the ‘green bans’ imposed by unions and the community that she took it back with her to Germany where they founded Die Grunen—The Greens.
Anyone who took such a stand today for green bans would face the Australian Building and Construction Commission, would be denied the right to silence, interrogated in secret and exposed to threats of imprisonment and fines. When members of one section of our work force have not just fewer rights than other workers but, indeed, fewer rights than accused criminals, we cannot say that we are all truly equal before the law.
I join those who want to put compassion back on the agenda. If you ask most Australians, they will have a positive story to tell of a co-worker, friend or extended family member who came to this country as a refugee or whose parents or grandparents did. Yet, instead of seeking to fan this positive sentiment, politics has tended to play to the worst in us.
If fear and suspicion are the organising principles of our approach to fellow human beings who come here from other places, then we are condemning ourselves to revisiting this issue election after election and setting ourselves up for an isolationist and dark future. Ironically, it is usually those who want the fewest barriers for money to move across borders who want to build the strongest walls to stop people doing the same. But when we lock asylum seekers and refugees up indefinitely, in city and desert prisons, we have more than enough evidence that we destroy their lives and the lives of their families.
There is a palpable hypocrisy in saying that the threat is so dire that we must send our soldiers to fight in places like Afghanistan, yet when people flee that threat we close the door to them. Until we bring compassion and practicality to the fore, we will be taking some of the world’s most vulnerable people, who are fleeing persecution, war and hardship, and simply subjecting them to torture of a different kind.
While elections have often played to the worst in us, politics can also have a much more hopeful, optimistic future, for there is another side to humanity: one that sees someone in trouble and extends a helping hand; one that says we need more love, not less; one that offers hospitality even when times are tight; and one that says it is better to live within the limits of the planet rather than putting everything on the never-never and leaving our children and grandchildren to pay the debt.
These values of sustainability, compassion and equality that will form the foundation for tackling 21st century problems are, of course, not new. Many people have known them for quite some time. They are the campaigners in the forests and at the coal and uranium mines. They are the scientists who fearlessly tell us the truth about climate change. They are the first Australians who have never given up their sovereignty and who rightfully still seek a treaty. They are the innovators whose creative labours at home, at work and in the globally interconnected public sphere are forging new, exciting and sustainable ways of living our lives. They are the workers who will stand on picket lines to advance principles that are bigger and deeper than any one individual. They are the people who have helped our cause in the ways they can, from handing out how-to-votes to attending rallies. They are the Greens members of the local councils and the state and federal parliaments, who have advanced beliefs and put them into practice. All these people and many, many more are the ones on whose shoulders I stand here today. I hope that I can do justice to you.
To every supporter of the Melbourne campaign: you have done amazing things; you have made history. I want to single out a few for special mention. Rohan, Damien, Lucie, Sharif, Kajute, Jake, Olivia, as well as many others, worked their guts out in the Brunswick Street office. Kathleen, Brian and Cyndi: it is a delight to work with you and I hope I can do more of it after November. To Nick, Jarrah, Lily, Sofia and all your team: your advice and work was invaluable. In particular to all those people in Melbourne who have come here recently or who came here some time ago from Africa and surrounds: your work is truly inspirational. To our state MLCs, Greg, Sue and Colleen, to senator-elect Richard and to all my Senate colleagues, Bob Brown and Sarah Hanson-Young in particular: thank you for throwing so much support behind our campaign in Melbourne.
To those unions I have worked with over many years, but especially those who took a big leap to support me and the Greens: your commitment to principle and to real change for the benefit of your members is humbling. Along the way as an industrial lawyer representing you I have learned much, most importantly that, while sometimes cutting a deal is the best thing to do, at other times there is much more to be gained by taking a strong stand and having the courage of your convictions. In particular, I want to thank Peter Marshall from the United Firefighters Union for his support and wisdom over many years. And I thank you, Peter, and Mick Farrell for coming here today. To Rosemary Kelly and the Medical Scientists Association, who were prepared to objectively analyse the policies of the parties, including ours, and put that information in front of their members: I thank you. And to Dean Mighell and the State Council of the Electrical Trades Union: your strong support was so valuable and your willingness to stick your necks out in the interests of your members inspirational. To Len Cooper, Joan Doyle and their respective colleagues at the CEPU, and to Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers: your support was greatly welcomed. It is with great interest that we are witnessing the development of unions prepared no longer to automatically support one party but instead to assess parties and candidates on their merits and support the one that is best going to represent their members, which I think is of great merit for Australian democracy and for the cause of unionism and workers in general.
To my beautiful partner, Claudia, whose advice, support and humour have made this possible: a deep thanks and love. And to my parents, Moira and Allan: your beliefs in social justice and lived environmentalism, and the amazing parts of Australia and the world that you have shown me, have helped bring me here. I am so happy that the three of you are all here today.
We all have a very short period of time in which to respond to the climate emergency facing us, to this planet’s rapidly dwindling condition and to the nagging feeling many of us share that this way of life simply is not sustainable. We are all in this together but we should never forget the amazing things humans are capable of when our creative labours are unleashed. We chose to go to the moon—and we made it. To quote Jodi Dean, the Apollo project boldly predicted the ‘we’ of a common humanity aspiring to break the bonds of particularity and reach beyond our imaginations.
It is that commons that we can find again. It is with dreams of great proportions that we will solve our current crises. It is around the core values of sustainability, compassion and equality that we can forge a politics for the 21st century and create a new community. I know that this desire is shared by many in this country. Indeed, Mr Speaker and fellow members, although one might not know it looking around at the composition of this chamber, at this election around the country more than one in nine people voted for the Greens. If this chamber proportionately represented the views of the Australian people, there would be at least 17 Greens MPs sitting here. Whilst I might be only one member in this parliament, I hope it is also appreciated that the values I am representing here are supported by a much bigger proportion of the population right around this country.
But it is the people of Melbourne who have seen fit to elevate these values to the national stage by electing the first Greens member to the House of Representatives at a general election. To everyone in Melbourne who exercised their powerful votes and put me here: I am grateful and humbled. You should know that your votes have already had an impact. It is a joy to be here on your behalf and I hope that I can do justice to you, the people of Melbourne, as your first Greens representative.
295
11:19:00
Marino, Nola, MP
HWP
Forrest
LP
0
0
Ms MARINO
—Can I firstly congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on the position you now hold. I am sure this House will be particularly well served with you in the Speaker’s role.
I would like to thank the people in the Forrest electorate who supported my re-election as their federal representative for another term. It is certainly an honour and a privilege to serve the people in my electorate. I am absolutely committed to working on their behalf both within the electorate and here in Canberra.
My constituents continue to raise a number of concerns that I will continue to work hard on: the areas of health and aged care, education, infrastructure, environment and law and order, as well as issues affecting our agricultural and food producers. Forrest is, as we know, a rapidly growing regional and rural electorate with some areas amongst the fastest growing in Australia. It is an area with an over $11 billion GDP based on mining, resources, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism and various forms of commerce. The rapidly expanding and ageing population inevitably means that we must address shortages in our medical workforce, continue to improve community health services and provide additional aged-care services and facilities. More specialist services are needed in the south-west so that residents can be treated closer to home and to minimise their need to travel to Perth, which is not only costly but also affects people’s capacity to manage and recover from illness or injury.
Unfortunately the high standard of health care in the South West was undermined by an incoming Labor government in 2001 when it scrapped local health boards. Local hospitals in the South West had local boards made up of community leaders who were looking after the health interests of their communities. The Labor Party dumped them and centralised the administration, which meant that local people no longer had any say.
Recently the federal Labor government has also taken measures that will seriously impact on the quality of health provided for my constituents. The government has made a decision to withdraw the Greater Bunbury region in my electorate from the District of Workforce Shortage register. This is very serious for the people in the region who need to see a GP and are already on long waiting lists. My office is receiving many calls from those in the South West medical industry, as well as calls from very concerned residents asking why the Labor government has done this. I do not have an answer. It is completely illogical in an area with serious shortages of GPs. I understand that some of the international doctors being sought for the Commonwealth funded after-hours practice in Bunbury would have come as a result of this registration and without these practitioners the Commonwealth strategy may not progress.
I have written to the minister to provide answers to the following questions. Why was Bunbury removed from the register? Why was the WA Country Health Service not consulted or notified of the register changes by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing? Given that the Western Australian state Liberal government currently classifies the Greater Bunbury area as a medical area of unmet need and there is currently a ratio of over 1,500 residents to one doctor in the region, will the minister reconsider the recent review of the register and re-include Bunbury in the District of Workforce Shortage register? Will the Medicare provider number of overseas doctors currently working in the Greater Bunbury region still be valid under the changing of the register? I have also sought a meeting with the minister as in my electorate we have a shortage of at least 11 GPs. Recent figures in a local newspaper now put the doctor to patient ratio at one to 1,684.
I also intend to keep working on mental health issues with over 15 different service providers, who are committed to delivering a headspace service for young people in the South West. The headspace model, which was introduced by the coalition government, provides a one-stop shop for young people aged 12 to 25, covering the areas of general health, mental health and counselling, education, employment and of course alcohol and other drugs services. I was really pleased when our Liberal Party gave a very serious commitment to the headspace program during the election campaign. No-one is more aware of the importance of education, I would suggest, than people in regional, rural and remote areas of Australia. We are very directly aware of how and why it provides almost any opportunity in life not only for a young person but also for mature age people through lifetime learning. This is why I will keep working constantly on the youth allowance issues facing students in the South West.
I was simply appalled for the young people in my electorate who are being disenfranchised in their tertiary education opportunities by the changes introduced by the Labor government in the May 2009 budget. Those on a gap year would have totally missed out on youth allowance support if it were not for the pressure we and our constituents applied. And now students are being seriously disadvantaged by the Labor ruling which defines most of the South West as an inner regional area, forcing students who have no choice but to move away from home to pursue their tertiary education to have to work an average of 30 hours per week for 18 months out of two years to qualify for the independent rate of youth allowance.
Anyone who understands regional areas will know that this is very difficult and sometimes downright impossible. Students have far fewer employment opportunities to start with. Many live in very small towns or on farms and have distances to travel to find employment. In some areas there is no regular employment and when you are dealing with seasonality in agriculture, with tourism and hospitality it is very difficult for young people. I will not give up on this issue.
The tertiary education opportunities for young people in my electorate are just too important. This issue is raised with me constantly out in the community and I constantly receive phone calls and emails from students who are concerned about their future plans, from parents who are uncertain whether they can afford to send their children to tertiary education, from families who cannot support more than one child at university and from families who will have to leave our South West to move to the city simply so that their children can live at home—otherwise the family can simply not afford for their child or children to access the territory education. What a drain on a regional area.
The Labor government claims in the Governor-General’s speech that it ‘will continue to improve standards and quality, to increase transparency and to modernise infrastructure’; yet, the Labor government’s changes to youth allowance hinder the higher education prospects for many of our regional and rural students. I have fought and I will continue to fight in the federal parliament and in my electorate for students, parents and families. I cannot believe that these changes were introduced by the Prime Minister of this nation, who simply refuses to understand the issues affecting young people out in our regional areas. People in Forrest should also have access to lifetime learning opportunities, education and training programs. During the election, the Liberal Party committed to $15,000 to the Shire of Busselton to fund a higher education forum and our $1 billion regional education fund would have also seen benefits being delivered into the South West.
With a mining resource rent tax, which the WA Treasury estimates will take $7 billion out of Western Australia, I wonder just how much of that will come back to regional areas like Forrest. I call on this Labor government to deliver significant infrastructure to the South West from their new tax on Western Australia. According to its agenda for this term, ‘the government is investing $37 billion on transport infrastructure’. I call on the Labor government to invest in road, rail, and in the Bunbury port. We certainly need an extension to the Nation Building Program to include road transport routes south of Bunbury such as upgrading the Bussell Highway, a very important coastal route which runs from Bunbury to Augusta and services major population areas of Capel, Busselton and Margaret River. It also links some of the iconic tourist destinations that many of you would understand when I mention Margaret River, and it provides a freight corridor for wine, agriculture, forestry and manufacturing industries. It needs dual lanes from Bunbury to Margaret River and expanding to Augusta over time.
The South West Highway also needs significant upgrades. It is the same with the Coalfields Highway. I was very pleased that it has taken a state Liberal government to achieve a further $14 million commitment to the Coalfields Highway. Finishing the Bunbury Outer Ring Road is also an important infrastructure project in my area. The port of Bunbury has major movements with alumina, woodchips and minerals sands but does not have a container handling facility.
In 2005 the state Labor government committed $60 million to the port of Bunbury, but unfortunately the money was never delivered. The existing rail system in the South West is under significant pressure, particularly in freight transport. The Collie-Brunswick Junction-Bunbury port transport triangle is the key hub of freight in the region with very serious capacity constraints. Recent estimates put the cost of the required rail expansion at around $63 million, which was highlighted in a submission by the WA state government to Infrastructure Australia for funding to duplicate the line in that area to increase capacity.
The additional capacity will be required on the Collie to Brunswick Junction line, especially with the expansion of the Worsley alumina facility. I also have in my part of the world disused lines and rail reserves that still exist south of Bunbury and they provide a potential asset for future development of rail services, freight and transport opportunities throughout the South West.
The government’s announcement of ‘$800 million in a new priority regional infrastructure program’ for projects identified by local communities must also fund significant investment in the South West region. As we know—and perhaps some of my fellow members, the newer ones, may not know—the South West of Western Australia is one of the world’s recognised biodiversity hot spots, the only one in Australia.
There are many issues impacting on the environmental health of the South West. Given the community’s concerns over the oil and gas leases off the Mentelle Basin—the Labor government has released the oil and gas leases off the Mentelle Basin—I have called on the Minister for Resources and Energy to release the report on the Montara oil spill and to come to the electorate to meet concerned local people. I have also written to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities regarding a proposed coal mine in Margaret River and my concern about the aquifers and the effects on the critically endangered hairy marron, and the interface of this classification with the EPBC Act.
My region continues to face very serious challenges, as many do around Australia, in balancing planning, development and conservation. While I could list the number of ecological threats today, and bring many of them to the attention of the House during the next three years, I would really like to raise one now that I am sure Judi Moylan will understand—that is, the threat of dieback,
Phytophthora cinnamomi,
an insidious disease killing native trees as well as a number of imported garden species. It is an environmental cancer spreading at an alarming rate.
I will be looking very seriously at the government’s programs to find funding that will be needed for further comprehensive mapping of the South West land division including both state-held and private land. The mapping process must identify dieback-infected areas, free areas, and areas at specific risk. Only then can we mount a proper and effective response involving the whole community. That would build on the significant work done by the South Coast Natural Resource Management Group. I could not believe it when the Labor government cut funding to vital community groups such as the South West NRM, making their work far more difficult to complete.
848
Secker, Patrick, MP
Mr Secker
—Disgraceful.
HWP
Marino, Nola, MP
Ms MARINO
—Just disgraceful, as the member says. I could see this particular process leading to the development of a dieback planning and management toolbox that would tell all landholders how to manage and reduce the spread of dieback in their specific area. It would also provide the information needed to include dieback in planning for any variety of future developments. I want any landowner in the South West to be able to look up their property on a map and print off a set of dieback guidelines for their area, as well as engaging in direct action on dieback control.
Currently the use of phosphite injection is the only effective means of controlling dieback and limiting its spread. There is no effective means of eradicating dieback from infected forests. There should continue to be strategic phosphite programs managed locally and planned at a state level as well. But we also need to join the international science community and invest in research to find new and better control mechanisms, including a treatment that can eliminate dieback from infected plants.
A further priority of mine—as it is for the members in this chamber—is local law and order issues. We need to ensure that people feel safe and secure in their homes and communities. It is a very clear priority. Local crime prevention is traditionally the responsibility of the states and territories, and I am extremely supportive of the WA Liberal government’s tough on crime approach. We are constantly told this when we are out and about. I recently held a series of meetings with young people throughout my electorate to find out from them which areas need safety upgrades. Where do they not feel safe? This gave me vital information that I used to shape my election commitment of a $1 million law and order package for lighting and security measures throughout the Forrest electorate. That was something that young people strongly supported.
I will continue to meet regularly with local police officers, councils and the state government to work on collaborative strategies to fight crime and antisocial behaviour. I will also continue to work for the farmers and producers on food security issues and the viability of those who produce food and fibre for all of us. I strongly believe that so many people in Australia take for granted the quality and access that they have to some of the best quality food produced in the world, and that is food produced by growers in Australia. It is a very genuine commitment that I have, and will have ongoing, to those who produce the food for this nation.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the voices of the people of Forrest are heard here in federal parliament. Thank you.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—Order! Before I call the honourable member for Denison, I remind the House that this is the honourable member’s first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him.
299
11:36:00
Wilkie, Andrew, MP
C2T
Denison
IND
0
1
Mr WILKIE
—May I start by saying that I am intensely proud to stand here as the new member for Denison, one of the five Tasmanian electorates and the one which hugs the eastern side of magnificent Mount Wellington and takes in the cities of Hobart and Glenorchy. It is a diverse electorate that takes in just about every sort of Australian and where someone somewhere is affected directly by the work we do in this place. I commit to represent each and every one of them to the very best of my ability.
Politics for me is rooted in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. At the time, I was working in the Office of National Assessments, and from where I sat it was clear that the Howard government’s official case for war was fraudulent, that the weapons of mass destruction argument was grossly exaggerated while the Iraq al-Qaeda terrorism claim was pure fantasy. The government was lying about going to war and should forever stand condemned for that misconduct.
So I resigned my intelligence post about a week before the invasion and went to the media to explain how the Howard government had consistently spun, skewed, fabricated and cherry picked the intelligence to prop up their case for war. In response the government vilified me, more intent on silencing dissent than coming clean.
If only the architects of the Iraq war—those who mourned United Nations Special Envoy Sergio de Mello, who died when the UN’s Baghdad compound was bombed—had cared as much for every other casualty, perhaps there would have been fewer body bags and coffins. But they did not. The bloodstained pages of history are filled with such people—men and women with no understanding of the real risks and costs of aggression or care for the consequences. There is no chance of them or any of their loved ones lying in the chill desert night air paralysed with fear, being gutted alive by razor-sharp shrapnel, losing a foot or worse from a mine or cluster bomblet or having the flesh burned from their bones as they sit trapped in their blazing vehicle.
There were always other ways to deal with the odious Saddam Hussein, but the US, the UK and Australia raced to a war which has killed 5,000 US and Allied troops and somewhere between 100,000 and 1.5 million Iraqis. Even now, 50,000 US troops remain in the country, the violence continues and Iraqis keep dying. We must learn from this and commit to never making the same mistake again.
My Iraq whistleblower experience was hard for me, but it has a happy ending. More often, however, whistleblowers end up on a heap having lost everything, including their job, their family and friends, their life savings and even their life. Yet a succession of federal governments has dodged the self-evident imperative for legislation, preferring instead the status quo where those who try and tell truth to power are regarded as troublemakers or criminals. The exceptions are the Rudd government, which finally started the process of developing whistleblower legislation, and now the Prime Minister, who has agreed with me to introduce a bill to protect whistleblowers and have such legislation passed into law by 30 June 2011.
The counterpart to the whistleblower legislation will be the ‘Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Act’, which will strengthen the protection provided to journalists and their sources. This so-called ‘shield law’ will put the onus on the authorities to prove there is a genuine public interest in forcing a journalist to disclose his or her source. I have given notice to introduce the bill into the parliament and hope to do so during the next sitting week. Finally, Australia is on the cusp of having a framework to protect the men and women who risk all to reveal official misconduct. This is a remarkable development.
The focus of Australia’s war fighting has shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan, where the international community, including Australia, confronts a dreadful dilemma: it could walk away from the seemingly inevitable disaster that would unfold or it can stay and fight, as it plans to, in the hope of somehow avoiding a different but equally inevitable disaster. It did not need to be like this, because the defeat of the Taliban in 2001 created an unprecedented opportunity. But security collapsed when the United States virtually withdrew in 2002 to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Much of the promised foreign aid never materialised, and the new administration in Kabul has turned out to be a deeply incompetent and corrupt mob with next to no power outside of the capital.
The one bright spot—that Afghanistan is no longer an exporter of Islamic extremism—is dulled by the fact that extremists have migrated across the border to nuclear-armed and unstable Pakistan, and in any case the global Islamic terrorist threat morphed years ago into a global network independent of any one leader or safe haven. That we must stay in Afghanistan to protect Australia from terrorism is a great lie peddled by both the government and the opposition.
The only way to turn Afghanistan around now is to immediately stabilise the security situation and hastily rebuild the governance, infrastructure, services and jobs which give people hope and underpin long-term peace. But this appears increasingly unachievable because the foreign troops who anchor such a solution are now seen by many Afghans as the problem. Moreover, the resultant nationalism is fuelling the rapid Taliban resurgence. In short, there can be no hope of enduring peace until foreign troops are withdrawn.
The government and the opposition seem to think Australia’s ongoing involvement is somehow a measure of the strength of our relationship with the US. The same misplaced sentiment explained John Howard’s determination to join the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Neither seems to understand that Canberra would be at less risk of being taken for granted in Washington if sometimes we just said no. No-one should be fooled by the periodic Australian government efforts to tinker around the edges of Australia’s commitment to Afghanistan. The reality is that the best plan the Australian government has been able to come up with so far is simply to continue to support whatever the US government comes up with, and that alone is no plan. It is just reinforcing failure. I deeply welcome the government’s decision to have an informed political debate about the issue.
Afghanistan also remains a significant source of asylum seekers, and this is another area in which I want to see reform. My stance has nothing to do with being hard or soft on asylum seekers; it simply has to do with meeting our obligations as a signatory of the United Nations Refugee Convention. That means doing what we can to stabilise source countries like Afghanistan and Iraq to reduce the flow of asylum seekers. It means helping countries of first asylum like Iran and Pakistan to cope with the millions of refugees they host. And it means working effectively with transit countries like Indonesia to crack down on the only people who are doing anything illegal here: the people smugglers.
In other words, we need a more sophisticated solution for something that is much more complex than border security. Offshore processing, the excision of islands and even mandatory detention need not be part of the solution. One part of our asylum seeker policy should logically include a recommitment to meeting our millennium goal of paying 0.7 of one per cent of gross national income to foreign aid. We are still only half way to that goal, and many Australians find that unacceptable. If our economy is a world leader, as the government tells us at every turn, then by implication there is no excuse for us lagging behind other developed countries, as we do, when it comes to foreign aid.
Closer to home, the Iraq War was for me as much about poor governance as it was about the unwarranted invasion of a country for fraudulent reasons.
The more I have immersed myself in politics, the more I have learned about the opportunities missed in Australia and about the countless people not so much having fallen through the cracks as having been shoved through them—for example, problem gamblers. Let me introduce Steve, a pokies addict for more than 30 years who lives in my electorate of Denison. He has racked up some eight years behind bars on account of pokies related crime, costing taxpayers somewhere between $0.5 and $1 million. Even more important are the opportunities lost for this good and highly intelligent man who struggles to overcome his addictions.
Then there is the man now serving time in Risdon Prison in Tasmania for murder. His victim, carrying her purse, was unfortunate to have crossed the path of the desperate man after he had lost all his cash during a pokies binge earlier that day. The elderly woman never stood a chance. Or the couple who explained to me how they had been bankrupted by a dishonest employee who, over a couple of years, stole so much money from the till to pay for her pokies addiction that the business went to the wall and they lost the lot. And there are the parents who wrote to me recently to explain that their disabled daughter had only recently become hooked on pokies and was already losing virtually her entire pension on the day she received it. Their email pleaded for me to keep fighting for reform of poker machine legislation, and I will.
These are not uncommon stories, because about 100,000 pokies players are believed to be problem gamblers while hundreds of thousands more are said to be at risk. Add to those figures the five to 10 people adversely affected by every problem gambler, and the total number of people touched by problem gamblers is huge. Every one is someone’s mother, father, son, daughter, brother or sister. The Productivity Commission reports that 15 per cent of Australia’s 600,000 regular poker machine players have a gambling problem, and they lose an astonishing 40 per cent or more of the money lost on poker machines. So those in the poker machine and hospitality industry who argue against any harm minimisation measure which significantly reduces cash flow are really saying that they should be allowed to continue to trade on the misery of problem gamblers. I will not allow them to do that, and I applaud the Prime Minister for agreeing to expedite the Productivity Commission’s recommendations, including the implementation of a uniform and full pre-commitment system by 2014. The industry needs to see the sense of this, or at least get out of the way so well-meaning people can get on with the job.
There is one further issue that I cannot help but raise today in some detail. During my campaign for election I was emailed by a couple who invited me to their home for a cup of tea. They had sparked my interest with an email expressing concern with mental health care in Australia. I went to their home, and they told me of their daughter who had suffered a severe bipolar disorder for decades and who eventually could not stand it any longer and took her own life. They asked me to do something to improve the lives and chances of people like their daughter, who fall through the cracks of an overloaded health system designed mainly to deal with physical ailments—do something, they urged, to ensure mental health is accorded the same priority for funding as GP and hospital services. If only each and every member had sat with me that day. Many of us would have cried together and then got on and together achieved what no government of any persuasion has achieved yet. Twenty per cent of Australians suffer a mental illness every year. It costs lives, it costs money. Mental illness needs to be genuinely brought into the health mainstream. The challenge is ours.
I went into the election hoping for success but expecting success to be limited by the seemingly inevitable Labor or coalition stranglehold on the Treasury bench. Yes I would have done my very best to represent the good people of Denison, and yes Denison would have been important enough for the government to have felt the need to pay an insurance premium in the form of occasional largesse. But such windfalls would obviously have been limited by the reality of politics, and in particular by the government’s perceived need to shovel as much money as possible into the marginal electorates elsewhere. In other words, an Independent member of the House was always going to be good for Denison but the advantage was going to have its limits. No-one really expected a hung parliament or the need for Independents to take sides. But that obviously did come to pass, and with it came the invidious need for all the Independents to put supply and confidence behind either Labor or the coalition. In my case, this was an obscenely difficult choice, if only because my political support came from right across the political spectrum and whatever decision I made was set to trouble a not insignificant number of Denison voters.
In an unfortunate twist, I needed to cater to the public interest in stable government by backing one party or the other, at the expense of my political self-interest—and I have copped quite a bit of criticism for seemingly having given up my independence. On a positive note, however, by doing so I have been able to raise the profile of Denison and southern Tasmania in ways probably not seen for 20 years or more. Already there is a commitment from government to open up a new round of funding from the Health and Hospitals Fund, which will release some $1.8 billion for health related capital works nationally, including $340 million for the rebuilding of the Royal Hobart Hospital. And, finally, some federal government interest seems to be being shown in the nationally significant Jordan River Levee Aboriginal heritage site.
Much more remains to be done, of course, and the government has been made well aware of some 20 priorities I hope to see some progress on during the life of this parliament—for example, the need to withdraw all federal government approvals for Gunns’ Tamar River pulp mill and focus instead on a raft of pressing infrastructure and community needs in and around Denison.
More broadly, there must be urgent action on climate change, including a price on carbon; incorporation of dental care in Medicare; funding for schools according to need; increased government pensions and enhancement of the method of indexation; a conscience vote on same-sex marriage; increased funding of aged-care facilities; and the introduction of a national disability insurance scheme.
Yes, this is a long list because it has been a long time since southern Tasmania, and Denison in particular, had a fair go from Canberra. More broadly, a succession of federal governments should hang their heads in shame because decades have passed, including some of the richest years in this nation’s history, but still school classes are overcrowded and teachers stressed, people of all ages live with rotting teeth in their mouths, older Australians cannot afford to heat their homes and they live on dog food, legislated discrimination treats lovers as second-class citizens just because of the people they want to marry, and people we love throw themselves off bridges for want of decent mental health care.
But every parliament is another opportunity to discard political self-interest in favour of the public interest. As one of the richest countries in the world, surely we have the capacity to solve the problems I have described. And as one with a now unusually rich political mix, where the government and the coalition both have it in their power to work with the crossbenchers to progress good legislation, surely the possibilities would only be limited by a lack of vision.
Before I finish I would like to thank all of those who are part of my story and, in particular, my wonderful wife, Kate, our daughters Olive and Rose, and our extended families. I would also like to thank the hundreds of people who have supported my candidatures in a number of elections.
And finally, thank you, Denison, for putting your trust in me. I know some of us will disagree from time to time, but I do hope we will always agree that I am doing my best job for you and your interests.
304
11:55:00
Randall, Don, MP
PK6
Canning
LP
0
0
Mr RANDALL
—First of all, I would like to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your elevation into a second term as Speaker in this parliament. It is well deserved. I would like to congratulate the member for Denison on his maiden speech and for his election to this House. This is the fourth term that I have been elected to parliament as the member for Canning. Some will know that I was elected as the member for Swan. I am one of the fortunate people who have been elected to this place five times. I am honoured and privileged, and I never underestimate the honour that it is to represent my electorate in this House.
There is a raft of people who helped me retain Canning at the election on 21 August. There are far too many to name individually, but I just want to make special mention of a couple of people. First of all, I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, on the magnificent campaign that he ran and I thank him for visiting my electorate. I would also like to thank Senator David Johnston, as my duty senator, on the fantastic job that he did. He is not only a great friend but a great supporter. I also thank the member of Curtin, Julie Bishop, and the member for Mackellar, Bronwyn Bishop, for visiting my electorate and supporting us.
I would particularly like to thank my staff. I am one of the fortunate people who had really good staff with very little turnover in my office. An outstanding person who helped drive my campaign and who was my not-so-secret weapon was Jocelen Griffiths. We are going to miss you, Jocelen. She is not only highly talented and intelligent but one of the nicest people I have met. Her ability to strategically run a campaign, to work with so many people and to be so organised has been recognised by many, and that is why her future prospects are very bright. I thank Jess Finlay for the outstanding job she has done over the number of the years I have had her. I also thank Michael Storozhev and Sam Holly, in my office. As I said, there were many young people who helped in my office and they are just too numerous to mention. They know who they are. I think it is quite fortunate to have young people in your campaign. It sends a very good message. The enthusiasm that they brought to the campaign we just had in Canning was one of the reasons we did well in the election.
There is obviously a whole raft of people who helped us in the campaign, including those who waved those corflutes in the cold morning. The many people who helped stuff envelopes in my office know who they are. There were also hundreds of people on election day who handed out how-to-vote cards in the 48 polling booths in Canning. My thanks also go to the many people who donated to my campaign, especially the pensioners who sent in their five and ten dollars. We were just blown away by the amount of support we had financially from the mums and dads in the electorate who wanted to see us win. I took that as a sign of support and I was quite grateful for that.
Of course, there were people who put signs in their front yards and who wanted me to do well and offered me so much advice. But, most of all, I want to thank the electors of Canning who have continued to show their strong support and have again put their faith in me by re-electing me to this seat.
I would like to put on record some of the details associated with this election. Many will know that at the last election this was one of the higher profile electoral contests in the country, because the candidate that I had as my opponent, Alannah MacTieman, was a formidable opponent. She is sharp and fearless and, even if this made her divisive, she is well respected in the constituency as an undeniable fighter. She had been the state member for Armadale for some 17 years, but even though it was a clever stroke by the Labor Party to select a former state minister who was popular with the media and popular in the electorate that she represented there was more to the election, as I have pointed out to many people since the election, than just the state seat of Armadale. I saw it as a strategic mistake that she and her campaign team made.
Her announcement in August 2009, almost 12 months before the election, that she would resign from state politics to contest Canning came as no surprise to me and those around me. There was a lot of speculation that she would jump ship because she had lost hope of leading the state Labor Party as many in the state Labor organisation had decided they were basically ‘off’ Allanah and did not want her to continue in such a high-profile role. Dare I say that Joe Bullock may have been one of those people. But she was the darling of the media, particularly the sisterhood in the media, and some of the middle aged journalists that seemed to have some morbid fascination with her never stopped writing about her. That profiling certainly did not hurt her during the campaign.
Canning was under the media microscope for more than 12 months and it was a battle royale as people wanted a real fight in this campaign. As I was out doorknocking one day, a gentleman in his front yard—before I was able to stop his dog from grabbing me by the leg—rose up from his front lawn and said, ‘Do you know what I want to see in this campaign? I want to see you two have a really good blue.’ I was not going to accommodate him. The fact is that I was running on the issues as the incumbent member and realistically that is what the campaign was about. It was not about personalities and personal differences. It really was about representing the people in the electorate.
I understand from media reports that my opponent was seduced by the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. While sitting on the balcony in Kirribilli, she was promised the sun, moon and stars if she would be the candidate in Canning to help ‘knock off Randall’. After the promises made by the former Prime Minister, some of that seemed to evaporate and she was left hanging for a time. This seemed at the time to be a good strategy. Labor has a history of trying to parachute in high- profile candidates to win seats. Sometimes it works; sometimes it does not work. For example, the member for Kingsford Smith is one of those celebrity candidates who was parachuted in and I wonder whether the Labor Party now thinks it was such a great idea, given his track record. This was seen in Western Australia when the state division of the Labor Party tried to parachute Reece Whitby, a Channel 7 journalist, into the safe seat of Morley—and that came to grief.
I have faced a long, hard fought and expensive campaign and, as I have said, I am honoured to have been returned. Going into this election following the redistribution, Canning’s margin was 4.3 per cent notionally. After 21 August there was a 2.3 per cent swing against me, leaving me with a margin of 2.14 per cent. As an interesting fact, 2.14 per cent was exactly the swing against the coalition in Western Australia after the 2007 election. That might set some context. This is a result which I am proud of and it would not have been possible without a disciplined and targeted campaign. As I have said to many since, I consider the Canning campaign—from our point of view—to have been a model campaign and if I was to run it again I would not do anything different. We were disciplined, we were organised and we made sure that we ticked all the boxes to make this happen.
In the Canning booths covering Ms MacTieman’s state seat of Armadale, the results were a testament to the heavyweight battle of two well-known identities. Despite Alannah’s popularity in the Labor area, the Liberal Party’s two-party preferred vote was 42.4 per cent, up 7.4 per cent on the 2008 Liberal state election win which covered the same booths. So we were able, in some respects, to deal with the strategy of the Labor Party of parachuting in the popular local state member and minister to try to gain the seat of Canning by winning it alone on the state seat of Armadale.
Even the Labor candidate herself declared that the ALP campaign was dysfunctional. There is a whole ream of quotes from her after the election. In fact, she said that the campaign in her seat and in Western Australia generally was ‘a rerun of the disastrous 2008 state election’. She really gave a few people a slap after the election. From every angle it appeared to be disorganised, haphazard and ill informed, and initially it was poorly funded. Labor gave up on Western Australia a long time ago and, after Mr Rudd was knifed, Alannah was on her own without a factional base. In fact, she did not even have a campaign office and a lot of the campaign did seem to lack direction. We were continually being fed information about the shambolic campaign that was being run. Nobody discredits how hard she worked. However, you can work as hard as you like, but if you get the strategy wrong then it is all to no avail.
For example, there was no critical analysis of where the limited resources would be best placed. People in Waroona in my electorate were telling me the ALP had not bothered visiting their shire at all. The Shire of Boddington was taken aback when the candidate invited herself to a lunch with councillors. And Mandurah, where half of the Canning population resides, was largely ignored until it was too late. For 12 months Ms MacTiernan served two masters, using her leverage and resources as a state member to seek federal office. In other words, she would not get out of the state parliament until the election was called, which again was a strategic flaw in her campaign.
Polling day was another disaster for Labor. Expecting a full onslaught from the Labor army, we were instead taken aback by the shambolic management of polling booths and the sheer lack of manpower on the booths. Whereas in 2007 the Transport Workers Union and the AWU waged a strong campaign against me, this time the ALP was faced with lengthy industrial action by Alcoa workers, resulting in a lack of interest and coordination in the federal campaign. Manning the booths last month were non-local ALP members who had simply been seconded to fill a gap. People on my campaign were telling me that there were well-meaning ladies from the leafy suburbs such as Dalkeith handing out how-to-vote cards for the Labor Party who did not really know what they were doing. In fact, in the Pinjarra booth I heard that one ALP helper who tried to hand out a how-to-vote card to Ms MacTiernan was quickly scolded for not knowing who the candidate was. Whereas the union support might not have been there, in the latter stages of the campaign there was financial support from industry and prominent Perth people. One particular Perth real estate agent really shovelled some money into her campaign. They were quick to change allegiances and hedge their bets, expecting to see me defeated, which I can assure you I have taken account of.
I will take the opportunity to congratulate my Western Australian colleagues and the state director, Ben Morton, on a strongly fought and a WA-specific election campaign. We have been really lucky to have Ben as our state director because he has brought a real freshness and enthusiasm to campaigning in Western Australia—not only in the federal election. You saw the results in the state election, electing the Barnett coalition. The results speak for themselves, with the coalition holding 12 of 15 seats in Western Australia. Overall, the Liberal Party’s two-party preferred vote in Western Australia was 55.1 per cent, up 1.9 per cent on the 2007 result, making it the best result since 1977. While the swing towards the coalition in WA at the recent election was less that in Queensland or New South Wales, it is important to remember that at the 2007 election the swing against the Howard government was only 2.1 per cent in Western Australia, less than half the national swing of 5.6 per cent and well behind the 7.9 per cent swing in Queensland.
I want to welcome Ken Wyatt as the new member for Hasluck and first Indigenous member of the House of Representatives. He represents the Hasluck electorate, a neighbour of Canning, and I look forward to working closely with Ken over the coming term. Ken’s wealth of experience and cultural background will be a valuable addition to this parliament and to his electors in Hasluck. I also welcome back my colleagues Warren Entsch, the member for Leichhardt, and Teresa Gambaro, now the member for Brisbane. They were part of the class of 1996. There are 10 of us left, and it is great to see them come back and help swell our ranks. I know firsthand what it is like to lose a seat and have to fight to get it back and re-enter the parliament. If there is one thing I have learned during my time in parliament it is never to take anything for granted. My campaign for re-election started on 22 August and will continue up till the date of the next election. You cannot serve your electorate well if you only serve it in the 33 days before the election every three years. As John Howard used to say, you cannot fatten the pig on market day.
I say a few fond and sad farewell words to my long-term colleague ‘Iron Bar’ Wilson Tuckey, the former member for O’Connor. Wilson is somebody that I liked and he is a friend of mine. Wilson was an interesting character. The first time I really had much to do with Wilson was when he was trying to explain in the 1993 election campaign about a lump of steel and how the GST would affect you turning it into something. He lost everybody but he was enthusiastic! I also met Wilson when I used to train racehorses semi-professionally down at the Ascot Racecourse and Wilson was dragging a horse around. He gave me a bit of advice on how to become a candidate and get involved in the Liberal Party, before he got involved in an altercation with one of the other trainers, who happened to be the tough man on the course. Wilson stood there chesting him and I thought, ‘Wilson, don’t go there, because Colin Clune will pick you up and throw you away.’ But he seemed to get away with it all the time—that was Wilson. He was a very interesting character and we are going to miss him here after 30 years in the federal parliament.
Of course, a special mention must go to my Western Australian colleagues the member for Cowan, Luke Simpkins; the member for Swan, Steve Irons; and the member for Stirling, Michael Keenan. They all managed to turn their wafer thin margins into safer seats. As a former member for Swan, I take a special interest in the seat and congratulate Steve Irons, the current member, on increasing the margin there to around two per cent. In fact, I think his margin is greater than mine, and that is a credit to him for his hard work and dedication.
There were a number of interesting trends in this election to do with Indigenous voting. Certain trends jump out at elections and one worth mentioning is the Indigenous vote. Labor has taken Indigenous Australians for granted. That was confirmed to me only recently by talking to Norman Fry, the former head of the Northern Territory Land Council. The Labor Party offered them only symbolic gestures and there was a backlash against the ALP at polling booths. It is the coalition that has provided the first Indigenous senator and now the first Indigenous member of the House of Representatives. The 2010 results show that the Indigenous vote is no longer owned by the ALP, or at least that this vote is up for grabs when the ALP takes it for granted.
Durack is an interesting case. Booths in Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, Wyndham and Roebourne had swings of 20 per cent against Labor. In all these booths the Liberal Party polled well in front of the Nationals and received a strong run of National Party preferences. Overall there was a swing in Durack of more than six per cent. Indigenous voters in Lingiari turned against Labor, and Labor lost six of the 19 remote polling booths, with swings of up to 45 per cent in some cases. The sitting member suffered a 13 per cent overall swing against his primary vote and saw his margin more than halved. Leichhardt, Warren Entsch’s seat, has one of the highest proportions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voters in Australia, at about 15 per cent. He had Indigenous people running his polling booths for him. That is testament to him. As I said, Indigenous people are suddenly starting to realise that it is this side of the House that is actually interested in seeing them go forward rather than being kept on welfare and kept on the camps by being drip-fed welfare rather than having real jobs and a meaningful way of going ahead.
There is much more I could say in this speech, but I am out of time. What I want to say is that being re-elected as the member for Canning in Western Australia is something that I am going to cherish. Let us hope that during this term we can change sides; there is a good opportunity to do so given the delicate balance of this House. As I say, we are only one death, one desertion or one sickness away from having the ability to change the composition of this House, and we will be doing our best to hold this government to account. If that opportunity arises it will be fantastic to see this high-spending government taken away. This government has not changed, it cannot stop the debt, it cannot stop the refugees and now it wants to form an alliance with the Greens, which would see this country head further to the left and into economic malaise. Western Australia is an icon; it is the way to go, because it has a Liberal state government.
308
12:15:00
Owens, Julie, MP
E09
Parramatta
ALP
1
0
Ms OWENS
—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and congratulations—you are looking good up there! It is good to be back in Canberra; it is good to be back in Parliament House. I suspect that towards the end of the last session most of us were looking forward to getting out of Canberra. But for quite a while now I have been looking forward to getting back here and working in this new parliament. I enjoyed watching the process of the formation of government over the 17-day period in which that occurred. Once I separated my own circumstances from that process, I found that it was an incredibly interesting path that the nation took over that period of time. I think we are entering a very good time, because there is work to be done in government—and I am looking forward to getting on with that—but also because a parliament that is put together in the way the Australian people have put this one together brings new possibilities that could be good for the nation if we let them be and if we work to make it so.
Most members of the House would know that I have a bit of a background in business, and I have always believed that, to do well in the long term, cycles can actually be quite good for you—not aggressive cycles but moderate cycles of good and leaner times. In good times you can explore, you can harvest, you can prepare, and in tougher times you pare back to your core activities—you focus on the essentials, you remove the fat, you go back to basics and you question the trends, habits, assumptions and shortcuts that grow so easily in good times. You question the things that you can sometimes get away with when times are good and resources are plentiful. As a government I think we are in many ways in one of those leaner times. It is a very good opportunity for us all in this House to question those trends, habits, assumptions and shortcuts that have grown up over what is now 60 years or more of majority government and to focus our attention on priorities, the things that actually matter and the purpose of being in this House.
I am going to refer to two of my colleagues—Brendan O’Connor and Bob McMullan. Brendan, who is a minister now, and Bob, who is retired, are probably wondering, with some trepidation, what I am going to say. In my first months as a member of parliament, both of those gentlemen said things to me that I carry now that I think are particularly pertinent to the situation that we find ourselves in. The Hon. Bob McMullan said to me: ‘We can only move as fast as the people move. We have to take the people with us. You cannot get ahead of the community—you can lead them, but you must bring them with you.’ I think there is a very important lesson for us all in that. I suspect that, in times of majority governments, we on both sides have come to believe that we can do things in this House without fully bringing the people with us, because the majority gives us that power. We are of course, in that sense, in a different paradigm. I do not think it is this parliament which tells us that; it is the decision that the people made to create this parliament.
We are very much at a time when the community is powerfully divided on a number of key issues that this nation needs to address. The issue of climate change is one where we have very strong views at both ends of the opinion bell curve. The issue of asylum seekers is another where the community is incredibly strongly divided. This is a time for us as a nation to acknowledge that moving forward in whatever direction we choose requires absolutely that we take the community with us.
For this reason I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister, prior to the election and since, talking about the need to build consensus on these issues. That is an incredibly important function—a function that is not just the responsibility of government. Community, too, has a responsibility to engage in the debate and to talk more broadly on these issues.
Brendan O’Connor is probably thinking, ‘What the hell did I say back then?’ He said something to me on a number of occasions which I also heard him say to a number of others when we were wondering about our roles on committees and what we were doing. He said to me quite clearly one day, ‘Julie, you have to decide whether you care about getting it done or you care about getting the credit.’ It was a particular circumstance in which, when in opposition, as member of a committee I was able to make a substantial change to policy which I felt was very important, but I clearly was not going to get any credit for it. He said that to me on that day and I have heard him say it to others. It stuck with me. I think it is a lesson that we should all keep in mind—that we are essentially here to get things done, not for the credit. Of course, you have to get the credit at some point or you do not get to stay and do more and you do not get to stay and follow through. So there needs to be a balance, and we all know that. But the first thing we are here for is to get it done. The credit is simply a mechanism to ensure that you can follow through. That priority, for each of us, is one that we need to reinforce in the make-up of this House. There will be things that we pass as a House that some of us may have had passionate views about for years, and we will watch someone else stand up and take the running and make it happen. But what matters in this House is that we actually get things done for the good of the nation.
We have very much the parliament that people gave us. This is democracy at work. People accuse us sometimes of being poll-driven. Well, the mighty poll which is election day has made the decisions for us again at this time, and we have absolutely the parliament that the people gave us. It is an interesting time. In some ways it is different from what we are used to and in other ways it is actually quite the same. When members of the House of Representatives have been talking about this new paradigm, some of my Senate colleagues have said: ‘What new paradigm? The Senate has been operating under those sorts of constraints for a long time.’ In Australia, that is true. The Australian people have a habit of choosing one party in a state, one party in the federal sphere and a third party in the Senate to ensure that we as governments negotiate our way through. I think it has served the Australian people very well. It has given us stability in government. It has generally prevented us from swinging wildly from one side of politics to another as elections unfold. It tends to push us into the middle. Some of us do not like that. There are times when each side would like to be further in whatever direction they choose. But the system that the Australian people have chosen for us for decades causes us to have to negotiate our path with people who do not share our views. And it has been very effective. We are going to do it now in the House of Representatives as well as in the Senate.
If you look at the negotiation process that occurs over ideas through to bills that go through both houses of parliament, there have been many times when governments on both sides have lost the argument. It was interesting to see the media yesterday making such a big deal of a loss. It does not happen often in this House, but in the last term at least 15 per cent of legislation was blocked at some point on that path. So this is not new. It is new in this House, but that negotiation process is part of political life. It is going to be very interesting for the House of Representatives to play a much more active part in what has been one of the great strengths of Australian democracy over decades. It is not so unusual.
There are some unusual things, though. With majority governments, even with a minority in the Senate, traditionally it has been only the government that has been able to get bills passed. Only the government had the potential to follow through on its commitments at an election campaign. That is not the case here. Both the government and the opposition have 72 seats in the House of Representatives and each of us can negotiate with the Independents up to 75. So, extremely unusually in Australian politics, the role of opposition is different to the one that it has been. I would ask the opposition to consider that the answers that they found to the question of what opposition is when there was a clear majority government are quite different in a hung parliament. I would encourage the opposition to explore the fact that they are in a position as an opposition to constructively engage in policy development, not just the criticism of policy, which is the traditional role of an opposition. We are in that sense in a very interesting time.
We are also in an interesting time in terms of the procedures of the House. I chaired the Procedures Committee in the last parliament, so I watched with great interest some of the recommendations of that committee be accepted by the House yesterday, plus some new ones that came from the Independents. I suspect, though, that one of the greatest changes in the behaviour of parliament will not be so much in the rules themselves—I have always said that you do not stop rule breaking with rules; people who break rules will break rules. If you introduce new ones, they will break those. The real change here is that the consequences for breaking the rules are more dire. I suspect that we would not see such a profound change if it was still possible for people to be ejected from the House. That would have a profound impact now, of course. So I wonder whether it is the rule change that will make the difference or the consequences of breaking the rules that will make the difference.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have just been told by one of my colleagues that it is the strength and gravitas of the Deputy Speaker that is controlling the House and causing people to obey the rules. Congratulations, Mr Deputy Speaker. I suspect, though, that the decision of the people to make us so finely balanced will have a far greater impact on behaviour in the House than any rules that we might introduce. That also is an extremely interesting turn of events.
We are as a nation incredibly innovative. We adopt new technology very early and we adopt ideas very early. There are technology companies that come to Australia to test their new products because they move so quickly through the Australian market. This is probably the last thing that I am going to say about this, but it is interesting to contrast what is perhaps a natural talent for change with a decision by the Australian people over and over again to build protections into our democratic system that slow down the implementation of change and force us to negotiate a common path.
I notice that the Leader of the Opposition is now calling himself the leader of the coalition, as if the Leader of the Opposition position no longer exists. Every time he says that, I insert ‘Leader of the Opposition’.
Both the government and the opposition made commitments prior to the election. It interests me that the opposition is so critical that a government would consider the make-up of the parliament. I urge the opposition to consider that it too has the potential to honour its election commitments on the same basis as the government can. It has 72 votes. It has the potential to choose its priority projects, as I am sure that it will. We are in for very interesting times.
As those 17 days progressed, I was able to reduce the elements of government policy to the matters that I profoundly care about. There are many issues that I profoundly care about, but it was interesting to watch over the 17 days which programs of government came to the surface as the ones that I would be most regretful of losing if we did not gain government. I was surprised that some of the ones that emerged were not the ones that I expected to emerge. The one that came up first was education, and not so much the answers that we have put forward—such as the computers in schools program, for example, which I am a great fan of—but the policy direction that underpinned the answers that the Labor government had put forward. I live in an extremely diverse electorate. There is an extremely flat bell curve in terms of demographics and socioeconomic status. There are large pockets of poverty; there are also substantial pockets of comfort.
We have in Western Sydney a number of longstanding issues, and previous governments did not work strongly to address them—certainly the immediate prior government, the Howard government, did not. We had retention rates that peaked at about 70 per cent just prior to the Howard government’s election, and the high school retention rate stagnated over the next 12 years. In Western Sydney those retention rates are lower. In some areas they are quite low. They are particularly bad for boys in Western Sydney and substantially better for girls. So we have a situation in Western Sydney where large numbers of our young people are essentially opting to limit their future prospects. That situation was relatively stable for the 12 years prior to the election of the Rudd government in 2007.
The Rudd government and the Gillard government introduced a number of programs to try to address the stagnation of the high school retention rate, set some very substantial targets to improve it and began work on that. That included increasing budgets for education, including for trade centres, the My School website and a whole range of elements which were designed to improve the retention rates in high schools. That is an important matter for the Australian economy as a whole and, for those individual young people who leave school, it is perhaps one of the most important things that will happen at this time in their lives to impact on their future. It was something of great distress to me that we could actually have gone back to that stagnation if we had lost government. That is something that I am really pleased to be standing for here on this side of the House.
I was also incredibly pleased to hear during the election campaign a commitment to increase the family tax payment once a child turns 16. Currently the situation is that when a child turns 16 the maximum payment rate of family tax benefit part A reduces by about $150 a fortnight whether they are in school or not. The election commitment reverses that and increases the family support by up to $4,000 a year per teenager. That was an incredibly important but relatively small announcement that did not get a lot of attention during the election campaign. But I knew that that was going to make a profound difference in my electorate for families for whom keeping a child in school was not necessarily financially possible. I come from a region where, when I was in school, bright, intelligent kids got permission to leave school before the age of 15 because their parents simply could not afford to keep them there. That is something I think is long overdue and which I am incredibly pleased to be able to implement in government.
I was also concerned very much by the potential winding back of the BER in particular. There are currently 1,800 people in my electorate of Parramatta who are employed on Building the Education Revolution projects, plus about 200 employed on social housing and 425 employed on apprenticeships, thanks to the Apprentice Kickstart program. If you add that up it is about three per cent of my workforce. That is a substantial number of people who are working because of the way the stimulus program was designed. Unemployment in Parramatta is already seven per cent. It is higher than the national average and in some areas of my electorate, in the south, it is up around 12 per cent. An increase of three per cent in unemployment would be a substantial blow to my local community. I am incredibly pleased to see those 425 young people on apprenticeships. It is a very good start to life. It is an incredibly successful program. Again, I am unbelievably pleased to be on this side of the House so that I do not see those important programs dismantled.
The environment is probably the last issue I am going to get to talk on today. Again, I am incredibly pleased that we have the opportunity in this parliament to move on climate change. I believe that we need to, and I believe that we need to put a price on carbon. We obviously need to do it for the good of the environment and the way in which we live in it but also because as a nation we have a great talent for innovation. We have an opportunity, if we get in early enough, to move beyond the carbon age and to use our talent for creativity and innovation to build a place for ourselves and to build our economy in the modern world. Again, this is our talent. We used to lead the world on solar technology. We no longer do. We can again. We have in our land all of the things we need—the wind, the waves, the hot rocks and the sun. We have an extraordinary natural resource when it comes to building a world beyond the carbon age and a human capacity to explore those potentials and build ourselves a very strong economic future. The longer we delay, the less opportunity there will be for us to build a place for ourselves in that world. So I am very pleased that the government, the Independents and the Greens have decided to work together to try to find a path through what is a very fraught issue for our community. We need to build a consensus. We need to find a way through. We need to act for the sake of our economy and our quality of life. I am very pleased that the government will be able to do that.
313
12:35:00
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
0
0
Mr BILLSON
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge your elevation to a presiding officer role and I extend my best wishes for your important responsibilities in that role. It is indeed an honour and a pleasure after being re-elected for the Dunkley electorate to be able to speak for the sixth time in address in reply to the Governor-General’s speech.
HVP
Perrett, Graham, MP
Mr Perrett
—It might be your last!
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr BILLSON
—I welcome the interjection that it might be my last. I thank the Labor Party for their perpetual optimism about my future political prospects. But I will also use that interjection to characterise the nature of the contest in the Dunkley electorate. Time and time again the Dunkley campaign were saying, ‘Billson, we don’t know why you’re here; this is a Labor seat. Our polling says you’re gone, mate.’ There were all these kinds of comments going around.
What that underlined to me and many of the Dunkley voters is the comment made, way back in 1996 when I was first elected, by my predecessor the then Labor member for Dunkley, who, quite openly in a moment of honest reflection, said that Labor had forgotten about the Dunkley community. The attitude in the more recent campaign seems to show they have not learnt much, either. This presumption that Dunkley voters will support the Labor Party seems to have blended its way into the behaviour, comments and attitude of Labor candidates displayed earlier in this chamber. It contrasts vividly with my approach, which is that every day is an opportunity to do something worth while for the Dunkley community. Having grown up in that community, where Dunkley actually runs through my veins, having been a part of it for all of my adult life and all of my education, I have a very strong affinity with the Dunkley community and revel in its diversity. There are areas of good fortune and those are often pointed to and, electorally, are quite helpful. There are areas where prospects are not so bright and good fortune does not automatically rain on some communities within Dunkley. My job is to be there as an advocate and an ally for those people.
I came into public life with one simple inspiration, and that is your postcode does not determine your potential. Right across the Dunkley community there are citizens able and willing to apply their skills and knowledge—young people who are able to learn as well as anybody, who should be able to make this world of delicious possibilities their own. My job is to try to make those connections, to support all individuals in Dunkley in fulfilling their potential. I thank the electors of Dunkley for giving me the honour and opportunity to represent our community for a sixth term. But it is not just that inspiration, motivation and positive, passionate and persistent approach to representing the community that makes it happen; it is the team that puts their support and belief in you.
I am truly blessed by a committed, supportive and very politically astute wife, my sweetheart Kate. I have a very early photo of her when she was only a few years old wearing an ‘I’m a Liberal lover’ T-shirt as she was out with her father, Arthur, helping with the late Philip Lynch’s campaign. She is very sound in her political pedigree and very passionate about the value and benefits to the Australian public and our community of Liberal representation. Her support and inspiration and the encouragement of my children, particularly my eldest two, who were more involved in this campaign because they are now aged 12 and 10, were a tonic, a nourishment for those arctic mornings at Seaford Railway Station where you just stood outside, experiencing a natural exfoliation as the weather pounded its way through. They were great support. Family support is so crucial. I always honour and respect that support, because public life is perhaps not of their choosing. The elected member may feel more potently many of the ups than the family but the downs are moments that are seemingly shared quite equally across the broader family.
I was also very fortunate to have the most incredible dynamic duo in the form of Robert and Linda Hicks spearheading the campaign. They are two dear friends, both incredibly able and also well schooled in electioneering. Some years ago Robert was the Liberal candidate taking on Simon Crean in what was a fortress electorate, so he knows his way around a political campaign. That kind of experience and Linda’s attentiveness and thoughtfulness guiding our efforts were truly valued and incredibly beneficial to all of our work.
With regard to the campaign team, the visual merchandising efforts of Arthur Ranken, my indefatigable father-in-law, are renowned in the electorate. He was a great inspiration and an incredible contributor. The contribution of Cyrus Alyari and Horacio Diaz in pounding the pavements is truly valued. To the campaign team: Tony Conabere, Greg Dixon, Colin and Dawn Fisher, Michael Fraser, Marshall Hughes, and Graeme and Marita Johnson in their first campaign—their energy and insight were truly valuable. The kind of support from Robert and Joan Garnett and the broader Liberal family, including the dear mates who come out to help their buddy on election day, was really encouraging. To Greg and Virginia Sugars and John Catto-Smith, Tamme Klaster, Bob and Carole Ford, Bill Beaglehole, David and Melissa and all the Ritter family, thank you. There are so many to mention, including on polling day the likes of Janice Dupuy. They are all stalwarts of the party who do an incredible job.
We were fortunate this year to have some new talent come in: Reagan Barry and Zoe Nottas were two young people whom I met—one at a railway station. Their energy and enthusiasm were infectious. I am very optimistic about the contribution they can make to the future. It is important to acknowledge that team: Geoff Shaw, Robert Latimer, Declan Stephenson, Ted Galloway, Paul and Pam Amos, my mate Tim Smith and Barry MacMillan—and too many more to name—who just kept contributing day in and day out, whether it was at arctic dawns at railway stations through to the slog of letterboxing with a campaign that needed to be quite resourceful, given the funds available.
I also want to thank my dear friend and parliamentary colleague Bronwyn Bishop, who is here at the table, for her visit to my electorate. I said, very fondly, that Bronwyn is the Britney Spears of a particular generation. To see the way in which people respond and react to your presence, Bronwyn, is truly an inspiration. There is much love for you, ma’am. To see the way that people in the electorate of Dunkley respond—
HVP
Perrett, Graham, MP
Mr Perrett interjecting—
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr BILLSON
—and even the way members opposite respond in that Britney Spearsesque way is just terrific. I also thank my dear friend and, in some respects, mentor, Andrew Robb.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—I would just like to remind the member for Dunkley of standing order 64—
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr BILLSON
—Thank you, sir. I thought you would do that. I was trying to remember the names of everyone’s electorate. If I can backfill at some point I will, but I acknowledge that I did not mention those fine individuals by their electorates. I trust that you may cut me some grace on this occasion.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I did.
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr BILLSON
—The campaign itself was quite interesting. I have always believed in putting forward a positive agenda. It was quite vivid how the only candidate in the Dunkley campaign putting forward a positive agenda was me. Time after time, positive announcements, commitments to address serious, genuinely held concerns or interest amongst our community was met by a wall of silence from the Labor Party, the Labor political machine and others contesting the election.
In fact, the only real voice from the Labor campaign was to claim that what Labor calls the trade training centre was at risk in the electorate. It was so blatantly dishonest to make that claim when it had been made clear time and time again that there was no risk to that facility—and why would there be a risk to that facility when I had applied so many years of effort to have the Greater Frankston area positioned to receive an Australian technical college under the former government? That could not proceed because the Labor government junked that program, a program of great importance and great appeal to my community. I then worked with the local community to persuade the Labor Party to change its policy—not to sprinkle a little bit of money around every secondary college and really deliver no net increase in learning and teaching capability—persuading it that it should go with a facility-specific, purpose-built skills and vocational training facility, and Labor ultimately agreed to follow the vision that we had outlined as a community. To then have the Labor campaign accuse me of somehow being anti that project was the most distasteful and dishonest element of that campaign.
All the way through to election day itself, people were arriving at secondary colleges and being met by banners saying that a trade training centre at that secondary college was at risk if you voted for the coalition team. Not only was that not accurate and honest; there was no such proposal to have trade training centres sprinkled around secondary colleges, because we had persuaded the Labor government that that was not the best outcome for our community. The location of the trade training facility—which is the badging Labor chooses to give to a project whose genesis was many years before Labor was even interested—was not at any of those secondary colleges, but that did not stop the fraud and the dishonesty of the campaigning on election day. Many parents had contacted me over the course of the campaign about the whispering campaign that the Labor machine had put into our secondary schools about facilities and projects already underway that somehow were at risk if the coalition were elected.
It is the sad aspect of campaigning these days that the fear and anxiety mischievously created by the Labor campaign were all they had to campaign on. There was nothing new, nothing positive, nothing responsive to the local concerns, no honest account of what the community needed and then a thoughtful response; just this bile and nonsense about what was supposedly at risk when it actually was not at risk at all. In fact, the coalition had championed that project. I personally had pursued it with great vigour and I will continue to work to make sure that it delivers what our community needs.
The irony also was that, right throughout the campaign, the local Frankston City Council had been urging people to ‘put their heart into Frankston’. This was a campaign the council had put forward urging certain commitments from those who were candidates in the campaign. Not a single commitment that they were looking for was made by Labor—not one. There was barely an acknowledgement that there was a need to respond to that campaign. There was a line or two in the local press about how the Heart of Frankston campaign mattered but no follow-through and no commitment.
It is not surprising, then, that on election day the Labor vote went nowhere. But the Greens vote did increase. And discussing with the very genuine and committed Greens candidate the decision the Greens had made—a decision made not by him but somewhere else—to preference Labor without any key performance test about that allocation of preferences essentially characterised what happened in the election: a growth in the Greens vote, a strong preference flow to Labor, and my modest margin finishing near microscopic. But that was the story.
There was no positive response from the Greens or from Labor about our three-quarters-of-a-million-dollar Dunkley drought-proofing investment, another initiative that I had championed and that Labor was silent on and then begrudgingly had to turn its mind to as some stimulus money was made available some years ago. There was no commitment to extend the recycled water that would otherwise run out into Gunnamatta along the pipeline and make it available to ensure that sporting facilities, school grounds and other heavy water users had a non-drinking-water option to meet their needs. There was not a word from the Labor Party, but I will continue to pursue that drought-proofing initiative.
There was no acknowledgement about the concerns about the atmosphere, tone and episodes of antisocial behaviour around Langwarrin, challenges that we as a community have been facing for some time, challenges that the coalition responded to by a commitment to establish a youth focused facility in Langwarrin. There was not a word from the Labor Party, not a word from the incumbent government and, again, not a matching commitment to be seen anywhere from those seeking to earn the support of the local community. That challenge remains and action is still required.
Even in areas around community safety in the CCTV extended rollout that I had committed to—again, more projects that the Labor Party seemed uninterested in and needed to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to attend to—there was an opportunity to match the commitments of the coalition, an opportunity again forgone by Labor. It was as if they were hoping to run on the sisterhood ticket of a Victorian based female Prime Minister and a female Labor candidate, as if that were all that mattered, as if gender were the only thing that would sway people’s votes, not a sense of the important commitments that needed to be made and the forward positive agenda that the city and the community were looking for.
Even in our main population centre of Frankston, a city that has so much going for it, we are not without our challenges, but the opportunities and the potential far exceed any challenges or obstacles we may face. But we need to craft and commit to a vision for that city. The Heart of Frankston campaign was about that, and I was keen to put the heart and the mind into that campaign, the mind being a clear sense of shared purpose about the destiny and the future of that city. We need that for a number of reasons. Frankston has long been recognised by the state government as a central activities district—great on the announcement but no follow-through. The identification of those central activities districts across Greater Melbourne has seen enormous sums of money go into other areas. Dandenong has received $290 million from the state government in support of that designation of a central activities district; $80 million has gone into Broadmeadows. Frankston has received $16 million. These guys are not for real. It is a further example of Labor forgetting our city.
Presented with a chance to make a commitment, to tackle that extraordinary imbalance and to address the fact that there are only about 80,000 jobs within half an hour of Frankston, where we need to grow the job opportunities so that there are opportunities for employment, economic wellbeing and a full life within reasonable reach of our community, the Labor Party squibbed it. There was no commitment, no recognition of the work that needs to be done.
There is no acknowledgement of some of the transport challenges that we face, such as an opportunity to accelerate the rail service between Frankston and the CBD; the implications the port of Hastings may have for our passenger rail system to maybe carry freight from Westernport to other destinations, further making greater challenges for passenger rail services to the city; the opportunity with the Frankston bypass for park-and-ride; and even the prospects and the case and the analytical argument to invest in extending the rail line down to Baxter so that it passes Monash, so that it services those growing communities, to do that analytical work to build the business case, to nurture a shared sense of purpose about our city. Where was Labor? Nowhere to be seen. Despite Labor claiming over and over again that the Dunkley electorate should be Labor, this is why it is not. Labor does not turn up, they are not committed, they are not serious and they never address the substantial issues that our community face. That is why, despite claims by the Labor Party that it should be their seat, it is not.
When you look at those projects and how to optimise the benefit from them, the Scoresby Freeway was committed to by the coalition. Labor was dragged kicking and screaming to finally put some money in and then slapped a toll on it. The Frankston bypass is another project that Labor said was not needed, not necessary. Finally they got on board to be involved with it. Why is it that every time these major challenges are before our community we have to drag Labor kicking and screaming to them? I believe it is because they take this community for granted. We need to make sure that the Labor Party understand that Frankston is no easy pushover for Labor. It should not be because Labor has not earned the reputation and respect to make it that way.
In the few minutes left to me I want to touch on a couple of other issues. One of them relates to the number of jobs available within our community. Bar a couple of examples, overwhelmingly public or health related services, employment in our community is through small business. Yet in the Governor-General’s address—and I am not critical of her, because this is scripted for her by the government—you would not even know that small business existed. There is no mention of any substantive measure. That follows what happened during the election campaign. Labor failed to release any kind of positive, comprehensive small business policy, settling only for some sort of record of what it said it had done in its first term and how it would do more of the same if re-elected. Well, more of the same is not what the small-business community want. In the first 2½ years of this Labor government some 300,000 jobs were lost in small business—300,000 fewer people are employed in small business. When Labor was elected more than 52 per cent of the employment in Australia was in small business; now it is 48 per cent.
This trend has to stop. The big end of town might love a government that loves doing big deals and big spending and they can get into the trough to get their share of the taxpayers’ money. But what about the small businesses and family enterprises that used to represent more than half of the employment opportunities in our country but that are now less than half, that now provide 300,000 fewer jobs than they did when Labor was elected? And Labor promised more of the same. It is little wonder the small-business community believes Labor is not committed to them, nor should the small-business community and family enterprise people be committed to Labor. The coalition outlined a comprehensive strategy that amounted to a microeconomic reform agenda to put the ‘business’ back into small business. Why? Because it needs to happen. For outer metropolitan, rural and regional communities, communities like Dunkley, if the small-business sector is not enjoying some vitality, some prosperity and some prospects for a brighter future, that damages the prospects of the communities they support and the jobs they seek to offer. I commit to keep working for small-business people in Australia.
(Time expired)
318
12:55:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—It is a great privilege to be here in the house of the people. To be re-elected to represent an electorate in the House of Representatives is a great honour. It shows trust, it shows commitment and it shows that the people of the electorate of Blair have put their faith in a Labor representative and in the Gillard Labor government. I thank the people of Blair for this responsibility and I commit myself once again to discharge those duties with diligence and that responsibility with determination. I thank my wife, Carolyn, and my daughters, Alex and Jacqui, for their wonderful support in this campaign, my campaign director Peter Johnstone, my chief of staff Jennifer Howard, and my 2IC and staff member Kylie Stoneman. I went into this campaign, my third campaign, with a Labor Party membership ticket in one hand and with a union ticket in the other. I ran what Dennis Atkins in the
Courier-Mail
described as a maverick campaign. I stood up for the people of my electorate. I stood up for the working people whose representatives are the trade union movement, who have for the whole history of this country stood up for working people in the electorate of Blair, in Ipswich and in rural areas. I want to thank my union, the Australian Services Union, the BLF, the Plumbers Union, the CWU, the AWU, the ETU, the CFMEU and the Queensland Teachers Union for their muscle on the ground, their financial support and their longstanding commitment to my candidacy.
I was born in Ipswich and have lived there all my life. My family has lived in the Ipswich and West Moreton community for generation after generation. I have a longstanding commitment to my community. The Blair electorate covers 6,400 square kilometres in South-East Queensland. It is a regional and rural seat. It is based on the city of Ipswich, about 70 per cent of it, and the rural area known as the Somerset Regional Council. But 60 per cent of Ipswich is indeed rural. Ipswich is the fastest growing city in South-East Queensland. It grew, according to the ABS data, by five per cent last year. The Somerset region grew the third fastest in South-East Queensland at 4.5 per cent. With that growth comes great challenge. The South-East Queensland infrastructure plan and program for 2010 to 2031 talks about the need for $134 billion in investment in infrastructure. This will support 930,000 jobs in South-East Queensland. One in seven people in the country live in South-East Queensland. South-East Queensland’s population will grow from 2.8 million in 2006 to 4.4 million by 2031. The area from Noosa through to Coolangatta and out to Toowoomba is indeed the fastest growing area in the country. That poses the problems of a sustainable future, addressing climate change, protecting regional landscapes, supporting rural production and lifestyle and managing the growth in what is known as the Western Corridor.
Improving infrastructure and services and supporting healthy and strong communities is vital for South-East Queensland and vital for my electorate of Blair. As previous terms in this parliament show, the re-election of the federal Labor government will assist, particularly in the areas of roads, schools, health and hospital services. Indeed the $1.75 billion for the Roads to Recovery across the forward estimates to 2014 will assist as well, particularly in local roads in the fast-growing regions of Blair. I congratulate the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and my fellow Queenslander the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, Wayne Swan, on their success. A re-elected federal Labor government was the only hope for the people of Blair. Eleven and a half years of the Howard coalition government gave us nothing in my electorate. The coalition’s attitude to the people of Ipswich was to punish the workers, ignore the commuters, neglect the schools and disinvest in health and hospital services.
The worst travesty of the Howard coalition government was its refusal to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway, the vital link between Brisbane and Ipswich, which is important for farmers, small business, commuters, children and families. Between 90,000 and 100,000 vehicles a day travel on this road. It is appalling that the coalition refused to upgrade it. The Howard coalition government’s attitude to my region is categorised by ignorance, inertia and inaction. Only the election of a federal Labor government in 2007 saw the investment of $1.95 billion to upgrade the Dinmore to Goodna section of the Ipswich Motorway to six lanes and to bring in service roads that will take 20 per cent of the commuting traffic off the Ipswich Motorway. That project will be completed by 2012. The member for Oxley, Bernie Ripoll, and I campaigned for this for many years against the opposition of my predecessor and against the opposition of the Howard coalition government. And what was their attitude to this in the last term? They voted against the funding for the Ipswich Motorway, and in October 2009 the leader of the Nationals in this place, the shadow roads minister, stood up here and said he would stop construction on the Ipswich Motorway. This is a project in South-East Queensland on which up to 10,000 workers have worked over the years. The opposition would stop construction of the Ipswich Motorway. That was their policy and that was their attitude for 11½ years, and if they had won they would have stopped construction of the Ipswich Motorway, which would have affected my community. Only the re-election of a federal Labor government ensured that construction of the Ipswich Motorway between Dinmore and Goodna would continue.
And it was not just in this area. They also voted against the nation-building bills, the $22 billion in regional and rural roads, rail and port and $37 billion in nation-building funds, a lot of which was in South-East Queensland. What did we hear about this from the member for Groom, my LNP opponent, and the LNP candidate, who is now the member for Wright? What did we hear about this from the shadow spokesperson for roads? We heard nothing but opposition to the nation-building and stimulus package and opposition to vital road funding in my community. He had no commitment to vital nation building. We are the ones who upgraded the Warrego Highway. There was $30 million of federal government money, and the coalition opposed it. But the state government is putting $40 million into the Warrego Highway, which is important for farmers, businesses, schoolchildren and residents.
The member for Grayndler, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, came to my electorate during the federal election campaign and made a $54 million commitment to upgrade the Blacksoil Interchange with a flyover, linking the Warrego Highway and the Brisbane Valley Highway. There was $16 million on the table from the Queensland Labor government. They put the proposal and a business case to us in early May 2010, but what did we hear from the coalition during the whole campaign in relation to that project? There was silence from them. There was no commitment at all to do that, when it is important for Toowoomba, it is important for the Lockyer Valley, it is important for the Somerset region, it is important for Ipswich and it is important for Brisbane. That is the extent of their commitment to vital infrastructure in South-East Queensland—none at all. The LNP in Queensland pose, preen and posture as supporters of regional and rural Queensland, but their record does not bear it out. Their record shows that they would disinvest in those areas. That is what happened when it came to road infrastructure in South-East Queensland in my electorate of Blair.
It is the same thing with respect to schools. They opposed the $108 million for local schools in Blair. From Mount Kilcoy to Toogoolawah to Linville to Springfield, the coalition in the last term opposed every last dollar and every last cent spent on school infrastructure in my electorate. Only the re-election of the federal Labor government will ensure that spending continues. Again, they opposed the computers in schools program. Two hundred thousand computers were rolled out across the country, and that is important as well.
When it came to nearly $14 million of community infrastructure in my electorate, the coalition opposed it. My LNP opponent, the Deputy Mayor of the Somerset Regional Council, voted in his council for all of it. He voted in favour of building the Fernvale indoor sports centre. It was on the record in the
Gatton Star, where he said how wonderful these sorts of projects are, but then he stood for a party that opposed every last dollar that went into this community. We had coalition people posing, preening and posturing in South-East Queensland, saying they supported these types of programs, but in fact they opposed them. They say one thing down here then they go back to their electorates and say the other. That is the truth.
I am pleased to see that the state Labor government in Queensland is building new schools in my electorate. In Springfield we are of course seeing a new school, the Springfield Central State School. I was pleased to recently meet Angela Gooley, the new principal. That school will open in 2011 to cater for the rapidly growing Springfield area in the Grand Avenue development. Springfield Lakes, which borders Blair and Oxley, will see the rollout of the National Broadband Network, which is important for that area.
We are seeing projects all through my electorate being brought forward by the federal Labor government—everything from the Springfield Central Parklands, which border Oxley and Blair, through to the upgrade of the Ipswich Civic Centre and the Ipswich CBD. Of course, there are also projects like the Fernvale indoor sports centre, which will open in the next few months. These projects are creating jobs and vital community infrastructure, supporting sports, the arts and families as well as providing amenities.
In housing, which is so important in my electorate, the coalition failed. You only have to talk to Queensland public works minister Robert Schwarten to know the trouble he had for many years—he is a longstanding minister in the state Labor government—with successive coalition housing ministers. Their idea of social housing was to disinvest. In my electorate, we are seeing $66.5 million injected into social housing and defence housing under the nation-building stimulus fund. What does the coalition say about that? The coalition voted against every last cent for that. Jobs are being created in my community. There are 111 defence houses being created for the rapidly expanding RAAF base at Amberley. This is occurring in the same suburb that I live in. Many of these defence houses have been created and built in Flinders View in the southern part of Ipswich. The coalition opposed $21.5 million worth of construction. That is why it is important to have a federal Labor representative in Blair and that is why it is also important to have a federal Labor government.
In health and hospital reform, the Gillard Labor government has and will make a difference in my electorate. In the next couple of months, we will see the opening of the Ipswich GP superclinic at the University of Queensland Ipswich campus. I thank the Minister for Health and Ageing for the commitment in that regard. We will see an injection of $7.3 billion over five years into health—more than double the coalition’s commitment to health and hospital funding. We will see funding for 3,000 new nurses and 1,300 GPs over the next three years. We will see a focus on a national health and hospital system, which will be funded nationally and run locally. I look forward to working with the division of general practice locally as it is rebadged into a Medicare local. I also look forward to seeing the Ipswich General Hospital form the hub of what will clearly be a hub-and-spoke model for the health and hospital network.
The Ipswich GP superclinic will be located at the University of Queensland. I have inspected it a number of times, including with then regional health minister, Warren Snowdon, recently. The division of general practice is running the federally funded psychology clinic at the University of Queensland. It now has a very strong focus on health education, particularly with doctors and nurses being trained there. I want to assure the people of Ipswich in the Brisbane Valley and the old Kilcoy shire that I have a strong commitment to health. I have had such a commitment prior to my election in 2007. I practised as a lawyer for many years—in fact, I was a senior partner of a Brisbane CBD law firm, even though I lived in Ipswich—and I have had a longstanding commitment through the health council in the Brisbane Valley and Ipswich and also through the running of aged-care facilities in the Ipswich and west Moreton areas. So I am strongly committed to seeing good health services and good aged-care facilities in our region. We have seen the upgrade of the Cabanda Aged Care in Rosewood—an election commitment of $1.5 million that I secured in 2007. We have seen an interest free loan to the RSL for the Milford Grange project in Ipswich—a $5 million project. I have seen a lot of money poured into my community, and for that I am very grateful.
On 7 July this year, Minister Snowdon came to my electorate and visited Esk. There is a wonderful hospital in Esk; it has been there for a very long time. Brenda Maloney does a fantastic job as the person in charge there. We held a health forum in Esk because the coalition was claiming falsely that that hospital and other regional hospitals in the Ipswich and West Moreton areas, including Gatton, Laidley and Boonah et cetera, were going to be at risk of closing down—simply blatant nonsense. We assured the people of the Brisbane Valley that the Esk hospital would continue. We then held a forum at the Kambu Medical Centre, which is a wonderful Indigenous medical centre in Ipswich that is federally funded. I thank the people there for their hospitality and warmth and for their commitment to the very large Indigenous community in my area. I do pay respects to the Indigenous peoples of Ipswich in the West Moreton area for their custodianship and stewardship of the land which I have the privilege of representing in this place. I am pleased that we have supported regional and rural areas in health funding. We have massively increased funding for rural health by 65 per cent. In the current budget, $795 million is targeted at rural and regional health.
Perhaps it is the National Broadband Network which demonstrates the great difference between the coalition and federal Labor. The fibre-to-the-premises rollout will not only cover Ipswich but 93 per cent of Australia. It will go to country towns in my electorate like Marburg, Rosewood and Walloon, and, in the Brisbane Valley, places like Minden, Fernvale, Esk, Coominya, Toogoolawah, Lowood and up in the old Kilcoy shire, Kilcoy itself. This will make a big difference to the farming communities. This will make a difference to the small business operators in this area. It will make sure that a kid who lives in Toogoolawah will have the same opportunities as a kid who lives in Toorak. It is extremely important, and the coalition opposed it.
Indeed, my LNP opponent, as the deputy mayor of Somerset Regional Council, was privy to the western corridor submission by the councils of Somerset, Ipswich, Scenic Rim and Toowoomba, which were advocating how important the national broadband rollout would be for the whole region in the western corridor and how important it would be for those particular council areas to receive the National Broadband Network delivered early across the region. But during the campaign he said nothing about it; indeed, he campaigned for a party that would oppose and destroy the National Broadband Network. The National Broadband Network is extremely important. The coalition would have left Ipswich and the Somerset region a broadband backwater in terms of take-up speeds and prices.
During their 11½ years and since that time, the coalition have proposed about 19 plans but they have never been able to get it right, and the people of my region will judge them harshly. There were 25,000 jobs at risk from the coalition’s policy. But do not take my word for it; take the word of a local operator, Paul Heymans. Paul runs Paul Computers and he is a well-known businessman in the Somerset region. He has advocated strongly that the National Broadband Network was vital for our region. Paul is not a member or supporter of any particular party, but this is what he said:
What we need in our region is a major telecommunications upgrade. Somerset Region is a water catchment area for the Brisbane water supply, so there are environmental restrictions on the type of industries that can be developed. Improved broadband services will enable the greener industries that are required; it will boost employment opportunities, reduce emissions by providing better facilities for telecommuting, improve education and medical services, boost the local economy and enable local businesses to compete in national and international markets.
He wrote that in an article that was published in the
Somerset
newspaper on 18 August 2010. He outlined in that article why this was necessary and how the coalition had left us in a broadband backwater.
It is a privilege and honour and a great responsibility to be here as the member for Blair. I will discharge those responsibilities with commitment, determination and rigour for the next three years. I thank the people of Blair for entrusting me with the opportunity to represent them once again in this place. I will argue, agitate and if necessary annoy people for funding for my electorate.
323
13:15:00
Secker, Patrick, MP
848
Barker
LP
0
0
Mr SECKER
—May I start off by congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, on your re-election to your esteemed position. I certainly look forward to working with you and taking direction from you over the coming parliamentary term. I also congratulate all the new members of parliament and the re-elected members. I think we have seen quite a change in this parliament, and it is, I think, a change for the better, not just because there are more coalition members but for the fact that we have the first Aboriginal member of the House of Representatives and also our first Muslim inducted into this parliament. That is good because it shows that this parliament is here for all Australians.
I rise to speak today about the important issues facing my constituency in Barker. I have to say that I was very pleased with the result I received from the electors of Barker. The swing against the coalition in our state was actually negative by about one per cent, but I was very pleased to have a swing towards me of somewhere between 3.5 and four per cent. So I am very pleased indeed that people saw me as working for the constituents, and I will continue to do that. That is my job and it is a job I am very pleased to do.
Some of the issues are very important to me. I found this to be particularly so in the contribution from the member for Blair, who talked about the NBN and how important it is to rural areas. The first point I would like to make is that, at the cost that the government is suggesting, which is $43 billion—I have no doubt it will be a lot more than that—it will cost of $2,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. That is the cost whether you use it or not. Even going by the Labor government’s own figures, where they are suggesting that 93 per cent of people will be covered—I do not think that will be the case—guess where the seven per cent who are not covered come from? They come from seats like mine and your seat, Mr Deputy Speaker, which will not benefit from it but will still be paying for it. They will still be paying the $2,000 for every man, woman and child whether they use it or not. Already, people in Australia are choosing to go wireless for the flexibility. Five to one are using wireless versus a fixed line. So I think we are creating a huge costly white elephant that will probably be overridden and by-passed by technology before it is even built.
The Murray River is in my electorate and I have the honour of representing all of the Murray River area in South Australia and half of the lower lakes—half of Lake Alexandrina and all of Lake Albert—which are very important parts of my electorate. During the campaign I was often asked what the most important issue in my electorate was. I said that the three most important issues are water, water and water—a huge issue in South Australia. In the last couple of weeks the Murray in South Australia is certainly looking a lot better than it was. I do not think any politician can lay claim for that; it is a fact that we have had good rains in the southern Murray-Darling Basin and good inflows. As a result, areas that had dropped by a metre below Lock 1 have now risen back to their normal levels. We have now got water flowing over the barrages and that is going to help some inflows into the Coorong, which again is very important. But we still have a long way to go until I feel comfortable saying that the river has returned to health and basin communities are having their needs met without restrictions.
Those that rely on the river will be quick to tell you that it does not just take a couple of good rains to fix everything; it takes ongoing management and proper infrastructure. The coalition went to the election with a Murray-Darling Basin policy based very much on the original Howard $10 billion plan, which was to ensure that the basin and the communities that rely on it have water security now and in the future. The Labor government did not really have a policy or a plan and I am disappointed at their lack of care for something so huge and so important to Australia. If Labor continues to neglect the basin, the long-term effects will be devastating. The government needs to act now to put measures in place like re-plumbing and re-engineering the Medindie Lakes. South Australia is already using great technology, which means they use less water. The rest of the system needs to follow. Labor have assigned the water portfolio to Tony Burke. I have heard the minister speak about ensuring that there is consultation into the impacts of water reform on basin communities, and I hope that is correct. I hope the Labor government understand the effects on these communities. I also hope they understand why infrastructure is so important and that they direct more funding and effort towards it.
I now want to speak about an issue facing the Murray River that I do not believe has ever been raised in this parliament before. It is potentially very dangerous for river users and detrimental to the health of the river. I am talking about Canadian pondweed and hydrilla, both of which are river weeds that are choking up the river. Hydrilla is a native species but it is the main culprit at the moment. The Canadian pondweed is also causing a lot of concern, but it is mainly the hydrilla that is in abundance.
These weeds sweep across the river surface and tangle down under the water like a net, catching unsuspecting victims by wrapping around and around them until they are caught. I recently travelled down the river from Waikerie in a boat to see firsthand the problems this weed can cause and the expansive area that it is covering. I saw a river that was covered from bank to bank in some places with weed that tangles down below the surface, making it nearly impossible for boats and houseboats to weave their way through. The boat I was travelling in had to stop several times so we could untangle the weeds from the propellers, which was quite some process.
I also saw dead animals caught up in the weed. The problem with this weed is that the more you thrash about and fight it, the more it wraps around you and drags you under. For water sport participants, this could prove deadly. If a skier comes off their skis or a child on a kneeboard falls off, they might become entangled in the large areas of weed and drown. It is really quite a scary thought, especially when you see firsthand a full-size kangaroo wrapped up in the weed in the middle of the river that obviously drowned trying to fight its way out of the weeds.
The state government is aware of these weeds, but because some are native and some are introduced species they actually have different departments handling them. There are a few options on how to deal with the problem, including using large harvesting machines or ‘munchers’, which although costly can turn the weed into a mulch that can be distributed on the banks of the river or perhaps even sold. There are other options such as introducing the Chinese grass fish, which apparently does very well at controlling it, but I know Australia would be very wary about introducing species. We all remember the cane toad. There are chemical ways of doing it, but because the river supplies water for many communities and for the capital city, Adelaide, that would have to be looked at very carefully.
The recent increased flows have been a bit successful in breaking some of the weed up, which is great, but there is certainly still a lot of weed out there that needs dealing with. It is important to note that the warmer water in summer will spread its growth again. If you compare what it was like in August this year with August last year, there is definitely a lot more of that weed around. This is a problem that needs the cooperation of the state and federal governments to make sure these weeds do not claim victims with the warm weather approaching.
I would now like to speak about an issue that I have been inundated with at my office—that is, the failings of the Labor government’s BER program. For example, Meningie is a small township located on the Lower Lakes that has been plagued with its own set of problems due to the lack of water, but recently the town was hit with another huge problem—another BER disaster. The school in Meningie was granted BER money and was to have some work done on its hall. However, halfway through the works, which I must add were delayed to the point where students were practising their debutante dances out on the oval in the rain, the school was told that $500,000 more was needed to finish the hall. Why didn’t they get this right in the first place? This township was already devastated by the lack of water. How were they expected to raise the extra money? Meanwhile the students had no sports hall, no music room and very compromised canteen facilities. In fact, because it is a small township, this hall was the main hall of the Meningie community and it had been unusable for six months. I was outraged by this and after much media coverage the government and builders were embarrassed into covering the extra cost. Where was the minister though when this school was in its hour of need? Where was the minister responsible for the failed BER program? The minister was missing in action.
I now have another school that has very serious concerns about their BER project. Soil left lying around contains dangerous asbestos and arsenic, exposing the students and residents living nearby to the poison. Builders walked off the job in June—and we are now near the end of September—leaving the soil out in the wind. They made no attempt to cover the toxic soil, which could potentially blow on students and contaminate them. The site is not even adequately fenced off from the kindergarten and primary school students. I have had many calls from concerned parents, residents and school council members who want this problem fixed. I have brought this serious problem to the attention of the minister. The Labor government must take action for the sake of Tintinara students and staff, and the residents of the local community. The mismanagement of the BER program is astounding. The Labor government must act now. I am calling on the government to admit their program is a complete failure in many areas and to fix the serious problems it is leaving behind.
Another matter I would like to raise in the House are the issues with services in the township of Keith, which I might add is my home town. Keith has been in the spotlight a bit of late as they have lost their childcare facilities. Now the hospital has been told its state government funding will be cut by 60 per cent. I want to start with the childcare centre though. Keith has been really struggling without any childcare facilities for five months now. I have raised this issue with the media and I spoke about it quite a lot before the election. I have called on the minister, Kate Ellis, several times to take action and there was some talk that funding might be available. I stand here today to ask the minister again because no action has been taken. So I am asking the minister to make sure action is taken in Keith and to make sure they do not go without child care.
The other huge issue now facing the township is that the state government has said it will cut the funding for the hospital by 60 per cent. It is almost as if Labor has it in for the township of Keith. All of us in this place can understand that when you need to get to hospital you want to get there as quickly as you can to get treatment. If a family member or friend is in the hospital you want to be able to support them, visit them and be close to them. If this funding cut goes ahead, the hospital will last only for nine months as the situation is unsustainable. It will close its doors, meaning local residents will travel 50 kilometres or more for treatment. Having to travel as many as 100 kilometres, for example, to the nearest hospital will be a real burden on the Keith community. Also, it could be a matter of life or death—one that residents do not want to be considering as they already have a perfectly good hospital in the township.
The federal government has invested quite heavily in this local community hospital. Both the Howard government and, recently, the Labor government have given funding totalling about $1.3 million for capital works—and it has been a great job. If this hospital were to close it doors, not only would that funding be wasted but it would be absolutely devastating for the local township. That is especially as federal governments of both persuasions have seen the need for investing in its infrastructure.
I heard the minister for health speak yesterday in the House about how important health services are. I believe that regional health services are equally as important and that having services in rural and regional Australia is imperative. Residents should not have to travel to the city to receive all their treatment. Frankly, the Labor state government is ripping out regional Australia’s basic services while the federal Labor government are trying to go the other way because of the promise they have made to the Independents to look after regional Australia.
I am calling on the Labor government to look at the situation in Keith and make a responsible decision about the hospital, one that is best for the residents, best for the workers and best for regional Australia. If this hospital closes that will cost taxpayers more. At the moment it is considered to be a private hospital. It is the state government minister’s argument that ‘it is only a private hospital and why should we be funding a private hospital?’ But it is not a private hospital in that way. It is actually a local community hospital that refused 30 years ago to be stuck in the state government health system, and as a result it is dealing with a real problem now. I think it is really interesting that there is another so-called private hospital in South Australia that is getting funding of more than three times that of Keith hospital’s. Why? Because it is in a Labor marginal seat. It is getting the funding but Keith hospital is not because it is not in a Labor seat.
Whilst on the subject of regional Australia, I also want to speak about the suggestion made by the Productivity Commission late last week to cut agriculture R&D funding. I was very disappointed to hear this, especially as I have a lot of time for the Productivity Commission and as I worked hard to increase R&D funding and was very pleased when the coalition included more funding in their election policy. The Labor government must not cut more funding to this important area. As we all know, food security is threatened in Australia and I do not want—and I am sure no-one else wants—to be forced to buy food from overseas. That is what will happen if we do not look after agriculture and water security and ensure we have sustainable food security into the future. A huge cut to R&D slicing away at Australia’s food security would certainly be a bad move. I do not want to see this and I certainly believe regional and rural Australia does not too.
Another issue which is of great importance to me is roads, and I note that during the election the minister for transport went on one of the local programs in my area and suggested that we were not committing to funding for the Dukes Highway. The Dukes Highway is the main highway from Adelaide to Melbourne. It is the busiest highway in South Australia. I have been able to get funding in the past for passing lanes and for rumble strips on the side. But the area really is in need of a dual-lane highway from Tailem Bend to the state border with Victoria as the road is that important. We have too many deaths on that road and we need to ensure that we have a busy but safe thoroughfare in the Dukes Highway. I know that you cannot just snap your fingers and say, ‘You’re going to get funding for the Dukes Highway tomorrow.’ I know that Australian road funding is fully committed to the end of 2014. But what I and the coalition are saying is that, if you want this road funded for completion of dual lanes by 2020, you have got to start the work now. You have got to make the commitment to go out there and do the engineering and planning studies so that it can be put on the list for AusLink III.
I know that. The Labor government know that but they have not made any commitment to that, whereas the coalition have made a commitment to do that very necessary engineering and planning studies so that it can be put into AusLink III and so that at least in 10 years time we will have a completed dual-lane highway. I cannot do that while in opposition. I know that this federal government have refused to do it and that if you do not start now a 2020 completion date is not going to be possible under the existing circumstances. We need more funding, especially road funding, for the Greater Green Triangle. We have an important forestry industry there for both blue gums and pines that will need that extra funding. Our people went to see the minister and he said, ‘Come back in 2014.’ It is a pretty sorry state of affairs for a minister to say that.
(Time expired)
327
13:36:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Reid
ALP
1
0
Mr MURPHY
—I honour the traditional owners of the country upon which we meet, acknowledge the elders past and present and celebrate our Indigenous peoples. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I also congratulate you on your re-election as Second Deputy Speaker, and I also take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Scullin on his re-election as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and my friend and colleague the member for Fisher on his election—
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr Danby interjecting—
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr MURPHY
—an extraordinary election, as the member for Melbourne Ports said—as Deputy Speaker of this place. I know that each and every one of you will uphold the best traditions of the occupier of that chair.
I thank the people of Reid for putting their trust in me to represent them. It is a great honour and privilege to be re-elected to this place. My sincere thanks also goes to the many true believers in my local ALP branches, to my dedicated and hardworking staff and to all of my supporters for the great job they did to secure my re-election. I also acknowledge the support provided to me by the trade union movement, particularly by Andrew Ferguson and the CFMEU, who never let me down. I also thank my wife, Adriana, for her love and support. As I said in my first speech in this place: Honey, I could not have done it without you!
As all of us elected to this place understand and appreciate, it is the hard work of so many that makes for a successful campaign. I have been elected and re-elected to this House on five occasions, but this is the first time I have been elected as the member for Reid. By way of background, following the Electoral Commission’s redistribution in New South Wales last year there were extensive boundary changes. In short, the AEC abolished the old seat of Reid and proposed to rename my former seat of Lowe as ‘McMahon’. Following 77 letters of protest in relation to the proposed name change, the AEC subsequently announced that the proposed seat of McMahon would be renamed ‘Reid’, and rightly so. I should record that the long-serving former member for Lowe and Prime Minister, Sir William McMahon, never lived in the electorate when he was the member.
Whilst the changes to my electorate undoubtedly gave rise to considerable confusion for the people in my electorate, I am very pleased to represent new communities—namely, Newington, Wentworth Point, Lidcombe, Auburn, Homebush Bay, Sydney Olympic Park, Silverwater and part of Berala. Reid also includes the largest cemetery in the southern hemisphere, Rookwood Cemetery, and the Silverwater detention centre. The new boundaries stretch from the natural boundary of Duck River in Silverwater in the west and go along the northern border of the Parramatta River to Drummoyne in the east. The southern boundary runs along the train line through parts of Croydon, Burwood and Strathfield. Inside these new boundaries is the thriving and vibrant community, rich with cultural diversity, that I am so honoured to represent.
The Leader of the House pointed out that the parliament now includes the first Indigenous member of federal parliament and the first member of the Islamic faith. I congratulate the new member for Hasluck and acknowledge his inspirational and sensitive first speech, and I look forward to the first speech of the new member for Chifley. This parliament now includes representatives that better reflect the composition of our society, and this is a great leap forward for our country.
My former electorate of Lowe was also multicultural. However, the inclusion of suburbs such as Auburn, Lidcombe and Berala now make my electorate one of the most culturally diverse in the country. Information from the 2006 census indicates that almost 50 per cent of the people in my electorate, based on the 2009 boundary changes, speak a language other than English. Reid has the fifth highest proportion of persons speaking a language other than English in Australia. It is a large melting pot of Chinese, Turkish, Lebanese, Indian, Italian, Vietnamese, Sri Lankan, Filipino, English, African, Korean and many more migrants who have chosen to call Reid their home. Needless to say, the government’s second term agenda to improve social inclusiveness is a welcome announcement that will undoubtedly assist many of my constituents in overcoming social disadvantage, and I will come back to that point later in my speech. I was heartened by the very warm welcome I received from the schools, community organisations, community leaders and state and local representatives in the new part of my electorate. I look forward to working with them in the coming term.
Historically, Reid has had strong representation. My electorate is named after Australia’s fourth Prime Minister, Sir George Reid, who lived from 1845 to 1918. He was one of the framers of the constitution, Premier of New South Wales from 1894 to 1899 and Prime Minister of Australia from 1904 to 1905. Esteemed Labor members who have gone before me to represent Reid include Jack Lang, Tom Uren and Laurie Ferguson, all towering figures in the Labor movement.
It will be a challenge for me to fill the very big shoes of the Hon. Laurie Ferguson, and I am pleased I sit beside Laurie in this parliament. Laurie’s hard work as the member for Reid for 20 years ensured the ALP brand remained strong, and I thank him for that. From the many people with whom I met and spoke, it was evident that the former Member for Reid is very respected for the commitment and unfailing efforts he made within the community. I assure him that I am committed to building on his great record. I am also very pleased to note that Mr Ferguson was also elected to the 43rd parliament as the member for Werriwa. I congratulate Mr Ferguson on his re-election. I know he will be an outstanding representative for the people of Werriwa.
The 2010 federal election was indeed historic and has already brought much change for the better. We now experience our first hung parliament in 70 years, we have our first female Prime Minister leading our great country and we look forward to the reforms that will take place in this parliament. The results of the election provide a sobering reminder that nothing can be taken for granted. There was nothing more sobering for me than, when I first came into this chamber on Tuesday to be sworn in, to look across to the other side of the chamber and see that those opposite outnumbered us—that is, the Labor Party.
KV5
Neville, Paul, MP
Mr Neville
—Sobering indeed!
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr MURPHY
—That is in the forefront of my mind, for the benefit of my friend the member for Hinkler. I know that my electorate of Reid has sent a clear message about the need for the government to act on climate change. The significant increase in the number of votes for the Greens in my electorate highlights that the people I represent expect more from our government in addressing the challenges posed by climate change. I have spoken for many years on climate change. I realise that time is going to beat me today, but I will continue to speak out when I get the opportunity to resume.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—In fact it has! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The member will have an opportunity to continue his remarks in the debate, which may be resumed at a later hour this day.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
330
Statements by Members
Sugarloaf Pipeline
330
330
13:45:00
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
0
0
Dr STONE
—On 7 September this year, at the height of the northern Victorian floods, communities in the upper- and lower-Goulburn catchment, in the electorates of McEwen, Murray and Indi, were watching helplessly as their infrastructure was destroyed, homes inundated and crops and livestock drowned. So I sent off an urgent email begging the Victorian Premier, John Brumby, and his ministers to have a heart and turn off the north-south pipeline pumps, and to do it immediately because the extra water being released out of Eildon Dam for Melbourne was making the flooding worse.
I know it is shocking and decent people will find it hard to believe but, even as we were battling the flood disaster, Melbourne Water continued to demand that 300 megalitres per year be released out of the dam into the flooding river so it could be piped away to rain-soaked Melbourne. And absurdly the state’s Goulburn-Murray water authority was also releasing 130 megalitres each day from the dam as environmental flow. This meant that every day the equivalent of 430 Olympic-sized swimming pools were being pushed into the flooding river, backing up the tributaries and adding pressure to the levies downstream.
The Victorian government was either oblivious to or could not have cared less about this. We watched the TV news showing Premier Brumby in his suit lumping sandbags for the cameras while 430 megalitres were being pushed every day into the flood to send water down the pipeline to Melbourne. But it seems that even the Victorian government can be shamed into action sometimes, and within hours of my emails on 7 September they turned off the north-south pipeline pumps at Yea.
(Time expired)
Page Electorate: Telstra
330
330
13:46:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
0
Ms SAFFIN
—Two days ago, all honourable members would have received by email an invitation to join Telstra’s CEO, David Thodey, and chair, Catherine Livingstone, for cocktails at a function booked here on 18 October. My reply to them was as follows: ‘I do not want cocktails; I just want you to save the 108 jobs of the workers at the Grafton call centre which you announced two days ago you are about to axe.’ As well, Telstra told those workers that it would be from 23 November—just before Christmas.
There is widespread community support to keep the jobs there. I got a petition going and everybody joined in: the state member, the federal member for Richmond beside me, the member for Cowper, the member for Lyne and others. There were 5,920 signatures on the petition, which we got in the Grafton community. Two local people, Shirley and John Adams, sat all week and got those signatures. Now the mayors are also joining with us to make sure that we say, ‘Hang up on Telstra.’ If they want to hang up on us in the country and desert us in regional Australia then we will desert them. We spend a lot of money with Telstra and this is just no way to act. There is a whole lot more action coming. The fight to save the jobs of the 108 workers is not over yet.
Gilmore Electorate: Nerriga Road
330
330
13:47:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
0
0
Mrs GASH
—This weekend I will be joining the small township of Nerriga to celebrate the sealing of Main Road 92 from Nowra to Canberra—finally! This is a project that has been a long time coming. In fact, it was on 29 March 1998 that we signed the memorandum of understanding. From inception it has taken 12 years to have the project delivered.
When the coalition won government in 1996, one of the first things we did was to start addressing the neglect of regional and rural Australia by the previous Labor government. Among the projects considered was the development of an improved roads and freight transport network for south-east Australia, and that was the dirt track from Nowra to Canberra. In 1998 the then Prime Minister, John Howard, allocated $35 million in funding towards the construction of the road, as did the New South Wales government, and Shoalhaven City Council contributed $12 million. There were three levels of government working together, but it took three years for the New South Wales Labor government to come on board. It seems the importance of this link for the health and growth of the economy of the Shoalhaven was apparent to all but the Labor Party in New South Wales. Largely as a result of the delaying tactics of the New South Wales government, the project has finally been completed in 2010 with a budget overrun of $15 million and six years late.
Thanks should go to the former member for Gilmore, John Sharp, then minister for roads; Greg Watson, the former mayor of Shoalhaven City Council; Greg Pullen Frenchy from 2ST and his mate JJ; and the community, who supported the project all the way through many difficult days. I will certainly be celebrating, having been given the honour of unveiling the plaque in the township of Nerriga this Saturday, and look forward to a much more accelerated and scenic trip to Nowra. And I invite all colleagues to come—(Time expired)
Kingston Electorate: Reynella Neighbourhood Centre
331
331
13:49:00
Rishworth, Amanda, MP
HWA
Kingston
ALP
1
0
Ms RISHWORTH
—I rise today to congratulate the Reynella Neighbourhood Centre on its 21st birthday. I was delighted last Sunday to be celebrating with the volunteers, community members and staff of this important centre in our local community. The centre has been providing the local community a place to gather for over 50 years; however, 21 years ago the centre was expanded and developed into the centre we know today.
The centre’s mission statement says it is a place for people to meet, value and respect each other’s contributions, recognise strengths and differences in individuals and provide opportunities for lifelong learning, growth and fun. And when I attended the centre last Sunday this was certainly on display.
The centre provides a range of activities for young people through to seniors. I got to talk to people from the writers club, and their diverse talents and experience was certainly on show. Ms Jem Peck, the secretary, told me that the neighbourhood centre is all about bringing people in the community together. This neighbourhood centre would not be able to run without its volunteers, and I would like to congratulate all the volunteers and the staff for this very important centre that really does bring our community together in the southern suburbs of Adelaide.
Fraser Coast Youth Mentoring Program
331
331
13:50:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
0
0
Mr NEVILLE
—The Fraser Coast’s much admired youth mentoring school and student support program, the Triple S program, sponsored by the neighbourhood centre, was scaled down in April and closed in June because neither the state nor the federal Labor governments would fund its ongoing operations. In contrast, the coalition pledged, on election to government, $600,000 to the program, recognising the great work it does in supporting challenged youth to stay involved in education. Sadly, my Labor opponent at the election refused to match this commitment, leaving the Triple S program in a parlous state. Labor does not recognise its value, despite its keeping kids connected with their education—something which is fundamentally a responsibility of government.
At least 500 students have taken part in the program since it began in 2007, a quarter of them Indigenous, while 188 volunteer mentors have been trained to help the students. Since the program started, Hervey Bay’s crime rate amongst eight- to 12-year-olds has dropped dramatically. The Triple S program enjoys strong community support and I urge the Attorney-General and the government to consider reinstating this valuable program for disadvantaged youth if indeed we want to have an education revolution.
Energy Efficiency
332
332
13:53:00
Perrett, Graham, MP
HVP
Moreton
ALP
1
0
Mr PERRETT
—I bring to the attention of the House the release yesterday of the ABARE-BRS report
End use energy intensity in the Australian economy.
This report highlights the improvements that have occurred in Australia’s energy efficiency. Specifically, the report shows that the energy intensity of the Australian economy improved by 1.2 per cent a year on average between 1989-90 and 2007-08. This means that households and businesses are saving money by using less energy, also delivering environmental benefits.
Even the malcontents on the other side know that the introduction of a carbon price will drive further energy efficiency gains and protect our economy in the long term. Just this week, the Prime Minister announced the membership and terms of reference for the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee to explore options for the introduction of a carbon price and there is still room at the table for someone such as Mal Washer or Malcolm Turnbull, or anyone else who volunteers. It is clear that the biggest roadblock to further gains in energy efficiency is Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah. Now more than ever, Australia needs Mal or Malcolm, not the malcontent.
Economy
332
332
13:54:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
1
0
Mr RIPOLL
—I want to inform the House of the report from the International Monetary Fund which says that the Australian economy is on a sound footing and has praised the government’s management of the global financial crisis and its strategy for returning the budget to a surplus. We have all worked very hard in this government to keep people employed, to keep people in their homes and in their businesses. I plead with the banks not to raise interest rates beyond the official rate set by the Reserve Bank of Australia.
We all acknowledge that this is a two-speed economy and that we have to be vigilant and work very hard, but the people who can least afford a rise in interest rates are those who have mortgages and those in small businesses around this country who need the support of their bankers, lenders and financiers, to ensure they survive and grow their businesses and keep people employed. As a government we have worked very hard to make sure that is the case. We want to keep people in jobs, we want to keep people in their homes and we want to keep people in their businesses but we need the banks to help us. I plead with the banks today not to profit-take, not to profiteer, not to outrageously raise interest rates beyond what is reasonable, beyond what the Reserve Bank of Australia does. The banks can afford to do this, given their record profits. This government supported the banks in their darkest hours and banks should return that favour to the taxpayers who funded their current profits.
Small Business
332
332
332
13:55:00
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
0
0
Mr BILLSON
—Macy Gray’s 1999 debut album has a song on it called
Why Didn’t You Call Me?
That must be the tune which small business organisations are hearing in their heads. What happened was that the Labor government went out of their way to show an interest in small business when they were seeking election in 2007 and they have done precious little ever since—300,000 jobs have been lost in small businesses around Australia while the government boasts about jobs growth more generally in the economy.
To add insult to injury, what must Prime Minister Gillard have been thinking when she appointed Senator Sherry as Minister for Small Business. Senator Sherry has a reputation of hostility to small business. When he was the Assistant Treasure he went after independent contractors and the self-employed, after going to those people in the spirit of Macy Gray, getting all close and personal prior to 2007, assuring them there would be no change to the personal services income tax regime, that Labor can be trusted, that the more than two million people who derive their livelihood from self-employment could rest assured with Labor—no change. But what have we learnt now?
Since that time and during the last term of government, Prime Minister Gillard, the Assistant Treasurer and other Labor ministers have been meeting with a gaggle of unions to do over independent contractors. Macy Gray may have a song which is attractive, but this Labor government is far from attractive to the small business community. It is about time they took seriously this significant section of our economy. They should give them a call. They are yet to speak to them and it is nearly three weeks since ministers were appointed.
Indigenous Affairs
333
333
13:57:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
1
0
Ms GRIERSON
—I rise to add my thanks to Matilda House, a
Ngambri elder, for the welcome to country extended to us on Tuesday as we celebrated the opening of this parliament. The setting outdoors was magnificent on that wonderful mosaic forecourt, designed by Michael Nelson Tjakamarra, on a clear, crisp Canberra day. It made it not just a generous welcome but an important gesture of inclusion in the work we do here in this place—the people’s parliament truly representing all the people of Australia. I also wish to publicly register my appreciation to the
Awabakal and Worimi
elders, past and present, of the Newcastle area, which I represent, and give them my commitment to continue to work with them to advance their ideals and aspirations.
Today the Speaker, the very honourable Harry Jenkins, read an acknowledgement to country, so long overdue but finally a part of the standing orders of this place. This process of inclusion will only be complete when, as Minister Macklin said, Indigenous Australians have a voice. I look forward to an opening of parliament where the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples presents to us their charter of priorities for us to act on and implement in this place, as the minister has said, ‘in a new partnership based on trust, goodwill and mutual respect’.
Farrer Electorate: Deniliquin Ute Muster
333
333
13:58:00
Ley, Sussan, MP
00AMN
Farrer
LP
0
0
Ms LEY
—After such a welcome week to the 43rd Parliament, I wish to invite members, senators and indeed all listening to this broadcast to join the warm and cosy crowd down the road this weekend at the annual Deniliquin ute muster. Located in my electorate of Farrer, this wonderful country shindig dates back to 1999, when Deniliquin wrote itself into history by claiming the
Guinness Book of World Records
title for the largest parade of legally registered utes in the world.
In March of that year, a small group of community minded people got together with the aim of starting a rural theme festival to bring visitors to Deniliquin—our beautiful, vibrant, town on the edge of the New South Wales outback. Many suggestions were raised and discussions centred on the shape and genre of the new festival. It was unanimously agreed that it must showcase the pride of our unique Deniliquin way of life. Hence the Deni Play on the Plains Festival was conceived, a festival to be held on the flattest natural open plains on earth. Youth culture, an intrinsic part of Deniliquin, would play a major part in the festival. Hence the Deni world record ute muster burst into the national psyche. An amazing 2,839 drivers took part, clearly establishing Deniliquin as the ute capital of the world. A new world record bid has since been held as part of the annual Play on the Plains Festival each October New South Wales Labour Day long weekend.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 2 pm, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
334
Ministerial Arrangements
334
14:00:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
0
Ms GILLARD
—I inform the House that the Minister for Human Services and Minister for Social Inclusion will be absent from question time today as she is due to give birth to her third child. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship will answer questions on her behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
334
14:00:00
Questions Without Notice
Climate Change: Economy
334
14:00:00
334
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr ABBOTT
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that since December 2007 electricity prices are up by 34 per cent, water prices are up 29 per cent, gas prices are up 26 per cent and health costs are up 18 per cent. Is this not evidence that her prime ministership has been 100 wasted days on top of three wasted years? I ask the Prime Minister: why is she now going to make cost-of-living pressures worse by putting a great big carbon price on everything.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. There was a discussion about the outcome of the discussions on parliamentary reform as it related to the standing order to do with questions. I indicated yesterday that, whilst there had been no change except for the addition of the length of questions, it was my intention to make sure that standing order 100 was adhered to. On the basis of the argument that was involved in that question, it should be ruled out of order. I will allow it on this occasion, but I am indicating quite clearly that standing order 100 will be adhered to and, in the spirit of the agreement, that will not inhibit the ability of the opposition to hold the government to account.
334
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I presume that that question was about pricing carbon and about the cost of living. On the issue of pricing carbon, I remind the Leader of the Opposition that around a year ago—in fact, it was on 2 October 2009, so the one-year anniversary of these remarks is coming up very soon—he said:
We don’t want to play games with the planet. So we are taking this issue seriously and we would like to see an ETS …
That is, an emissions trading scheme, which of course is about pricing carbon. That was Tony Abbott on 2 October 2009. On this question of pricing carbon, all I can hope is that the Tony Abbott who is with us on 2 October 2010 is the same man who made that statement, because if the Leader of the Opposition was able to show between one year and the next that he could say and believe the same thing then on 2 October 2010 presumably he would accept my invitation to work in good faith on a multiparty committee to work through options for pricing carbon. But I am not optimistic on this. I am generally an optimist, but I am not optimistic on this because, as we know, the Leader of the Opposition has had every position possible to have on pricing carbon, causing the member for Wentworth to describe him as a ‘weather vane’—you have to look out the window to work out what he believes today.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister will not debate an answer.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—On the question of cost of living, I am glad he has raised it because Australians have avoided the opposition leader’s ‘great big new tax on everything’, which he was intending to impose by increasing company tax that would have increased prices at shops—at Woolworths, at Coles—and it would have put a burden on working families.
What the government has done, and will continue to do, is to act to ease cost-of-living pressures on working families. That is why we have lowered tax, for example, so that a person on $50,000 a year is now paying $1,750 less in tax than they were in 2007-08—that is, 18 per cent less tax. We have increased pensions; we have introduced the education tax refund, and we are intending to extend that so that people can claim against the cost of school uniforms; we have increased the childcare tax rebate to help take the pressure off working families using child care; we have introduced the teen dental plan to help with the expensive cost of dentistry; and we as a government will introduce the promised changes to family tax benefit A to assist families with the cost of teenagers, which would increase by up to $4,000 the amount of family tax benefit that families receive; we will move to pay the child care tax rebate fortnightly; we will introduce paid parental leave from 1 January next year; we will make tax returns easier, including an automatic deduction; and we will provide tax relief for savings accounts. So any time the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk to me about cost of living I am more than happy to do so.
Trade
335
335
14:05:00
Perrett, Graham, MP
HVP
Moreton
ALP
1
Mr PERRETT
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on Australia’s role in promoting international trade and what this says about the importance of reform?
335
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for his question. In the coming days I will be travelling to Brussels to participate in the Asia Europe Meeting. This is a forum that has been meeting since 1996. It is the eighth such meeting but it is the first time that Australia has been able to participate in this meeting. I think it is good news that Australia will have a seat at the table as leaders from Asia and Europe meet. At these discussions I will seek to pursue discussions that relate to Australia’s security and prosperity.
On the question of security, I will be taking the opportunity to discuss our continued cooperation with NATO partners on Afghanistan. On the question of prosperity, obviously this is one of the international meetings at which, as a nation, we pursue dialogue with the world about recovery from the global financial crisis. This is another opportunity to talk through the economic issues that the globe has faced, and continues to face, from that event, which of course triggered a global recession—the biggest synchronised economic downturn we have seen since the Great Depression.
At the time that the global financial crisis started there were great fears that this would lead to a new round of protectionism—that under pressure people would turn inward and that under pressure people would demand of their leaders and of their governments a return to protectionism. I think we should be congratulating ourselves and, indeed, the reactions of leaders around the world that those grim fears about a wide-scale return to protectionism have not been realised. Australia has played its part in world economic forums, including the G20, in making sure that the world did not close down, the world did not move back to protectionism and the world did not turn its face away from free trade. That is vital for our economic security because, put as simply as possible, trade equals jobs in this great trading nation of ours.
So at this international meeting I will of course be pursuing the trade and global economic agenda, understanding that we in this country are able to make our way in a competitive world and we are able to hold our heads up on the world stage when it comes to these economic questions. I will be able to say that we as a nation worked together to see the challenges of the global financial crisis and to rise to meet those challenges. We met them through the provision of economic stimulus, we met them through employers and employees working together to make sure that jobs continued to be there for Australians and, as a result, we are emerging from the global financial downturn stronger than any other major advanced economy in the world, well positioned for the growth of the future and well positioned as a great trading nation to make sure that through trade we continue to increase jobs.
Interest Rates
336
336
14:09:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to broad market expectations that interest rates will increase by up to one per cent over the next 12 months. That is more than $3,000 per annum on the average home loan. When will the Treasurer listen to the advice of the coalition, the IMF—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—It’s free advice, old china—free advice. When will the Treasurer listen to the advice of the coalition, the IMF, the Reserve Bank and his own Treasury and cut government spending to reduce upward pressure on interest rates?
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The House will come to order!
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister!
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Minister for Tourism might enjoy tourism.
00AN1
Cobb, John, MP
Mr John Cobb interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Calare might join him on the tour. The Treasurer has the call.
336
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. His question is based on a false premise, and it is part and parcel of an interest rate scare campaign that has been run unsuccessfully by those opposite for years and years. The fact of the matter is this: the Governor of the Reserve Bank has said that the finances of the Australian government are in terrific shape. Those opposite like to pretend that the global recession never happened and that we should not have put in place stimulus to support jobs and small business, and they want to continue with the fiction that somehow the deficit that is in place and being wound back by us is having an impact on interest rates. It is not. You only have to look at the statements of the Governor of the Reserve Bank and, indeed, the statements of bodies like the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the Reserve Bank and the market economists that I was quoting in this House yesterday.
The fact is that when those opposite were last in power the cash rate went to 6.75 per cent and interest rates went up 10 times in a row, and that happened after they said they would keep rates at record lows. We will not be engaged in the dishonesty that they are engaged in by pretending that we can control interest rates. Those are decisions for the Reserve Bank. But what we as the government of Australia can do is to keep our national finances in the best shape we possibly can, and that is what we are doing.
Yesterday I indicated that we are engaged in the fastest fiscal consolidation since the early 1960s, and we are being given the big tick by the IMF and the Governor of the Reserve Bank for doing that because that is the responsible thing to do in these circumstances. I make the point that interest rates now are lower than they were for 95 per cent of the time that those opposite were in government. The fact is that they did lose control of the economy in their last year in office, and their reckless spending did put upward pressure on interest rates at that stage. They went on a spending spree at the height of a mining boom.
It has fallen to us to put in place responsible economic management which will put downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on rates, but those opposite should not pretend that governments can control what the Reserve Bank will do when the economy is recovering and it adjusts rates. Governments cannot do that, but what governments can and must do is put in place responsible fiscal policy. That is what this government is doing, and we are doing that in the interests of the Australian people.
Economy
337
337
14:14:00
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
HVN
Petrie
ALP
1
Mrs D’ATH
—My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on what the International Monetary Fund and other international institutions have had to say about the government’s fiscal strategy and budget settings?
337
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for Petrie for her question. As I was saying before, overnight the Australian economy and Australian economic policy have received a very big tick from the International Monetary Fund. They have said that the Australian government did a very good job in keeping our economy out of recession.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—No they didn’t.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Yes they did. They have endorsed the application of our medium-term fiscal policy, which is as I said before the fastest fiscal consolidation since the early 1960s. The conclusions of this report are crystal clear, and I think I ought to quote the report in some detail. In this report the IMF is strongly endorsing the government’s commitment to fiscal discipline and to bringing our budget back into surplus three years early. That is what the IMF is doing. The report states:
The exit from the stimulus, which began this year, sees the budget back in surplus by 2012/13. If the recovery in Australia proceeds as expected, this pace of withdrawal is appropriate. This is faster than past consolidations in Australia and plans in most other advanced economies.
…
…
…
While public debt is projected to remain very low by advanced economy standards, returning quickly to budget surpluses as the authorities intend will put Australia on firmer footing to deal with future shocks.
That is a very big tick from the IMF. But it is not just the IMF—Standard and Poor’s put out a report last week which said this:
Australia has one of the strongest fiscal positions globally, with a net general government debt burden less than half the level of the AAA rated median.
This is a ringing endorsement of the finances of the Australian government and the Australian people, and that is why this government have put at the very core of our economic agenda a very strong fiscal consolidation. It is a bit rich to be lectured on fiscal rectitude by those opposite, because they had a $10.6 billion costing con job at the heart—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat. The Treasurer is straying into what is argument, and he would have to convince me that it was directly relevant to the question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Mr Speaker, it was a question about spending and its impact on the economy. You would have thought that, if they wanted to make the critique that they are making, there would be some alternative policy. But the fact is they would spend more and their surpluses would be much lower, and what Treasury found was a $10.6 billion black hole—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was not about opposition policy, and therefore how is this being directly relevant to the question he was asked?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Treasurer will be directly relevant to the question. This type of argument in an answer may have been allowed in the 42nd Parliament, but it is not something that is encouraged in the 43rd Parliament.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—We on this side of the House understand how important strong economic management is; that is why we are bringing the budget back to surplus in three years, three years early. What we have been doing in this House has been endorsed by the IMF and other responsible authorities. That goes to the very core of this government’s strong economic management credentials.
Emissions Trading Scheme
338
338
14:19:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
0
Mrs GASH
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer you to the New South Wales government analysis showing that households will pay an extra $300 a year for electricity if a carbon tax is introduced. For pensioners this will mean that the recent pension increase is largely taken up by higher electricity bills. Does the Prime Minister stand by her previous promises to ease cost of living pressures, and if so will she now abandon her government’s plans for a carbon tax?
338
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. First and foremost, pensioners have had a historic rise in the pension as the result of the actions of this government. I pay tribute to the relevant minister, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, for her making that decision, which has assisted pensioners around the country. Undoubtedly many older Australians, many Australians on limited and fixed incomes, still find it very, very difficult to make ends meet. I understand that.
Electricity prices, power prices, place a particular burden on people. I understand the member for Gilmore would be concerned about this but I would ask her to recognise that experts in the field, whether it is TRUenergy or others in the energy sector, are telling us that one of the factors that puts great upward pressure on electricity prices is the lack of investment in new power generation. That lack of investment in new power generation is occurring because of a lack of certainty by industry about what will happen with carbon pricing. So for as long as industry is uncertain we will see this lack of investment, and it is this lack of investment that puts upward pressure on electricity prices.
This really is a matter of common sense. We are talking about multibillion dollar investments and consequently people want certainty. In the election campaign the member for Gilmore may have seen that the government committed itself to introducing mandatory standards for electricity generation in relation to the future of power stations. We do not want to see in the future new power stations constructed that are high carbon emitters; we do not want to see new dirty coal fired power stations constructed. We will work in consultation with industry to set the standard that will be there for the future and that will give some certainty to industry as they invest.
Beyond that, industry is asking us to address the question of carbon pricing. The government has set about doing that through the multiparty committee working in a collaborative way to look at options for pricing carbon. If the member for Gilmore is seriously concerned about these questions, and I accept in good faith that she is, then the best thing for her to do would be to seek to persuade her party leader, the Leader of the Opposition, to become involved in the process and to go back to the version of the Leader of the Opposition that existed on 2 October last year. He has just got to take himself back 12 months to when he believed in pricing carbon. If he believed in pricing carbon then, there is no reason he should not believe in it now and be involved in this process.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister has resumed her seat.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard interjecting—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—You sat down because you’re so hopeless.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Sturt will leave the chamber for one hour.
The member for Sturt then left the chamber.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—If those on my left need an explanation, the record can show—and I will take the consequences—that yes, there was an element that I sat the Prime Minister down for, but that does not allow somebody without the call to stand at the despatch box and throw endearments across the table.
Broadband
339
339
14:24:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—My question is to the Prime Minister. How will high speed broadband, such as that being rolled out in my electorate, drive a modern, productive Australian economy?
339
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for Braddon for his question. In answering this question, I say very clearly to the House that I have taken inspiration from the first speech in this parliament yesterday by the member for Greenway, who gave a great dissertation about the National Broadband Network. In her speech she reminded all of us that if you look across human history it is divided into those who embraced the challenges of the future and those who were stuck in the past. Inspired by the member for Greenway, I found another few examples of people who did not see fit to embrace the challenges of the future. Thomas Watson, the Chairman of IBM, said in 1943:
I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
He might have missed the challenges of the future. HM Warner of Warner Bros said in 1927:
Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?
And Decca Records said in 1962:
We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.
These are a few examples of people who missed the challenges of the future. In the modern age we have the Leader of the Opposition saying that the National Broadband Network is a ‘white elephant’. That will join this series of quotes as yet another example of someone who cannot embrace the challenges of the future.
When we look for inspiration about the challenges of the future we should probably look at some of the studies around the world looking into the benefits of broadband. I draw the House’s attention to the United Nations Broadband Commission for Digital Development, which demonstrated the economic benefits of high speed broadband in its report:
In the 21st Century, broadband networks must be regarded as vital national infrastructure—similar to transport, energy and water networks, but with an impact that is even more powerful and far reaching.
The report goes on to say:
… for every 10 per cent increase in broadband penetration we can expect an average of 1.3 per cent additional growth in national gross domestic product (GDP) …
Broadband is the infrastructure of the future, which is why the government is committed to building it. Meanwhile, we see the other side on a mission of destruction to prevent Australia having this technology of the future.
Members of the parliament and members of the Australian public may have seen claims from the opposition about cost-benefit analyses and the National Broadband Network. I draw the attention of the House and members of the public to the fact that an independent McKinsey-KPMG implementation study has been conducted into the National Broadband Network. It was done at a cost of around $25 million and it has produced a weighty tome that makes
War and Peace
look like an airport novel. I recommend members, if they are seriously interested in understanding the economic benefits of the National Broadband Network, to look at that implementation study. We are committed to the technology of the future. I say to the opposition: it is time to stop the campaign of destruction, to recognise the benefits of the National Broadband Network and to work with the government to ensure that Australia gets this technology of the future.
Broadband
340
340
14:28:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the Treasury’s advice to the incoming government which warns that the $43 billion National Broadband Network ‘carries significant risks, including financial risk for the public balance sheet and risks around competition and efficiency’. Will the Treasurer precisely explain to the House the nature of these risks, when they were first drawn to his attention and why, given the gravity of the Treasury’s warning, a thorough cost-benefit analysis of this project is not being conducted as a means of managing and mitigating those risks?
(Time expired)
340
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I welcome the question from the member for Wentworth about this very important national investment, which has got the potential to lift the speed of our economy, to substantially improve productivity and to take the Australian economy into the 21st century in a confident way. He mentioned the red book, and I think there would have been similar advice in the blue book as well. It pays to read these documents in full, because what the red book said to the incoming government was simply this. It said: ‘A more competitive and hence more efficient and productive telecommunications sector will come from the NBN.’ It went on to say: ‘It is a transformational infrastructure resource for the economy, enabling new and enhanced ways of delivering business and government services and facilitating communication.’
Nothing could be more dishonest than to put that question the way it was put by the member for Wentworth, because the fact is that Treasury is very, very supportive of the NBN and has been involved in the process from day 1. It is important we go through this, because the fiction has been maintained by those opposite that there has not been a substantial business case built for the NBN, and of course there has been a very substantial amount of study and work from experts, both domestic and international. It started with the independent expert panel shortly after we were elected. Sitting on that independent expert panel was the Secretary to the Treasury. They are quoting Treasury advice. It is very important to understand these linkages.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Reluctantly, Mr Speaker, I do raise a point of order on relevance. How is this answer directly relevant to the question that was asked, which is about the significant risks, including the financial risk for the public balance sheet, in the red book? It is the risks that were alluded to in the red book that he must provide an answer to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The honourable member will resume his seat. The question then did go on to ask for certain actions and, whilst it may be that some think it is a long bow that the response from the Treasurer is directly relevant to the nature of the need for a cost-benefit analysis, others might think otherwise. The Treasurer is responding to the question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Mr Speaker, the very first risk is not to build the NBN.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Treasurer would be starting to argue the case if he were going to keep on that line.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—The Treasury secretary was on the panel that we appointed, which concluded that none of the private-sector proposals offered value for money. So we then moved through. We took the decision to build the NBN and we then commissioned an implementation study by McKinsey and KPMG, which concluded there was a strong and viable business case. That is a study of something like 500 pages. Those opposite have been wandering around the country saying that we decided to embark upon this, we did not have any advice, we did not have any analysis and we did not have any costings. We had all of those, and all of that is presented in the implementation study. It says the project can expect to earn rates of return of between six to seven per cent. That gives us enough to pay back the cost of funds over time and to pay back the taxpayer.
But with any major investment of course there is a risk. There is always a risk with any major undertaking that a government enters into, and the Treasury is logically saying to the government, as they have done and will continue to do: ‘This is a very important project for Australia. You are going to get value for money. We do need it to lift our productivity. But what we have to do is work our way through all the issues.’
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—That’s not right! That’s ridiculous!
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—That is right and it is not ridiculous. It shows you what a strange and bizarre world those opposite now inhabit that they can deny the logic of the Treasury advice, the logic of the Treasury participation in this process and the logic of the red—(Time expired)
Afghanistan
341
341
14:34:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
1
Mr RIPOLL
—My question is to the Minister for Defence. Why has the government decided to provide additional artillery trainers to Afghanistan? What further commitments of Australian personnel and equipment are necessary to meet our objectives and mission in Afghanistan?
341
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
Minister for Defence
1
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—I thank the member for Oxley for his question. The rationale for the provision of artillery trainers is the same as the rationale for our mission in Afghanistan and Oruzgan province generally: to train the Afghan National Security Forces to put them in a position of being able to handle, manage and cater for security issues. That is why we are training the Afghan National Army and making a contribution to training the Afghan police force.
This is consistent with the Afghanistan conference recently held in Kabul to set the timetable for a transition to security arrangements to Afghan authorities by 2014 and consistent with the advice of the Chief of the Defence Force that our mission in Oruzgan province can be effected over a two- to four-year timetable. I think the nature and scope of our mission will be better understood as a result of the parliamentary debate, and the government looks forward to that, as I indicated yesterday.
I am also asked about other personnel and equipment. It is worth recollecting of course that just over a year ago the government committed itself to increasing our contribution in Afghanistan from 1,100 to 1,550, effectively a 40 per cent increase, and we did that in advance of the US, ISAF and NATO surge, which, rule of thumb, was also about 40 per cent.
It is also worth remembering we are not there alone. Often people make comments about these matters as if we were there by ourselves. We are not. We are part of an international coalition both in Afghanistan generally and in Oruzgan province and, as a consequence of that, we of course have access to ISAF enablers, air, artillery and the like.
It is also important to remember that the government has recently embarked upon a program of over $1.1 billion worth of force protection measures, and they are currently under way. As I indicated when I returned from Afghanistan with the CDF and the Secretary of Defence, we are looking at whether more measures can be effected so far as countering roadside booby traps or IEDs is concerned. We follow the advice of the CDF in these matters. As the Leader of the Opposition correctly said in the course of the election campaign, if additional contributions are to be made they should appropriately be made on the advice of the CDF, and consistently the CDF has advised, again confirmed today, that the nature and amount of our contribution is sufficient and appropriate for the purposes of our mission.
I have seen the suggestions of others and, because we are dealing with a disposition of Australian forces overseas in difficult circumstances, of course we listen to what others say and take them into account. Let me refer to some of them. The first one is a sensitive matter. Of course, all of the aspects arising from the email as a result of the death of Lance Corporal MacKinney, as I have made clear and as the CDF has made clear, will be taken into account in the course of that investigation. We should not disturb that process. As the member for Fadden correctly said the other day, and as I agree with him, we should not second-guess that. All of those matters which go to alleged operational safety or operational weaknesses will be considered as part of that.
The number of troops in Oruzgan province is now greater than it was when the Dutch were there. Our training which we effect, which is now all of the Kandaks of the Afghan National Army 4th Battalion, is not done in isolation. I have seen the suggestion from the shadow minister for defence that we should put into Oruzgan anywhere from an additional 450 to 650 troops. I am sure that will be considered in the course of the parliamentary debate. The Leader of the Opposition has correctly said that he will look at these matters on the advice of the CDF. I simply make the observation that I have made previously: that is not the advice that I have received as late as today but we are always happy to ensure the Leader of the Opposition has access to the most up-to-date advice from the CDF.
Broadband
343
343
14:38:00
Fletcher, Paul, MP
L6B
Bradfield
LP
1
Mr FLETCHER
—My questions is to the minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. I refer to a statement reported on 17 August by the CEO of the iiNET, a firm providing internet access at the NBN trial locations in Tasmania, that, and I quote, ‘demand from our point of view is zero’. Will the minister advise the House exactly how many customers are currently paying for National Broadband Network service in Tasmania and how much are they paying on average?
343
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
1
Mr ALBANESE
—I thank the member for his question. I note, indeed, that we on this side of the House do support the National Broadband Network. And every member from Tasmania on this side of the House as well as, I am sure, the member for Denison are very appreciative of the fact that the NBN is being rolled out in Tasmania first. The National Broadband Network being rolled out in Tasmania just this week has added an additional provider, making it up to five. Telstra has now come out as a retailer. With regard to the—
L6B
Fletcher, Paul, MP
Mr Fletcher
—Mr Speaker, the point of order goes to relevance. The question was very clear: exactly how many customers are currently paying for NBN service in Tasmania and how much are they paying?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister will relate his remarks to the question.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—With regard to the precise number of customers in Tasmania for a particular service, I will get back to the member.
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr Southcott
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was quoting from some six-by-four cards, and I wonder if he could table the cards for the benefit of the parliament.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Boothby will resume his seat. The member for Corangamite has the call.
Hospitals
343
343
14:41:00
Cheeseman, Darren, MP
HW7
Corangamite
ALP
1
Mr CHEESEMAN
—My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How are the health services improving due to the government’s Health and Hospitals Fund? What is planned for the next round of the fund and how has this investment been received?
343
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Ms ROXON
—I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. I know—having visited Corangamite often and with the member for Corio—that as a regional member the member for Corangamite’s constituents have been very appreciative of investments to date in their area. The GP superclinic is going very well in his electorate. Not very long ago, I was with both the member for Corangamite and the member for Corio announcing the Victorian government’s allocation through our COAG funding for the redevelopment of the Belmont rehabilitation centre, for new beds at Geelong Hospital. I know that the investments in the Deakin Medical School, for example, have been vital in bringing new students to the region, who then have experience in working in hospitals like Colac and elsewhere in the community, and in providing the services and the infrastructure that are needed in the community.
The reason I have been particularly asked this question today—and the member for Lyne had some prescience yesterday in asking a similar question—is that today the Prime Minister and I, along with the minister for regional development, announced the opening of the new health and hospitals funding process, with a particular focus on rural and regional Australia. Up to $1.8 billion is available. Four applications will be assessed by our independent health and hospitals board, chaired by Bill Ferris. Applications are open as of today and the guidelines and details are available on the website. Many constituents, represented by members on both sides of this House, will have looked previously at the guidelines and will be familiar with the basic structure. But there is now additional guidance that puts a particular focus on those projects that are going to deliver services to rural and regional communities and also provide a setting for more health professionals to be trained in areas where there are severe shortages. Of course, we will look at doing things in an innovative way. So projects that are training people across disciplines, or doctors and nurses and allied health professionals who are working together or looking to use the e-health system in a new way into the future will be particularly looked at favourably. With some input from members who were consulted on these guidelines, of course those projects need to have strong local support for them to be able to be supported by our government.
We are very excited that this is an opportunity for people to look at doing things differently in rural and regional Australia. But I remind those members who represent more urban electorates that the investments we have made to date have invested significantly in the city areas as well. The whole health reform investments mean that, in a few short years, 60 per cent of all capital funding projects for hospitals whether in city or regional areas will be met by the Commonwealth. This particular round will turbocharge—a word that I have, I think, stolen from the member for Lyne—investments in rural and regional Australia. This means that projects that are currently underway, like those in Narrabri, in New England, in Tasmania, at Nepean Hospital, in Rockhampton or in Launceston will then be able to be added to what we expect will be a very large number of positive applications, which we will look at and assess in the context of next year’s budget.
Immigration Detention Centres
344
344
14:45:00
Morrison, Scott, MP
E3L
Cook
LP
0
Mr MORRISON
—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Will the minister confirm whether contractors working or tendering for work on the Curtin Detention Centre during the election campaign with the firm Complete Site Services, or any related subcontractors, were required to agree to a confidentiality clause or agreement?
344
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
McMahon
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Mr BOWEN
—This question is the latest instalment from the shadow minister’s campaign that there was some sort of secret plan to expand Curtin. Last week he said that he effectively had a smoking gun, because he found a contract for $2 million worth of fencing at Curtin. He said that it showed that there was a secret plan to expand the Curtin Detention Centre. I was at Curtin the day the shadow minister said that. I said to the centre manager at Curtin, ‘Show me this fence—‘
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister should directly relate his answer to the question today.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—I will, Mr Speaker, and it goes to the shadow minister’s claim that there is some sort of conspiracy. I said, ‘Show me this fence,’ and they said, ‘Here it is; it is around the existing accommodation.’ It has no relation to the government’s announcement.
E3L
Morrison, Scott, MP
Mr Morrison
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning relevance. I specifically asked whether there had been confidentiality clauses agreed that were a condition of the contracts tendered for those works during the pre-election period.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister will relate his remarks to the question.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—In relation to any contracts which related to stage 1—to the original construction of the detention centre at Curtin—I am advised that the situation would be, as per normal, that the contractual arrangements were set between the department and the relevant contractors.
345
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
0
Mr ABBOTT
—Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question to the same minister.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I rise on a point of order in terms of the provisions for a supplementary question. Such questions have always been allowed, according to House of Representatives practice and Senate practice, indeed, to be asked by the same member. It is a follow-up question to the question they have asked seeking additional information on the basis of the answer that has been given by the minister.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—In other jurisdictions that is not exactly the case. I was not privy to the elite three members of this House who made the agreement—under 4.2, supplementary questions:
The Leader of the Opposition or their delegate has the option of asking one supplementary question during each question time.
Can I tell you the difficulty that the presiding officer has about this agreement, because, as time has gone on, there has been a lot of interpretation about this agreement—a lot. It continues about matters that are important for getting business rolling for the next sitting Monday, I might add as an aside. I will allow this supplementary question.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—My supplementary question is to the same minister. I ask the minister: does he stand by the Prime Minister’s claim in question time yesterday that the pre-election works at Curtin related only to stage 1 of the expansion and not to stage 2 of the project?
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, that was not a supplementary question; that was an additional question. A supplementary question must follow-up upon the answer.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I think on this occasion that the difficulty is that the early parts of the original answer by the minister may have allowed this as a follow-up question, and I think that that is what I have to consider at this point in time.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr Stephen Smith
—Mr Speaker, further to the point of order, it is quite clearly the case that the supplementary question was in fact a supplementary question to the question the Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday, not a supplementary question to the question that the member here has raised.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I think that the Minister for Defence would be on very solid ground, except for the preamble to the answer that the minister gave.
345
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
McMahon
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Mr BOWEN
—I completely stand by the Prime Minister’s statements and my statements. The situation remains as the Prime Minister and I have consistently said. The department of immigration undertook contingency planning across a range of options at a range of centres. The situation is completely as the Prime Minister and I have repeated in the House and outside the House consistently since 17 September and before.
Superannuation
345
345
14:51:00
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
1
Mr MELHAM
—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I am willing to put up with the testiness, but I just indicate that I am interpreting an agreement. Perhaps I am lacking coherence for a certain business journal, but at least the member for Banks will know what I meant.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr MELHAM
—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. What do the government’s superannuation reforms mean for Australians and why is it important that these reforms are implemented?
346
Shorten, Bill, MP
00ATG
Maribyrnong
ALP
Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation
1
Mr SHORTEN
—I would like to thank the member for Banks for his question on superannuation. It will come as no surprise to members of the House that our superannuation system is the envy of the world. At $1.3 trillion it is equal to our GDP and is a source of distinct national advantage for Australia. It is the fourth largest pool of funds anywhere in the world and the fastest growing of the top five funds in the world. Having said that, I think the point about superannuation reforms is this: countries only get opportunities occasionally and we cannot afford to be complacent about them. Twenty-five years ago, a Labor government saw the opportunity and took it to create a national savings scheme that is privately run and vested in everyone’s interests. Again, there are new opportunities for this nation. When you look at the fact that a male born in 1960 had a life expectancy of 77 and now it is 84, this is a source of opportunity. The fact that the census next year will probably reveal 10,000 centenarians shows we are living longer, which means this nation needs to have adequate savings.
The good news is that in order to have adequate savings the government has put in place reforms that will meet this challenge and this opportunity. Our measures are both timely and indeed appropriate. Moving the superannuation guarantee charge from nine to 12 per cent will in fact ensure that people can retire on average weekly earnings with a greater sense of retirement security than the current system would allow. The fact that we are doubling the concessional caps for people over 50 who have superannuation fund accounts under half a million dollars will improve people’s incentives to save. The fact that we are extending the superannuation guarantee charge for 70-year-olds to 74-year-olds will allow another 33,000 people to benefit from these reforms. These are big changes and they demonstrate for 8.4 million Australians that they will have better retirement incomes than they otherwise would. There are 3½ million low-income Australians who will have more income when they retire than they otherwise would. A 30-year-old in the workforce on average wages will have an extra $108,000 courtesy of this Labor government’s reforms. An 18-year-old entering the workforce will have the opportunity to have an extra $200,000 courtesy of this government’s reforms.
But it is not just adequacy that makes these reforms important. When you look at the great terms of trade this nation is currently experiencing, we will need to have a matching growing national savings pool to help meet the investment challenges which are inevitable in the next number of years. This country cannot afford to be complacent. It is an issue upon which there is disagreement between the government and the opposition at this stage. I think that sometimes in politics there are good ideas which have to be looked at even if the opposition has initially opposed them. I have no doubt that in five and 10 years time, when some of the coalition members are still here, they will recognise that increasing the superannuation guarantee is something which the whole political process can take pride in. At some point I have no doubt that the coalition will come on board with our initiatives. All I would ask in these reforms is that they save the pain and come on board now rather than risk the irrelevance of an opposition never supporting a national savings pool and never supporting adequate retirement for millions of Australians.
Murray-Darling Basin
346
346
14:56:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
Mr WINDSOR
—Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. As the minister responsible for the joint issues of population and water, and with the imminent release of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, could the minister outline the way in which he intends to handle the key issues of water in regional communities in the Murray-Darling Basin system and the potential population shifts in both a positive and negative direction in country areas due to changes potentially in the plan?
347
Burke, Tony, MP
DYW
Watson
ALP
Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
1
Mr BURKE
—I want to thank the member for New England for the question. Can I begin by clarifying to the House what gets released on 8 October. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority will be releasing a guide to the draft plan. What comes out on 8 October—
Opposition members interjecting—
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr BURKE
—This is all consistent with legislation that was first put through when the Liberals were in government, so there has been bipartisan support on these sorts of issues. What comes out on 8 October is a guide to the draft plan. That is then followed by a period of consultation. That consultation will be real. None of this adjustment is easy. We are talking about a situation where up and down the Murray-Darling Basin there has been over-allocation and we need to be able to adjust to have a long-term healthy river. We need to be able to do that in a way that pays respect to the importance of environmental flows, to the importance of food production, and to the importance of the future of regional communities. None of it is easy and that is why the levels of consultation go along for the period of time that they do.
The guide to the draft plan that is released on 8 October is put together by the authority, not by myself. But I will be doing everything I can to encourage people up and down the basin—those who are concerned about what sort of adjustment comes through and about where we end up in terms of sustainable diversion limits—to make sure that they do participate in that, because we want to make sure that we end up getting the balance right. It is towards the end of next year that we end up with a situation of putting forward, as an instrument before the parliament, the actual planning powers—and when that plan goes forward it is after a long period of consultation, first following the guide and then following a draft plan. I would urge all to be involved with it, but certainly I, as the minister for water, will not be giving public direction to the authority. I want them to take up their independent role. I want them to be involved in what is for many communities an incredibly sensitive issue. We also have to acknowledge that notwithstanding the fact that in many parts of the basin we have had great rain of late. Only about a week ago I stood at Lake Alexandrina and saw something that no water minister has seen for a long time: pretty much a full lake. But we should not allow the fact that we have had good rains in recent times to divert us from the fact that we do need reform. Even if in many parts of the country drought has broken, we know the nature of our continent, we know it will be back and we do know that we need a long-term adjustment for a sustainable and healthy river.
Paid Parental Leave
347
347
15:01:00
O’Neill, Deborah, MP
140651
Robertson
ALP
0
Ms O’NEILL
—My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. How will Australian families benefit from the government’s new paid parental leave scheme?
347
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
Ms MACKLIN
—I very much thank the member for Robertson for her first question and congratulate her on her outstanding election and her fantastic first speech yesterday. Like her, this government is so pleased to be delivering Australia’s first paid parental leave scheme. From tomorrow parents expecting a baby in the new year will be able to apply for paid parental leave. I know every parent who is in this House would understand just how busy it is when a new baby comes into the family, so what we are doing is changing the arrangements so that parents can apply for paid parental leave and family tax benefit three months before the due date of their baby’s birth. So this will be a very positive move for families.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey interjecting—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—Just to make sure that the shadow Treasurer understands: Australia is finally catching up with the rest of the developed world and delivering our first national paid parental leave scheme—never done by those opposite; 12 years they had in government to deliver paid parental leave and of course they refused. We will be delivering this scheme from 1 January next year. Eligible Australian parents will be able to get 18 weeks of paid parental leave paid at the federal minimum wage. This has been a very, very long time coming and will be particularly welcomed by casual workers, part-time workers and those self-employed workers and contractors who at the moment do not have access to paid parental leave.
I recall meeting a young family in Sydney not long ago, both of the parents working in casual jobs. They had had a baby who needed to stay in hospital because of health complications, they were trying to manage being in the hospital with their newborn baby, with both of them doing shift work. The mother was trying to breast-feed her baby. She had no access to paid parental leave. In the end she just could not do it any longer and had to give up her job. It is for families like this that this government is delivering Australia’s first national paid parental leave scheme, because at the moment less than a quarter of women in low-paid and casual or part-time jobs have paid parental leave compared to three-quarters of women on higher wages. This is a major change for Australian families, one that we are so pleased to be able to deliver. Of course we announced during the election campaign that we were going to make an additional change that will be particularly beneficial for dads. Dads will be able to get extra paid paternity leave so that they too can spend more time at home with their newborn baby. We know this Leader of the Opposition was famously heard to say that paid parental leave would happen over his dead body, but it is this government that is delivering.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will return to the question.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—This Labor government will deliver for Australian families.
Ministerial Conduct
348
348
15:05:00
Coulton, Mark, MP
HWN
Parkes
NATS
0
Mr COULTON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Auditor-General’s report released yesterday into the Green Loans Program, which exposed a failure of governance critically because government workers were distracted by the failed Home Insulation Program. Given that the Prime Minister yesterday described the insulation program as a mess, the solar homes program was in chaos and there was no effective governance of the Green Loans Program, why did the Prime Minister promote Minister Garrett, who was responsible for all three programs?
348
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for his question. I presume the member, in asking the question, has actually studied the Auditor-General’s report on green loans and I think if he had done that he would have seen that it recorded, for example, that ‘the former minister’—referring to Minister Garrett—‘received incomplete, inaccurate and untimely briefings on program design features and implementation progress, challenges and risks’. It goes on further to say the former minister ‘was not served well by his department in this respect due to the poor-quality briefings he received’. When you read the report overall, it is quite clear on a reading of it that there were significant failings in the design and early implementation of the program, that these failings existed in the department. The Auditor-General in fact has not made any recommendations in this report because the government has already acted, obviously, to end this program, to phase it out, to create a new program and has already acted to move the program from the department that it was originally in to the department of climate change. So I would say to the member that if he wants to read the report in full I think he will find that the conclusions of the Auditor-General are very clear indeed about the departmental issues in the administration of this program.
On the question of the current role of the minister, I am looking forward with considerable enthusiasm to working with the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth in the further delivery of the government’s education revolution. I ask the member whether, for example, he will want to be working with Minister Garrett on things like trade training centres for his local schools, whether he will want to be working with Minister Garrett on things like computers in schools, whether he will want to be working with Minister Garrett on the national curriculum, whether he will want to be working with Minister Garrett on more resources for disadvantaged schools in communities to make a difference for kids from poorer backgrounds for the rest of their lives, and whether he will want to be working with Minister Garrett on all of these measures that make a profound difference for the education of individual children for their lives, hopes and chances and, obviously, a profound difference to the prosperity of the nation.
Asylum Seekers
349
349
15:07:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
1
Ms GRIERSON
—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Will the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship please update the House on issues relating to the suspension of processing asylum claims of Afghan asylum seekers?
349
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
McMahon
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Mr BOWEN
—I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. As the House would be aware, on 9 April 2010 the government announced the suspension of the processing of new asylum claims for nationals of Sri Lanka and of Afghanistan—in the case of Afghanistan for a period of six months. The decision to suspend processing was based on growing evidence at that time of evolving country situations in Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. The pause in the processing of claims from Afghanistan is due to be lifted on 8 October, which is next Friday. That is when it is due to expire.
In recent weeks the government has been closely considering, with the advice of relevant government departments, what approach should be taken to the pause in the processing of asylum claims from Afghanistan. During the last six months, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has been working to improve its understanding of the issues surrounding asylum claimants from Afghanistan. This has been done in conjunction with relevant and interested governments and has been closely informed by our post in Kabul. After close and careful consideration, the government has formed the view that we should lift the suspension. I announce that that will occur effective immediately.
The government considers that it is now better positioned to assess asylum claims from Afghans based on more up-to-date country information. This follows, as I say, an exhaustive review over the last six months. As a result of the more exhaustive country information there been has a decrease in the number of primary acceptances of claims from Afghans who are not subject to the processing pause. Even taking into consideration the possibility of some of these being overturned on review, the percentage of successful refugee claims is likely to be lower than in the past. Those Afghans who are found not to warrant protection will be returned to Afghanistan, consistent with Australia’s international obligations.
The government is working very closely with the government of Afghanistan and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to enter into an agreement for the return of Afghan nationals to Afghanistan. I hope to be able to update the House and the community on that in the not too distant future. Australia will of course continue to work closely with our international partners and the government of Afghanistan to progress this matter.
Education Funding
350
350
15:10:00
Somlyay, Alex, MP
ZT4
Fairfax
LP
0
Mr SOMLYAY
—My question is to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations. I refer the minister to reports that 91 school halls and libraries in Queensland built under the government’s school hall stimulus program do not meet minimum fire safety standards. Will the minister advised the House how much more taxpayers’ money is being spent to upgrade brand new buildings so they meet minimum fire safety standards?
350
Crean, Simon, MP
DT4
Hotham
ALP
Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts
1
Mr CREAN
—I will undertake to find out the specifics of the 91 because I am not aware of that. Of course, it is essential that any investment made by the Australian government for public buildings should meet adequate fire and safety standards. That should be a requirement.
00AMU
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
Mrs Mirabella interjecting—
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr CREAN
—If it is not then that is something that we need to take up with the responsible bodies in Queensland that commissioned the work. It is also something that we would insist they carry the cost of redressing. This, after all, was what the Orgill inquiry was set up to do—not only to receive the complaints but to seek restitution in relation to them.
83P
Bishop, Julie, MP
Ms Julie Bishop
—Why don’t you release the costings?
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr CREAN
—The costings have been released. In terms of the costings, because of the interjection on the basis of the question that was sought to be asked yesterday but was wrongly directed to the minister, the Orgill committee—
Opposition members interjecting—
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr CREAN
—They claim interest in the answer but never want to listen. This has been their problem with this program all the way through. The member would be aware, if he was interested in this, that we withheld money from the New South Wales government because it was not meeting its obligations properly. If there is evidence that this money has not been spent properly, in terms of meeting safety standards, there is opportunity for each of those so-called complaints to be addressed to the Orgill committee. The question I would ask the member to contemplate when he goes from this place is: have those 91 complaints been referred to the Orgill committee. That is what it was set up to do. The only point I would make in conclusion is that this program would never have happened if those opposite had held the treasury benches. They were a party that had no idea of the importance not just of investing in the future of education but of creating jobs. The Orgill committee is there for responsible complaints. I suggest the member, if he is concerned about this beyond this answer, direct his questions to the Orgill committee.
00AMU
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
Mrs Mirabella
—Aren’t they going to take responsibility for anything? Send it to another committee? You’ve got to be kidding.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Member for Indi, is it okay for the rest of us to continue? You are warned.
Age Pension
351
351
15:14:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
1
Mr GEORGANAS
—My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Minister, how has the government improved support for pensioners?
351
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
Ms MACKLIN
—I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question, as I know that he has 26,000 pensioners in Hindmarsh who are benefiting from this government’s improvements to the pension, and I thank him for his commitment and hard work on behalf of his pensioners.
It is the case that this government have delivered very real pension increases to Australia’s pensioners, helping them with cost-of-living increases we know they face. As a result of the reforms that we implemented around a year ago, pensions have increased by up to $115 per fortnight for single pensioners on the maximum rate. If you are a couple, it is $97 per fortnight for couples, combined, on the maximum rate. These are increases since September last year.
It is also the case that our pension reforms have delivered significant improvements as a result of changes to the indexation arrangements. This has meant larger pension increases for pensioners at each of the three indexation points since last September. Just last week, on 20 September, we saw increases in the pension for around four million Australian pensioners, who benefited from increases to their payments as a result of improved indexation. So, once again, if you are a single pensioner on the maximum rate you will be receiving an increase of $15 per fortnight. For couples, combined, on the maximum rate it is an increase of $22.60 per fortnight.
Of course, we on this side of the House do understand how important it is to make sure that we continue to deliver these pension improvements as a result of indexation as pensioners face challenges with the cost of living. We knew that we needed to introduce a new cost-of-living index for pensioners. It is this side of the parliament that delivered that to pensioners, and it is based on a new basket of goods that actually reflects what pensioners buy—not what the rest of the community buy but what pensioners buy. We do understand that pensioners spend more of their pension on things like food, medicines and clothing than the rest of the public do.
What our changes mean—not changes ever made by those opposite; changes that were made by this government in our first term in office—is that the value of the pension keeps up with pensioners’ cost-of-living pressures. What this means is that total pension payments now for those on the maximum rate are just over $716 per fortnight for singles and $1,079.60 per fortnight for couples, combined. Of course, those opposite had 12 years to deliver for pensioners and not once did they do it.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will bring her answer to a close.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—In fact they rejected a proposal to increase the pension.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Minister!
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr Randall
—They’ve been doing it all day.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Canning’s been doing it all day too, so let’s settle down.
Asylum Seekers
352
352
15:18:00
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
0
Dr STONE
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the government’s denials before the last election of any plan to expand the immigration detention facilities at Broadmeadows. Now that the government has announced that the Melbourne immigration transit accommodation at Broadmeadows is to be expanded, how can anybody believe any promise made by this government?
352
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for her question. I know I was actually discussing with her that questions of redistribution in Victoria are pressing on her mind, but I did not understand she had her sights on Broadmeadows. It is a long way from her current electorate.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister will return to the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—In any event, can I say to the member opposite: obviously, the government has made a set of decisions about asylum seeker facilities. They were announced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. As I said yesterday, as the minister for immigration has said today and as I am happy to reiterate, obviously the department of immigration, from time to time working with the Department of Defence, considers contingencies and options for asylum seeker accommodation. There is nothing new in this. Similar processes used to happen under the previous government, the Howard government. I would remind the member, for example, that the Howard government actually dealt with the facility at Christmas Island as a contingency. So this sort of planning goes on, work goes on, and that work has been happening in the department of immigration with, from time to time as it impacts on defence facilities, the Department of Defence. The minister for immigration made an announcement on 17 September about immigration facilities. There are some implications for the facility the member refers to and they are now on the public record.
Education Funding
352
352
15:21:00
Rishworth, Amanda, MP
HWA
Kingston
ALP
1
Ms RISHWORTH
—My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Would the minister update the House on the Gillard government’s commitment to school education?
352
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth
1
Mr GARRETT
—I want to thank the member for Kingston for her question. It has been very notable to me, as I have listened to some of the first speeches in the House by new members, that the necessity for a comprehensive, thorough education is clearly identified in this place as being one of the primary and core responsibilities of the national government. I noted with great interest the remarks from the member for Hasluck and the member for Greenway, who in fact used the expression that education is the great enabler. It is, and it is something that this government completely understands.
In her speech, the Governor-General talked about education being at the heart of our agenda, and it is. Our aim is nothing less than to make every school in Australia a great school. In just three years we have delivered more for education at every level than did the coalition over 12 years, importantly with an investment of over $63 billion in the four years 2009-2012, nearly double what was invested in the previous four years. We are working on crucial reform through national partnerships—literacy and numeracy, $540 million over four years; improving teacher quality, $550 million over five years; $1.5 billion committed in partnership with the states to schools of low-socioeconomic quality.
It is important for people to understand what the government’s commitment means, particularly on literacy and numeracy and on low-SES schools—that some 2,500 schools will receive additional support from this government. There is also a bold reform agenda under way, and the Prime Minister referred to it in part. For the first time, a national curriculum is on the way, a draft curriculum for English, maths, science and history, crucial reforms with the NAPLAN tests, a MySchool website with information for parents on nearly 10,000 schools, the kind of information that parents and carers really need and really want when thinking about the education of their children. It is one of the most important decisions they will make. The Digital Education Revolution: over 300,000 new computers are going into schools right around Australia, on track to reach the one-for-one delivery that we have set ourselves by the end of next year. Further reforms to come are improving teacher quality, rewards for performance and the like.
I have to make a final point, as I speak to you about education—and as the member for Sturt returns to the chamber—that at the last election the opposition pledged to cut over $3 billion out of education. That was a specific pledge by the Leader of the Opposition, to cut money out of education—one of the most important tasks that the government can set itself. What would that have meant? Over one million students would not have taken the advantage of being able to train in trade training centres. It would mean that over 120,000 students would not have had the opportunity to have computers in schools. When the opposition were in government they put some flag poles in front of schools; this government is committed to making sure that schools have the opportunity to do what every Australian wants us to do best—provide a first-class education for Australian students.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the
Notice Paper.
COMMONWEALTH GAMES
353
Miscellaneous
353
15:25:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
0
Ms GILLARD
—On indulgence, Mr Speaker: obviously this is the last day parliament sits before commencement of the Commonwealth Games. While the focus has been on security and safety issues—I did have occasion to mention them in the parliament yesterday and I reiterate that Australians should pay regard to the travel advisory—perhaps today, as we leave this parliament before the start of the Commonwealth Games, we can move from safety and security, as important as it is, to wishing well the Australian athletes who are going to march into the stadium on Sunday to compete in the Commonwealth Games, proudly wearing their green and gold.
This is the biggest Australian contingent ever to attend the Commonwealth Games and each and every athlete who goes will have worked hard, trained hard and looked forward to this the most of their lives. They would have been supported by family and friends in what are remarkable endeavours of human endurance to make sure that they can compete on this world stage at this world class. I am sure that as our athletes march into that stadium every Australian will be feeling proud and will be wishing them well for the days of the Commonwealth Games.
This is the 19th Commonwealth Games and Australia is one of six countries—there are only six countries—which have competed in each and every Commonwealth Games. That is a record we would be rightly proud of. We are obviously looking forward to sporting success but whether our athletes come home with silver, gold or bronze, or they compete but are not up on the medal dais, I am sure we admire their efforts and we wish them well.
Obviously the Indian authorities, the Indian government and the Indian people have worked hard to deliver the Commonwealth Games. Seventy one nations will be in attendance and I am sure we would wish the Indian authorities, the Indian government and the Indian people well as they roll out the Commonwealth Games. I am sure that every member of this House would want to leave this place saying that they are hoping for a peaceful and successful games in India for our athletes, for competitors from around the Commonwealth and for the tourists and the people of India who are there at the games.
Here in Australia, whether your sporting code is AFL or NRL, it is a pretty big weekend. I would say to everybody who is competing, whichever side they are taking—obviously from the point of view of the AFL this has been a pretty interesting week—I am sure many Australians will be very enthused, very interested and very passionate about watching the contest on the weekend.
354
15:30:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr ABBOTT
—On indulgence: on behalf of the coalition I would like to associate myself with the remarks that the Prime Minister has made in respect of our Commonwealth Games competitors. We congratulate them all and we wish them every success over the next fortnight. At the last Commonwealth Games, Australia had a record haul of 221 medals—let us hope they can do even better this time. Let us hope that these Commonwealth Games turn out to be memorable for all the right reasons. India is, of course, an emerging super power and may these games turn out to be a showcase for India’s economic progress, its democratic institutions and its cultural pluralism.
Like the Prime Minister, I wish all of the competitors in all of the great athletic and sporting contests that are happening this weekend very well, including Sydney University in the Shute Shield.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
354
Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers
Broadband
354
354
15:30:00
Mr ALBANESE,MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister may proceed.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—In response to a question from the member for Bradfield about the rollout of the NBN in stage 1 communities in Tasmania of Smithton, Scottsdale and Midway Point, I can inform the member that in total the five internet service providers—Exetel, iiNet, Internode, iPrimus and Telstra—are offering services at a price as low as $29.95 per month for 25 megabits per second and $59.95 per month for 100 megabits per second. iPrimus has a broadband and phone bundle which includes all calls in Australia, including to mobiles, for $89.95. This compares with similar offers of around $129 a month, meaning a saving of $40, and Telstra, which came on board just this week, is offering a free trial for 100 customers.
Over 50 per cent of people and businesses in those stage 1 communities have asked NBN to connect fibre to their premises. Over 50 per cent is the answer to the question I was asked for the communities of Smithton, Scottsdale and Midway Point. Most customers will have to see out their existing contracts with providers before they make the switch from those providers to the NBN.
SPEAKER’S PANEL
354
Miscellaneous
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Pursuant to standing order 17(a), I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable members for Lyons, Cunningham, Hindmarsh, and Braddon to be members of the Speaker’s panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker.
COMMITTEES
355
Committees
Joint Committees
355
Appointment
355
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate agrees with the resolutions of the House relating to the appointment of the following joint committees:
Cyber-Safety;
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity;
Australian Crime Commission;
Corporations and Financial Services;
Electoral Matters;
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade;
Migration;
National Capital and External Territories;
Parliamentary Library;
Treaties; and
Gambling Reform.
Selection Committee
355
Membership
355
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip that he has nominated Ms Hall, Mr Hayes and Ms Saffin; the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Ms Marino and Mr Secker; and Mr Oakeshott that he has nominated himself to be members of the Selection Committee.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
00:00:00
—by leave—I move:
That Ms Hall, Mr Hayes, Ms Saffin, Ms Marino, Mr Secker and Mr Oakeshott be members of the Selection Committee.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
355
Business
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
355
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
00:00:00
—by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent
-
the Selection Committee:
-
meeting on or after today, if necessary by teleconference, to determine the order of consideration of matters and the times allotted for debate on each item and for each Member speaking, for private Members’ business and committee and delegation business, for Monday 18 October 2010,
-
communicating its determinations to all Members of the House prior to that Monday;
-
reporting its determinations to the House following Prayers on Monday 18 October 2010; and
-
the Selection Committee’s determinations to be shown in the Notice Paper for that Monday under ‘Business Accorded Priority’ for the House and Main Committee.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
355
Questions to the Speaker
Speaker’s Panel
355
355
15:34:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
1
Mr ALBANESE
—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. You tabled correspondence about the people who help to assist chair the parliament. Is it the case that only government members have nominated for the Speaker’s panel?
355
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—The warrant stands as the warrant, and you can peruse that. There will be other procedures that I will have to go through. It is a continuing process. The names are the names.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As business has passed since question time and documents have been called on, on what basis are questions to the Speaker now part of the arrangements for the sittings this afternoon? That time has passed.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—A question was asked about some action that I just took. I have given the answer. I think I will move on.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—I just ask a question: would the Speaker write to the Leader of the Opposition asking him to fulfil his obligations for the proper functioning of the House?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—There is no question. It is the end of the proceedings. I will be continuing to gather names for the Speaker’s panel because I do not think that we are going to get far with only four members. There is a need for more and I will be taking action to find suitable people to be on the Speaker’s panel.
Honourable member interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The only embarrassment is if I keep being interrupted.
AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS
356
Auditor-General's Reports
Report Nos 10 and 11 of 2010-2011
356
356
15:37:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I present the Auditor-General’s Audit reports Nos 10 and 11 of 2010-2011 entitled No. 10Performance audit—Centrelink Fraud Investigations, and No. 11
Performance audit—Direct Source Procurement..
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
DOCUMENTS
356
Documents
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
00:00:00
—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:
Finance—Final budget outcome for 2009-10.
Medibank Private—Report for 2009-10.
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Act 2009—Impacts of the new job seeker compliance framework—Report of the independent review, September 2010.
Debate (on motion by
Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
356
Matters of Public Importance
Cost of Living
356
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s lack of a plan to ease the cost of living pressures on Australian families.
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—
356
15:38:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
0
Mr HOCKEY
—It is not three years since the election of this Labor government, and at that time nearly three years ago the member for Griffith as the Leader of the Opposition and all the members of the Labor Party pledged to the Australian people that they would ease the burden of a rising cost of living. They gave a solemn promise to the Australian people that they would do something to reduce the cost of fuel, the cost of groceries and the cost of doing everyday banking. The Labor Party promised that they would do something to make life easier for Australian families facing rising costs, in particular rising everyday costs. The Labor Party believed at that time that the rising cost of living could be addressed by setting up websites: Fuelwatch to address the rising cost of fuel, GroceryWatch to address the rising costs of groceries and vegetables and ‘Bank Switch’ to address the rising cost of banking. If only it were so easy—if only you could simply set up a website and in so doing ease the burden of a rising cost of living.
At the same time as the Labor Party failed in their endeavours they also and most significantly did not understand that their very own actions—the very deliberations of a government to increase the tax burden on individual goods—would cause the price of those goods to rise and have a flow-on impact on the everyday cost of living. So, when this government in the 2008 budget, and without any global financial crisis, introduced a new tax on alcohol, the price of alcohol went up. When they introduced a higher tax on motor vehicles, the cost of motor vehicles went up. When they took a baseball bat to private health insurance, the cost of health care went up. They did not understand the fundamental principle that, when a government increases the tax, the prices of goods rise.
The Labor Party’s solemn commitment to the Australian people to ease the burden of the cost of living was broken. It was broken to the great cost of everyday Australians and, as the Leader of the Opposition explained during question time today, those everyday costs of living have risen significantly and well above inflation over the last three years. Electricity is up 34 per cent. Gas is up 26 per cent. Water and sewerage—everyday services—are up 29 per cent. You would think that with Medicare, a universal health program, health care would be free. But it is not. Everyone knows that you have to pay for dental services, for some pharmaceuticals, for optical services and even for hospital care, and under the Labor Party the cost of health care has risen by up to 18 per cent. Education—the on-costs, school uniforms and all the things that are associated with the everyday challenge of education—is up 17 per cent. The price of bread is up 12 per cent, and that is a staple that every Australian household needs. Even rent is up 17 per cent over the last three years. You would say to yourself, ‘Prices do rise.’ The fact is that Australia had a significant economic downturn in those three years and inflation came down, yet these everyday prices kept rising. The Labor Party in government does not understand the link between their own actions as a government and rising prices.
Let me give you another simple example of the rising cost of living. The everyday challenges for most Australians do not seem to be taken into account, and I am talking particularly about those people in Sydney, Melbourne and, increasingly, Brisbane who have to pay everyday tolls. I calculated that a person living in Riverstone in central-western Sydney going to work each day in the Sydney CBD has to pay $15.83 one way to go to work in the morning and $11.83 to go home. That is $28 a day, $138 a week and up to $7,000 a year in tolls to go to work for someone living in Western Sydney. That is not taken into account when those in the Labor Party talk about easing the burden of the cost of living. It was in April of this year that the Treasurer said, and I apologise for the grammar here:
… this Government has had very much a cost of living agenda in place for working families.
In July he said:
We will do everything as we go forward to ensure we minimise those cost-of-living pressures …
But there is a challenge. There is the challenge of the government’s taxes, none being more significant than the looming dark shadow of a carbon tax, which this government did not have the courage to tell the Australian people about just a few weeks ago, before the election—a carbon tax that will apply to electricity; electricity that has already risen significantly and will continue to rise significantly in the absence of a carbon tax. That burden, which is faced by every business, which is faced by every household, which is faced by every pensioner, which is faced by every parent, will increase everyday costs of living in a most dramatic fashion.
On top of that, on top of the cost of carbon, and on top of the increasing burden of taxation, the Labor Party is going to create an environment where interest rates will rise—and rise they will. Most respected market analysts will say there is a broad expectation that interest rates will rise by around one per cent over the next 12 months. Interest rates rise primarily because the Reserve Bank is trying to address the challenge of inflation. Inflation is affected by expansionary fiscal settings, and this government have had the most dramatic expansion of fiscal policy in Australian history. In addressing the challenge of the global financial crisis, the government gives these sanctimonious lectures about how it is now engaging in the greatest fiscal consolidation in modern Australian history—but they are doing so because they have had the greatest fiscal expansion in modern Australian history. They are saying that they are coming down the biggest mountain in the world not because they climbed the biggest mountain in the world but because they are smart. Well, they are not smart.
With a budget deficit in excess of $50 billion last year and a budget deficit in excess of $40 billion this year, and a budget deficit next year, and if you believe Access Economics—and I tend to, because there are some heroic assumptions in the budget about the ongoing value of commodities—this government is going to deliver to a generation of Australians a burden of debt that will put upward pressure on interest rates for Australian families for as far as the eye can see. When you are running an economy at full capacity—and the coalition has; we did it before and we will do it again—the challenge for a government is to get into surplus as quickly as possible to minimise the public sector demand and to allow the private sector to flourish, to allow capital to be invested, and to ease the burden and costs associated with much needed debt that is going to fund the expansion of the private sector.
Lots of commentators over the last two years have given the coalition, and me in particular, a rather lengthy soliloquy about the relationship between government debt and the need for the government to go into significant debt to save the Australian economy. The coalition said during the election campaign, and we say going forward, the great challenge for Australia during these times is to get the budget to surplus as quickly as possible and to start to pay down Labor’s debt. Once you pay down Labor’s debt, you can take away from the everyday Australian the burden of paying that debt but, more significantly, there is no need for businesses to compete with that debt. Every business out there, every home borrower out there, is faced with a challenge. The challenge is this federal government borrowing $100 million a day in competition with small business, in competition with farmers, in competition with everyday Australians. If you are a bank, and cash is sacred, who are you going to lend to? Are you going to lend to a AAA rated government, or are you going to increase the cost of borrowings and lend to small businesses and homeowners, and have increases in the cost of credit cards and mobile phone? What are you going to do?
When someone is competing for much needed money, the challenge is for the government to get out of the way. That helps to make funds cheaper. This is something this government does not understand. It is basic economics. When the economy is running at full capacity, when we are meeting head-on the challenges of growth and the expansion of the demand out of China and India and other places, the great challenge is doing the hard yards. You cannot set up a website to ease the cost of living. That is rubbish. It is a sanctimonious and irrelevant solution, and now they know it, after three years. You can only ease the burden of the cost of living by doing hard yards, making hard decisions. This coalition had the courage, this year, to lay down in graphic detail more than $45 billion of savings out of the budget—hard savings, politically difficult savings, but we did it because we know that you have to be prepared to do the hard yards—in order to get the budget back to surplus; to pay off, again, Labor’s debt and get the cost of living burden off the back of everyday Australians.
The Treasurer, old china, is very fond of spinning and twisting and turning. Haven’t we seen that dramatically with his explanation of the carbon tax? The IMF said in its report, released today:
As the recovery proceeds, we recommend saving stronger-than-anticipated revenue to help avoid potential overheating from the mining boom.
Well what does that say? The IMF goes on:
The increased supply of sovereign debt worldwide could eventually put significant upward pressure on funding costs.
This is the IMF and they are sending a clear warning. There are great challenges with the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries having record levels of sovereign debt. There is only so much money in the world. Australia relies on that money because we cannot fund ourselves. When you have a government accessing that limited pool of money in competition with small businesses, farmers and everyday Australians the cost of money goes up. If small businesses and manufacturers get the money, they increase the costs of the goods they produce in Australia, and that flows directly into higher electricity and water prices, higher school fees, higher healthcare costs and higher everyday expenses.
The Labor Party do not care because they do not understand that their reckless spending is putting upward pressure on interest rates and that their reckless indifference to the hard yards that are necessary to properly manage an economy is making life harder for everyday Australians, not easier. The coalition are prepared to do the hard yards because we understand the basic principles of the costs of living. The Labor Party are reckless and indifferent to the interests of the Australian people.
359
15:53:00
Shorten, Bill, MP
00ATG
Maribyrnong
ALP
Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation
1
0
Mr SHORTEN
—The cost of living pressures for Australian families are real and for many families they can be tough pressures to bear. The shadow Treasurer is concerned about our plans to deal with these pressures, and I would like to address his MPI in good faith not just by outlining just the headline numbers in abstract detachment but by looking at how the government’s plan delivers and supports diverse Australian families. In doing this it is important to address some issues about what the government has done and also address some of what the shadow Treasurer said are the problems.
I will look at the education rebates that Labor are offering, the tax cuts that we have implemented, the dental investment we have provided to families and children, the family tax benefits and the jobs that we have created. Of course, it would be remiss not to look at some of the mistakes that the coalition have offered up: their Woolworths tax, their specious debt arguments, their inability to have costings without black holes and their failure to recognise the cost of inaction on climate change.
I think it is important to always relate the debates in this place to the lives of people outside this place. For instance, let us take a family in Fremantle—call them the Browns. The Browns are a single-income couple where the breadwinner is earning a bit over the average weekly ordinary full-time wage. As a result of our last budget, the Brown’s real disposable income has increased by $3,300. I remind the shadow Treasurer that someone on $50,000 is now paying $1,750 less tax than they did in 2007-08—that is 18 per cent less tax.
Let us also take the Black family who live in my own home town of Moonee Ponds. They are a dual-income household with children, where one parent is on average weekly ordinary time earnings and the other parent is perhaps working part time and getting about half of that weekly wage. As a result of the last budget delivered by this government, the Black’s real disposable income has increased by $5,624. I go to real numbers in this MPI because that is what makes a difference to families trying to balance budgets.
In addition to the tax cuts for the Black family—for the third consecutive year, I should add—their disposable income has also been boosted by the government’s assistance to families for the costs of education, child care and dental care. For example, the education tax refund helps families with children undertaking primary or secondary school studies to meet the real costs of school expenses. Because the Gillard government is extending the education tax refund to school uniforms, the Blacks will be able to claim up to 50 per cent of the cost of uniforms incurred from 1 July 2011. This relieves pressure on the family budget being dedicated to their children’s schooling.
This family might also be a family with teenagers who need to have their teeth checked. This government is supporting families to improve the dental health of teenagers by providing a voucher worth $157 in 2010 to eligible teenagers to assist with the cost of a preventative dental health check. Since this plan was implemented on 1 July 2008, I am pleased to report to the House that the Medicare Teen Dental Plan has provided 850,000 teenagers with the opportunity to receive a preventative dental health check.
Given that the Black family are entitled to family tax benefit A, they are able to ease the cost of living pressures by claiming the 50 per cent refundable tax offset every year up to $750 for each child undertaking primary schooling. That is a refund of $375 per child per year. If their children are teenagers, there is a 50 per cent refundable tax offset of up to $1,500 for each child undertaking secondary schooling. That is a refund of $750 per child per year.
The family tax benefits are part of our plan to relieve the costs of living pressures on families and I think it is important for the opposition to recall our 2 August 2010 campaign commitment to increase the family tax benefit part A by up to $4,000 per teenager aged 16 to 18 to help families meet the cost of older children and encourage more teenagers to stay at school. In total, the forward estimates confirm this is a $595 million investment in easing the cost of living pressures, which is what this MPI is concerned with.
If this family chooses to have another child in a spirit of adventure and family building, as a result of our recent commitments dad will be provided with two weeks dedicated paid paternity leave as a new father, which will be paid at the national minimum wage of about $570 a week. This is going to help with not just the Black’s family budget for the new cot, the new mattress and the invariable costs that come from shopping at Baby Bunting but the living pressures that will come in the form of irreplaceable time with the newborn child. When the Black’s new child needs to be sent to the local creche so that Mrs Black can get back to doing a few days work to help with the income, Labor’s childcare rebate kicks in to help the family budget.
The government increased the childcare rebate from July 2008 from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of out-of-pocket childcare expenses, providing families with the ability to claim up to $7,500 per child per year towards their childcare costs, and we have also made this rebate payable on a more frequent basis. Indeed, if the Black family had had the unfortunate outcome of living under the former coalition government, they would have had to wait a year to get this rebate. Of course, as we know, children grow very quickly in their early years. Just when you have bought them one set of clothes they seem to have grown to the next size. So timely payments assist young families, and there will be about 800,000 families eligible for this rebate.
Now we come to my third family, the Purple family. The Purples are a pensioner couple who, after the last budget brought down by this government, have seen their real disposable income increase by 8.1 per cent, or about $2,030 over the year. To deliver for seniors such as this family, on 7 August we announced a commitment to an improved work bonus for age pensioners choosing to do part-time work and we also are providing $4,000 worth of training to support mature age workers in the workplace. I do not know whether that would be of interest to the coalition. Despite the challenges of the global financial crisis, with families such as these pensioners in mind, I believe that we actually stay true to our core values—that is, we have delivered an historic increase in the age pension and we did so in the teeth of the most difficult global financial circumstances since the Great Depression. From 20 September 2009 single pensioners have received an increase in their payments of $32.50 per week and for couple pensioners there is an extra $10.15 combined. Including the pension rise and the improved indexation arrangements, whilst we have been in office we have actually delivered increases of around $115 per fortnight for singles and $97 per fortnight for couples combined. From 1 July the maximum pension payment payable to single pensioners, including supplements and indexation, has increased by 19.5 per cent, well above the increases of the cost of living. For couple pensioners there has been an increase of 10 per cent, well above the increases.
In stating these numbers, I do not pretend that life is easy for pensioners—not at all. But, in putting forward the numbers for all of these families, what I do recognise is that in terms of real money—and what matters to families at the end of the day is the money to pay the bills and to enjoy the pleasures of life, to have holidays and to be able to buy presents for their families—this government is a pragmatic government which has been getting on with real and tangible outcomes for millions of Australians.
Of course, whilst we can talk about the tax cuts, the rebates, the dental investment and the family tax benefits improvements, there is one thing which is most important in helping to deal with the pressures of the cost of living; it is called a job. No-one should suggest that any form of state assistance is the substitute for the merits of a job. Since coming to office, the foundation of this government’s plan to address the cost of living for Australian families has been to ensure they have a job and have some control over their own lives. Our economic stimulus package has been praised internationally as the best the world saw during the GFC. The stimulus was of course all about protecting jobs and creating new work. Those opposite, including the shadow Treasurer, oppose this vital job focused package. Instead of doing their utmost to ensure that the families I have been talking about were households of work and wages, our opponents sitting on the other side of the House were prepared to stand by with what, regrettably, I have to characterise as a ham-fisted, do-nothing, hands-off, leave-us-alone approach.
The stimulus in the economic circumstances that have been given to this country is paying dividends today. We have seen the creation of 53,100 new full-time jobs in the last month alone. In the past 12 months we have created 349,700 jobs and we have presided over 567,000 jobs since we came into office in November 2007. What is encouraging is the broadening of growth as the economy makes a smooth transition from the support of the stimulus to a recovery in private demand. This means of course that labour demands will continue. Household consumption has risen 1.6 per cent in the last quarter. Building investment and engineering construction are strengthening remarkably. So, if the Browns’ single breadwinner is working on a construction site, his or her job security and professional aspects are definitely enhanced. If the family living in Moonee Ponds have a small corner store—and many do—they will welcome the news that other households in Moonee Ponds are likely to be increasing their spending at the corner store—more turnover at the retail counter.
As I have mentioned the cash register, I might add at this point that if those opposite had been elected last month all the families that I have spoken about, and millions of other Australian families, would shortly be experiencing the sharp end of the opposition leader’s hastily thought-out thought bubble, the coalition’s Woolies and Coles tax, with his plan to increase the tax on big business masquerading as a parental leave scheme. I understand that there are many in the opposition who were uneasy about promoting this plan and quietly hoped the idea would go away. Now, in the reflective time in opposition, they perhaps have a chance to make a silly idea see the dustbin of history.
But you cannot talk about the cost of living without talking about the cost of living in retirement. That is why our government is passionately committed to promoting reform in our already enviable superannuation system. I spoke today in question time about the need and the national good of moving from nine to 12 per cent in superannuation. I do believe and I predict, perhaps somewhat foolhardily, that the opposition will eventually come on board and there will be a time in the future in this place when the opposition will say—perhaps when they win an election once the nine to 12 per cent has been implemented—that this is a good idea and there will be bipartisanship. All I say is: let us take the agony and the tears out of a position which will inevitably be adopted by the opposition and move on, and let us fight about what is genuinely disagreed upon rather than simply having a policy vacuum on superannuation versus a set of meritorious ideas.
And another meritorious idea is the idea of Labor’s MySuper election commitment.
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr Robb
—More people sacked from small business!
00ATG
Shorten, Bill, MP
Mr SHORTEN
—The member for Goldstein is yet again arguing in the face of progress. At least he is consistent. MySuper offers a generic and standardised super savings product that will return more to retirees—some of us will be retirees soon and some of us a bit later—and, in doing so, will improve this country’s national savings pool. Safe, low-cost and simple superannuation solutions are essential to help Australia’s retirement savings. By 2050 one in four Australians will have reached retirement age, compared to one in seven today. You do not get a bill in the post, but Australians are currently paying $85 a month on average in superannuation fees, which is more than the average person’s monthly mobile bill. We need to have the offer of low-cost superannuation products for people who cannot afford and who do not seek to have high-priced superannuation products.
It is our intention to allow super funds to offer simple, low cost superannuation products called MySuper, from 1 July 2013. This will be a new default superannuation product with no unnecessary fees or charges and with simple features to make it easy to compare fund performance. This benefit for a 30-year-old worker on average wages would lift their retirement savings by $40,000. When we talk about superannuation and if we want to relieve cost of living pressures, we need a bigger national savings pool. I think the opportunities of moving from nine to 12 per cent, the doubling of the concessional cap, the improvements for low income earners and the extension of the SG from 70- to 74-year-olds will help build a national savings pool. A national savings pool is one of the competitive advantages of Australia in the global economy. This whole House should get behind that rather than having the point-scoring debates about the cost of living that the opposition have tendered in this MPI.
I would also suggest in closing that, if we want to talk about the cost of living, there is a cost of inaction on climate change which has been recognised in the Stern report. There is a cost to inaction. Just as well there is a cost to an $11 billion hole in the funding policies of those opposite. We keep hearing about debt. Let us just put some facts on the line. We are the envy of the world in our government debt situation. Our peak debt will be six per cent of GDP in 2011 and 2012. Our budget returns to surplus in 2012-13. I do not think the opposition is happy about that. I think they resent that Labor is able to return it surplus. We are doing much better than the rest of the world in international net debt for the government sector, and I think we have the plan for the cost of living—(Time expired)
363
16:08:00
Robb, Andrew, MP
FU4
Goldstein
LP
0
0
Mr ROBB
—In March 2008, several months before Lehman Bros collapsed, we saw Australian consumers cut their spending when the government was still increasing interest rates. People had no sense of what was coming, yet, several months before Lehman Bros collapsed, we saw typical Australians cut spending. In fact, the savings rate went from minus four per cent to plus four per cent in those six months. Average working Australians had an instinct: they felt exposed. They had an instinct about the problems that were brewing. A lot of it was contained within the cost-of-living pressures that they were starting to face. If we fast forward to today, 2010, we are starting to see a similar phenomenon. Today, consumers are again showing renewed signs of caution about the economic outlook, preferring to pay down debt rather than ramp up their spending or build new homes.
The official figures for the last two months have confirmed a significant drop in consumer sentiment and dwelling starts. Yet, we have just heard the contribution from the member for Maribyrnong, which I think you could best paraphrase as ‘They’ve never had it so good’. There is litany of expenses by this government—spending, spending and spending. The member never mentioned the fact that $100 million a day is being borrowed to pay for all of that spending and that someone has to pay for the $100 million—and that is the taxpayer of Australia. He did not mention the costs that people are incurring. He just mentioned the money that the government is spending, spending and spending.
The fact of the matter is that Australians are not convinced that the northern hemisphere countries have weathered the financial crisis—we would not know it in this House from the lack of reference over many months to what is going on in Europe and the United States and whether we need to take some precautions as a consequence. Australians do not trust the pollyanna view that the government has for the next four years—a view that the government has pedalled for months. Australians are feeling exposed. There is an anxiety in the community. A lot of it is borne out of cost-of-living pressures that everyday Australians are facing. This was the issue at the election. People were trying to make a judgment about who would best manage their circumstances, and for the first time since 1940 they actually eliminated the majority of a first-term government. They took that big step. You find in countries everywhere in the world that people’s instinct is to give a government a second chance. It is true in Australia; it is true in most countries around the world. Not since 1940 have we seen what has happened in this country, and it happened because people were concerned about the cost-of-living pressures that they were facing.
A family might sense that the future holds some risks. They might have some concerns. They might not be able to articulate them but they can sense them, and they think the government has no plan to deal with these circumstances—that is what they are sensing; that is their fear. What do they do? They stop spending. They pay off their credit card. They pay down their debt. That is what they are doing now. Again, instinctively, people are out there doing that. They are cutting their spending and they are spending wisely. That is happening amongst most households in Australia at the present time, and the official figures are confirming that. It is no different at a country level. This is not rocket science. If you sense that the future holds some risks then you should pay down the country’s debt, you should cut spending, you should spend wisely and you should live within the country’s means. But what are we seeing? A government with a pollyanna view.
This is a government so inexperienced in handling money, in running the shop, that they are more obsessed with spin than with substance. They are more obsessed with trying to kid people into what is going on and more obsessed with creating what I think are pseudo budget surpluses in the out years. Just this week Access Economics said that 2012-13 will be five minutes of fiscal sunshine before the budget slumps back to a $1.8 billion deficit in 2013-14. Access expects softer export prices, arguing that mining companies will boost their production levels to meet the spurt in Asian demand. What they are seeing and predicting is a supply response. It is something that we have talked about for months. During my 18 years in agriculture, I saw it again and again: a supply response to higher prices which was never anticipated. People always underestimated the supply response and the speed of that response. If they had bothered to talk to the mining companies, they would know that there are many thousands of new mines around the world awaiting the infrastructure to take those resources into China and India. If we do not at this point in time capture some of that, we will miss much of the opportunity that the budget predicts will occur.
But all of that new mining will create a supply response that will reduce the price of resources, which will mean that we will never have a hope of producing the sorts of surpluses the government has predicted. Access Economics warned that if the subsequent drop in commodity prices was much bigger than Treasury was expecting the budget was a ‘house of cards’. Have you heard that before? How often have we heard that? They said it would be a ‘house of cards, an accident waiting to happen’. They also said:
The return to surplus trumpeted in the official forecasts is a pure punt that China and India will keep growing faster than the world’s miners will keep digging deeper.
How astute is that. We have a situation where Australia faces many vulnerabilities, yet we have a pollyanna government that is blind to what is really going on.
The response of so many Australian households—paying down debt, cutting spending and spending wisely—is primarily why Australia got through the global financial crisis in such good shape compared with other industrialised countries. It was our having no debt, massive reserves, four per cent unemployment and a 12-month pipeline of projects that kept us going until the crisis was in fact pretty much over. Combined with the 4¼ per cent response by the Reserve Bank, which is the normal measure you take to increase demand, we had exchange rate flexibility—it dropped to 60 cents in the dollar and then went back up again later on—and, because of the 60 cents in the dollar collapse, we had the highest trade surplus in our history in 2009.
And what did the government do? They panicked. Not only did they have an early stimulus, which we supported in 2008, sensibly, for confidence reasons. By 2009, they had committed $42 billion. They panicked. By the time the budget passed through this chamber the crisis was over. And what has that $42 billion done? It has done what my colleague the member for North Sydney said again and again: it has put pressure on interest rates and it has created a problem for small business, where there are 330,000 fewer people employed today in small business than there were before this crisis. How good is that? Australia is built on small business; it is the innovative centre of Australia. Big business has outsourced innovation to small business. We have 330,000 fewer people employed in small business that we had three years ago. This is a failure of this government; it is why people are feeling vulnerable.
And this government is not for turning. They have spent and spent to the $42 billion. The targets they chose were political targets—school targets, a school in every electorate. They chose pink batts for homes in every electorate, green loans in every electorate and community infrastructure programs. All of these things have turned to custard. This government has made error after error and misjudgement after misjudgement. They have been concerned primarily with saving their political skin—to ensure that spin beats substance every day of the week. They have produced a $54 billion deficit. This is the sort of reckless spending has put so much pressure on the cost of living for families, and this must stop.
(Time expired)
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. I call the minister.
365
16:18:00
Collins, Julie, MP
HWM
Franklin
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services
1
0
Ms COLLINS
—I am the parliamentary secretary.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Under the Ministers of State Act all parliamentary secretaries are sworn in as ministers. Twelve ministers are deemed to be parliamentary secretaries, or designated as such, and the balance are officially called ministers. The term was correct.
HWM
Collins, Julie, MP
Ms COLLINS
—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This government recognises the cost-of-living pressures facing Australians across the country and across the community. In my own electorate I met every day throughout the last three years with families, pensioners and people on disability support pensions who are facing cost-of-living pressures. But we have addressed this through tax cuts, stimulus payments, emergency relief assistance, financial management services and pension reform. We have supported and we will continue to support Australians dealing with financial pressure, whether they are families, singles, pensioners or carers.
We understand the financial pressures that families face: balancing the budget, having to deal with the cost of groceries, petrol, car maintenance, energy costs and utilities costs amongst a raft of other expenses. Then there are the increased costs of mortgages and rent. Obviously housing costs are an issue. But to help them through the global financial crisis we have provided stimulus payments to families, pensioners, carers and self-funded retirees. During the global financial crisis we also made substantial increases in our investments in the emergency relief funding and financial management programs.
But there really is no greater pressure on the cost of living than unemployment. Jobs are important, and it was the Labor government’s economic stimulus plan that protected the jobs of 200,000 Australians and saved the Australian economy from the worst global recession since the Great Depression. The response to this of those opposite was to sack public servants.
The Gillard government has also delivered tax cuts every year for the past three years for all taxpayers. Compared with when we came to government in 2007, someone now on $20,000 is paying $750 less tax each year. That is 50 per cent less tax for someone on $20,000. A person on $50,000 is now paying $1,750 less tax each year, which is 18 per cent less tax. If you are on $80,000 a year, you are paying $1,550 less tax, which is eight per cent less tax. Also, to make the taxation system simpler, we are introducing a standard tax deduction for work related expenses. A standard deduction of $500 will be available to taxpayers from 1 July 2012, and we will increase it to $1,000 from 1 July 2013. For those taxpayers, it will mean less time doing taxes and more time with families. Also, for 6.4 million Australians, it could mean a larger tax return. That is money back in the pockets of Australian families.
As we heard today in question time, the Gillard government is also delivering the first national paid parental leave scheme, giving parents more time at home with their babies and reducing the financial pressure on new families. The scheme will be operational from 1 January 2011 and will provide around 148,000 new parents each year with 18 weeks of parental leave pay at the federal minimum wage, which is currently around $570 per week. That is a total of over $10,000 for families.
I am pleased to remind the House and those opposite that, as the minister for families said today in question time, applications for the first national paid parental leave scheme will be accepted from tomorrow so people can start applying for that paid parental leave. We also know that those opposite sat on their hands for 11 long years in government and did absolutely nothing about introducing a paid parental leave scheme. It was interesting indeed to hear in the last few months that they suddenly changed their view on paid parental leave and decided to pay for it with their great new tax on everything.
We do understand the cost of raising a family, but we also understand that it extends well beyond the first few months of parenthood. That is why we are also helping families with the cost of child care. Federal Labor increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. We have increased the maximum annual rebate by almost 72 per cent, from $4,350 per year to $7,500 per year. We are also paying the rebate more frequently so it arrives as parents pay their bills. We also announced that we would increase that frequency so that people can have that money on a more regular basis.
I am very proud to be part of a government that has delivered for more than three million Australian pensioners as part of our historic pension reform. In my electorate of Franklin there are more than 16,500 pensioners and I understand the financial pressures they face. We reformed the pension system for the first time in its 100-year history to provide better support for pensioners, carers and disability support pensioners now and into the future as they deal with the costs of living. This government, as we have heard, is delivering increases in pension payments of around $115 per fortnight for singles and $97 per fortnight for couples combined since we came to government. That is around 2.1 million age pensioners, 764,000 disability support pensioners and over 167,000 carer recipients who have benefited from this pension increase.
Our new indexation arrangements have also ensured that they will keep pace with the cost of living. Our new pensioner living cost index and our pension reforms have ensured that the pension has increased by more than it would have otherwise because every indexation since September last year has occurred under the new indexation arrangements. By contrast, we know that the coalition ignored the inadequacy of the pension and the needs of pensioners for 11 long years whilst they were in government. In fact, worse than that, we know that Tony Abbott and the cabinet of the former coalition government actually—
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! The parliamentary secretary should refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his title, not by his name.
HWM
Collins, Julie, MP
Ms COLLINS
—I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition and the former coalition government made an active decision to reject the proposal to increase pension rates. They actively chose not to increase the pension—shame! After more than a decade of inaction by the Liberal Party, it took a federal Labor government to overhaul the pension system to make it more adequate and more sustainable for those age and disability pensioners, carers and veterans who depend on it.
We also know that when it comes to raising a family there are education costs. We introduced the education tax refund. Obviously the opposition thought this was such a good idea that they included changes to it in their own election campaign, which was very interesting. It was introduced by a Labor government, helping around 1.3 million families to meet the costs of their children’s education, like laptops and textbooks. Of course, we announced that we are now expanding it to include school uniforms. Eligible families can claim a 50 per cent tax refund on their education expenses up to $780 for each primary school child and over $1,500 for each high school student.
We have heard about the Medicare Teen Dental Plan, under which more than 800,000 preventative dental checks have been undertaken. We have also heard about the increases we announced during the election campaign for the family tax benefit for teenagers aged 16 to 18. Can I say that, as a parent of a teenage daughter who is 16, I understand these costs and I understand that they increase as children get older. Under the new measure, the new maximum rate for FTB A for 16- to 18-year-olds will increase by $208 per fortnight. That is just over $6,000 per year. This is the same rate that currently applies to 13- to 15-year-olds and the eligibility conditions are the same.
We know that families and pensioners cannot trust the opposition. We know that during the election campaign they told us they wanted to increase the cost of living for low- and middle-income families through a tax on companies that own our supermarkets and our petrol stations so they could fund paid parental leave for high-income earners. We know all this. We heard it all during the election campaign. Those opposite do not understand the pressures that Australian families face. We know that they voted against our tax bonus for working Australians. We know that they voted against our stimulus package. We know that they voted against that package that protected and saved jobs during the global financial crisis and we know that, if they had their way, Australia would now be in recession and thousands of families would have faced unemployment, would be without a job and would be unable to pay their bills. While the opposition keeps playing their negative fear and scare campaign politics with serious issues like the cost of living, we want to continue to deliver real results—protecting jobs and providing proper support for Australian families, pensioners, carers and those in our local communities.
In closing I want to touch on the interest rates issue. We know that those opposite keep running this fear campaign on interest rates, but what we also know is that while those opposite were in government there were 10 interest rate rises in a row. We know that interest rates are now lower than when they left office in 2007 and we know that people are now paying less in mortgage interest rates. A family with a $300,000 loan is currently paying $236 a month, or over $2,800 per year, less than in November 2007. I am very pleased that we are addressing the cost of living for families. We do have a plan to continue to do that and I am pleased to be part of a government that has that plan.
368
16:29:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
0
0
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—What we have seen in the course of this matter of public importance is a government in denial. We have seen it through this debate and we have seen it right through this week: denial about their debt and deficit, denial about the impact of their mining tax, denial about the impact of their planned carbon tax on the cost of living of Australians. We have seen it right through the course of this MPI. But Australians know the price of Labor. The price of Labor—of debt and deficit and higher taxes—is always borne by the Australian community. As the shadow Treasurer rightly pointed out, three years ago the Labor Party, in opposition, promised to ease the burden on the cost of living. All that has happened in their period of government has been increases right across the board in cost-of-living pressures.
Debate interrupted.
SPEAKER'S PANEL
368
Miscellaneous
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable member for Chisholm to be a member of the Speaker's panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or Deputy Speaker.
ADJOURNMENT
368
Adjournment
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Workplace Relations
368
368
16:30:00
O’Dwyer, Kelly, MP
LKU
Higgins
LP
1
0
Ms O’DWYER
—There has been a lot of talk in the last few weeks of a new paradigm of parliamentary cooperation and goodwill. Since the election the government has promised us that we will have a kinder, gentler parliament. Clearly, the Prime Minister thinks that this new paradigm will also extend to the building and construction industry. Only this week the Prime Minister released her proposed legislation for the Spring sitting of parliament. In it she proposes the
Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2009, which will abolish the regulator of the building and construction industry, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, and replace it instead with a new weakened body within Fair Work Australia. This is a retrograde step.
The Prime Minister made a great show of stating that in government she would be drawing back the curtains and letting the sun shine in, yet so soon we have an eclipse. Far from being more transparent, this government wants to shut the curtains again on the building and construction industry, plunging it back to the dark days of unlawful behaviour including coercion, intimidation and threats. It is important to remember that the ABCC was established after an extensive and independent inquiry conducted by the Cole commission. The commissioner was perfectly clear in his conclusions stating:
These findings demonstrate an industry which departs from the standards of commercial and industrial conduct exhibited in the rest of the Australian economy. They mark the industry as singular. They indicate an urgent need for structural and cultural reform … at the heart of these findings is lawlessness.
It is clear from the inquiry that the construction industry is unique in terms of the frequency and degree of illegal and highly disruptive activity. The former commissioner of the ABCC, John Lloyd, warned only this week:
Any watered-down circumstances would see the bad practices of the past return. This would be damaging to the industry and the Australian economy.
The benefits of a strong watchdog for the construction industry as well as the wider community are clear. Research undertaken by KPMG Econtech shows that the ABCC has delivered wide-ranging economic benefits since it was established, including a 10 per cent rise in industry productivity, an annual economic welfare gain of $5.5 billion per year, a drop in the CPI of 1.2 per cent, an increase in GDP of 1.5 per cent and a significant reduction in days lost through industrial action. This Labor government plans to undo these economic and workplace improvements by shifting power away from the independent umpire back to unions. This government are not interested in maintaining law and order on worksites and improving the economic welfare of the nation. They are more interested in ensuring their political support from unions, who it seems can remove a Prime Minister, install another and now change the law.
What reason do unions propose to weaken the powers of the regulator? You probably will not be surprised to learn the reasoning of one prominent unionist, David Noonan of the CFMEU, who complains of the cost of maintaining the ABCC. In 2007 he said that the ABCC was a cost of over $30 million a year and did not create one single job. If the unions are concerned about cost and also the safety of workers, they should look no further than the government’s pink batts program. With a cost blow-out of $1 billion plus an extra $439 million to fix the problem, the government scheme was a complete disaster, not to mention the serious safety issues involved for both workers and residents. For all the money wasted on pink batts you could have funded 77 ABCCs and Australian worksites would have been much safer.
Before the last election Labor promised that they were committed to a strong cop on the beat. This legislation is an example to be added to the ever-expanding list of broken Labor promises. It is vital that the ABCC has the power to enter premises, inspect documents and summon witnesses in order to gain the information needed to prosecute cases of unlawful behaviour. We will defend it.
Robertson Electorate: Kulnura Pioneer Memorial Hall
370
370
16:35:00
O’Neill, Deborah, MP
140651
Robertson
ALP
0
0
Ms O’NEILL
—I rise today to advise the House of happy developments in the area of community infrastructure in the town of Kulnura in the part of my electorate that we call ‘the plateau’ around Mangrove Mountain. On Sunday, 19 September, I joined the residents of Kulnura at the official opening of the Kulnura Pioneer Memorial Hall. Kulnura may be a small mountain town of about 400 people, but there is a mountain of community spirit in Kulnura. There were at least 100 people there for the day of the opening, and they put on a great spread in true country style. While I shared a cup of tea and delicious homemade scones, with the obligatory jam and cream of course, I heard wonderful stories about Christmas concerts that had been held, ballet classes and dances where young lovers had met and later continued to live their lives up there on the mountain. Some of the pictures that the locals pulled out were testament to how important this community hall has been in helping the community to gather and to share journeys along the way.
When we cut the ribbon it was held by four wonderful women from the mountain who were in attendance at the first 1930s opening of the very hall that I was there to reopen in its new condition. Colleen Fraser told me about the interesting if chequered history of the memorial hall. It was first built as a memorial hall in Spencer for soldiers in the 1920s. It burnt down and was rebuilt in Kulnura sometime in the 1930s. The parents of several members of the 3-5-5 Committee were involved in extensions over the years. The hall hosted balls and formals and all manner of community events, but over time fell into disrepair.
That was until the federal Labor government came along with the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program as part of the successful Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan. We kicked in $81,000 for the refurbishment and Wyong Council chipped in another $20,000. That paid for a whole new kitchen, which was in full flight on the day; a full internal insulated ceiling; painting inside and out; a new vinyl floor for the meeting room; new steps to the stage; fire safe doors; and disabled access.
Colleen, the 355 Committee President, Michael Kidd and their fellow committee members and residents were absolutely over the moon, as you can imagine. This was a hall where a tin roof was also the ceiling. In summer and winter it was very warm or very cold indeed. One of the residents told me of a party that they had held recently before the refurbishment. They showed up with guests in tow and found they could not turn on the taps because they were in such a state of disrepair. You can imagine the challenges they had to face that afternoon.
Now they have a very different facility—a user-friendly facility for the Kulnura Community Arts and Entertainment Program to conduct its activities. Some of the activities on offer now in Kulnura are belly dancing, a drumming circle, school pantomimes and a holiday program. All of this will be happening at the Kulnura Pioneer Memorial Hall, which will also host a sculpture group. I hear that some ladies are considering starting a craft group there too.
Kulnura is not a big place, but it is a great example of what a wonderfully effective program the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program is. It was administered by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in the last government. Under the Regional and Local Community infrastructure program, more than $1 billion was allocated to projects in every single local government area. I cannot put a price on community spirit, but one thing that is priceless is the fact that, due to a range of Labor’s stimulus programs such as the Building the Education Revolution, our economy has weathered the global financial crisis better than any other advanced economy. Our national unemployment of five per cent is the envy of the world. Those on the other side may try to find fault but they should be cheering the Treasurer for what he has achieved for the Australian economy. Local government understands this only too well, because Labor is certainly the best friend of local government—probably in the history of this nation. Bike paths, community halls and local libraries—local government projects that would have sat gathering dust with the RLCIP—are able to be built thanks to the federal government. On the topic of local government, I record my congratulations to the new Mayor of Gosford, Laurie Maher. He has my best wishes and I look forward to working closely with him.
(Time expired)
Rural and Regional Australia
Tourism
371
371
16:39:00
Baldwin, Robert, MP
LL6
Paterson
LP
0
0
Mr BALDWIN
—I rise today to speak to the nearly seven million Australians who live outside our capital cities and the nearly 500,000 Australians who work in our tourism industry. If there is one thing these two groups have in common, it is that they have both been remarkably let down by this Labor government. Much is made of a new government’s first budget—it is the government’s ultimate opportunity to demonstrate what they truly believe in. What did we see in Labor’s first budget in 2008? We saw $1 billion stripped out of the regions and $1 billion of new tourism taxes introduced. It is clear to see why Labor finds it so easy to make poor policy decisions.
As the shadow minister for regional development, I live in regional Australia and have done so for more than three decades. As the shadow minister for tourism, I have had skin in the game as a tourism operator in the water sports industry. Both the Labor ministers I shadow—the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism and the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government—have no such real connection with their portfolios. In fact, they share the same qualification coming into this place both having been presidents of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and living in metropolitan Melbourne. The Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism discharges his duties in that order and is widely known as the minister for the mining tax. But he got his training wheels by taxing the tourism industry.
The Rudd-Gillard government’s reckless spending on things like pink batts and giveaways and the cost blow-outs on school halls have created record levels of debt and deficit. Labor’s addiction to reckless spending has been matched by an addiction to new taxes to fund their record debt and deficit. In its first term alone, the Rudd-Gillard government has imposed more than $1 billion of new tourism taxes on the Australian tourism industry, including increasing the passenger movement charge by 24 per cent, raising tourist visa fees by more than 33 per cent and abolishing the private provider system for the Tourist Refund Scheme for GST. These new tourism taxes were introduced by the Rudd-Gillard government at a time when the Tourism Forecasting Committee was expecting inbound visitor arrivals to fall by 4.1 per cent.
As someone who has been a tourism operator, with my own money on the table, I know the effect these taxes have on the bottom line. The minister does not. Perhaps the minister could do with a textbook: ‘Business Studies 101’. When you have been in business you know that when times get tough it is not the time to make your product more expensive than your competitors, but that is exactly what this Labor government did. Unfortunately, for the 500,000 Australians who get their livelihood from the tourism industry, that is not all they did. Faced with the challenges of the global financial crisis, an appreciating Australian currency and increased international competition this Labor government also cut the marketing budget. The Rudd-Gillard government’s own budget papers show that, while total federal government spending has skyrocketed from $272 billion to $352 billion under it, funding for Tourism Australia dropped by $13.5 million in real terms. These funding cuts under Labor mean that in real terms funding for Tourism Australia has not been lower since the introduction of the landmark tourism white paper in 2003.
Another textbook the minister should read is ‘Marketing Studies 101’. When markets are falling you advertise your product more to increase the awareness of your potential clients; you do not cut the budget. When the times got tough Labor made the product more expensive and cut the marketing budget. That is no way to run a tourism business and it is no way to execute tourism policy. Under the Rudd-Gillard government, the tourism industry is wearing the burden of Labor’s debt and deficit without having got any of the benefits of their record spending. Seven million Australians live outside our capital cities, yet Labor’s Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government is not one of them. He lives in metropolitan Melbourne, and it shows. Yesterday the minister said in a speech at the National Press Club:
This new paradigm effectively turns Australian Government upside down—we want solutions coming up from local communities not being imposed from above by Canberra.
What we do know is that Labor are sending the problems back down from Canberra to local communities. There is no bigger unwanted imposition on regional Australia that Labor’s great big new carbon tax on everything. The Prime Minister ruled out a carbon tax before the election but now, thanks to the Labor-Greens alliance, Labor will break their election commitment. This means the costs will rise for those seven million Australians living outside our capital cities and there will be a negative effect on those half a million jobs in tourism.
As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in question time today, since December 2007 electricity prices are up by 34 per cent, water prices are up by 29 per cent, gas prices are up by 26 per cent and health costs are up by 18 per cent, and it will only get worse with the carbon tax and the mining tax.
Councillor Mike Downie
372
372
16:44:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—It is with great sadness that my first speech in the 43rd Parliament should be to honour the life of my friend the late Michael John Downie. Mike’s funeral was today and I wish I could have been there in person to honour his life and the wonderful contribution he made to his community and the state of Tasmania.
Mike was the mayor of my local Central Coast Council where I was a colleague from 1996 until my election to this place in 1998. Since then we have been great mates and he was a very positive and supportive influence on my life and career. He was also good for a laugh and a joke or three! Mike was a hugely popular mayor, a real leader, not just of his municipality but of the north-west region. Indeed, he was instrumental in urging municipal colleagues and significant others to rise above the elements of parochialism that had tended to hold the north-west region back for decades. Mike was a regionalist and he led a council that looked more broadly at issues beyond its municipal borders while never neglecting the municipality itself.
First elected to Penguin Council in 1979, Mike served in a variety of roles as councillor until the amalgamation of Penguin with the larger neighbouring municipality of Ulverstone to form the current Central Coast Council in 1993—indeed, my local municipality. Mike gained a reputation as an active, articulate and hardworking representative who knew his community and its varied issues very well and was greatly respected for it.
Mike was deputy mayor to the Hon. Sue Smith, the current President of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, from 1996 to 1998 and became mayor in 1998—a position held with great pride and distinction. I worked with Mike on council for a couple of years and there was no doubting his leadership qualities. He was in and around the various procedures and protocols that infuse local government administration everywhere and had an in-depth knowledge of local planning laws in particular. There was not much that got past Mike’s radar.
He was also a passionate advocate for realising the infrastructure needs of his bailiwick. Indeed, you could say he was a very good nagger! Mike successfully got bipartisan political support, both Tasmanian and Commonwealth, for major projects such as the shared pathway between Turners Beach and Ulverstone, the Ulverstone wharf redevelopment and recreation centre—and I had the honour of opening both of these—and the new Ulverstone Bridge across the beautiful Leven River. In fact Mike was lobbying me about his next project the very last time I saw him. Mike was one of the major architects of the Cradle Coast Authority, a somewhat uniquely structured body advocating regional issues and acting as a one-stop shop on a variety of matters shared by the participating councils.
Mike was able to operate and look within and beyond the square. Indeed, he could swim against the contemporary tide at times and was known to actually create a ripple or two of his own. On many occasions he was right to do so because Mike’s rationale was quite simple: if it does not make common sense you can bet on more occasions than not that it should not happen at all. A tenacious advocate, Mike achieved the highest level of representation within the Tasmanian Local Government Association and in this role he was able to positively improve the provision of services and administration of local government in the state.
Mike loved his community but his greatest focus was his family and the real love of his life, Kath, whom he married in 1969. As I said and observed many times, Mike Downie loved his family and was greatly loved in return. When Mike became ill I was able to visit him at home on a couple of occasions and as we mulled over shared experiences several things struck me. The first was the demonstrable and loving relationship between Mike and Kath—equals in debate, life and love. The second was his love of family, with pictures of his children and grandchildren dotted around their welcoming home. Third was his determination to remain up to date with local, state and national affairs but most of all with his municipal responsibilities—the radar was just as sensitive and alert in sickness as it was in health. Fourth, he was a fanatical Collingwood supporter, and I suppose if one is to have a character flaw it may as well be a big one. No doubt Mike will be looking down again with lots of Saints to see how his beloved Magpies go on Saturday. Finally, I saw the badge that Mike would constantly wear wherever he went and on every official occasion: it was literally a smiley badge with a caption saying, ‘Hello!’ This typified the man—a man of genuine good humour, proud to meet and represent people and ever-keen to add a little sunshine and goodness to the lives of everyone.
May I pass on my sincerest condolences to Mike’s loving wife, Kath; his children, Andrew, David, Michelle, Vanessa, and their partners; and to his greatly loved grandchildren. Rest in peace with our love and gratitude, Mike Downie. Yours was a life well lived, willingly served and greatly admired.
Prime Minister
374
374
16:49:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—In question time today, the Prime Minister whitewashed the sins of the minister for the environment in relation to the Green Loans Program. In response to a question from the member for Parkes, she selectively quoted from the ANAO report on the Green Loans Program to indicate that it was the department that did it. Let there be no mistake: it was the minister that did it, and the sins were great.
The report builds upon three previous reports commissioned by the department in relation to the failed Green Loans Program and what it found was a manifest failure in governance of a government program. This was whitewashed by the Prime Minister of Australia as if to exonerate a minister of the crown. That whitewashing indicates that, far from being a parliament that will release light upon areas of government failure, this parliament will be engaged in cover-up.
The whitewash today was a shameful act of prime ministerial negligence. What we saw in the Green Loans Program was, for the best part, a waste of $275 million of public money. It was a program characterised by rorting, waste, maladministration and a manifest failure of governance, as recognised and reported in the Auditor-General’s inquiry. This should be enough to damn any minister, but under this government, under this Prime Minister, the standards of ministerial accountability do not exist.
The Prime Minister ignored two absolutely critical elements: firstly, the reason within the Auditor-General’s report—which clearly she has not read herself, although she taunted others on that fact—that this program was allowed to fail and be subject to a lack of governance was found by the Auditor-General to have been that the departmental officials were caught up in trying to fix the Home Insulation Program. So the minister’s failure in one area is cited by the Prime Minister as an excuse for his second failure in another area. It is almost laughable that the Prime Minister would use this report to try to whitewash the sins of the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, as he then was, before she promoted him to the current position of Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth.
The second thing that Prime Minister ignored is that there were manifest, clear, open public warnings throughout the last half of 2009 and the first half of this year. In August, in September in October, in November and in December of last year, on their own words the Australian sustainable building association warned the minister. They made these warnings in public—that the Green Loans Program was failing, was unsustainable and would be unsuccessful. They made these warnings in private in a way which has subsequently been released. So this was a manifest failure of governance, a failure of oversight, a failure of duty, and all whitewashed today.
The Prime Minister has said effectively that there are no standards of failure under her government which are too great to be whitewashed. This was not the first such sin; this was the third. The second was the failure of the Solar Homes and Communities Plan, a program again which ran out of control, which had an $850 million blow-out despite evidence of mass rorting. And most importantly, the third strike was the Home Insulation Program, which has been explored in detail elsewhere.
The echoes of that program continue today—a $2½ billion program of which $1 billion comprised the cost to fix the roofs. That is the greatest failure of a program in Australian political history. It is not just the money, though; it is the fact that there have been almost 200 house fires, that there have been 1,500 electrified homes, that there have are 250,000 dangerous or dodgy roofs and, above all else, there have been four terrible human tragedies. Today we have seen a Prime Minister fail in her duty to uphold ministerial responsibility. Three strikes and the minister should be out.
Deakin Electorate: Mrs Loreen Bray
375
375
16:55:00
Symon, Mike, MP
HW8
Deakin
ALP
1
0
Mr SYMON
—As this is my first opportunity in this parliament, may I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your re-election as Speaker of the House. I look forward to your patient guidance and knowledge of the standing orders and
House of Representatives Practice, which far exceeds mine. I seek to learn a lot more from you during the term of this parliament.
I would like to make the House aware of an important local event in my electorate which I was privileged to attend last Friday. On 24 September 2010, I was invited to attend the 100th birthday celebration of Loreen Bray, who is now a local resident of Deakin. A 100th birthday is quite a rare event. I had a look at the 2006 census numbers for how many people in my electorate are 100 years of age or over. Out of 120,000 people, there is a huge figure of 30! So it is quite a momentous occasion which does not come up very often. I think I am going to have a few more 100 birthdays to attend because, whilst looking at those figures, I noted that Deakin has a much higher than average percentage of people over the age of 65. Indeed, in Deakin that percentage is now at 17.3 per cent, four per cent above the national average. In my time I think I will get to attend a few more 100 birthdays—I hope there are many.
Loreen and her family were celebrating the big day at Forest Hill Retirement Village, a wonderful facility. I have been there on occasions before. Rather than being a high-care facility, it is a place where people live independently in their own little units, sharing common facilities. They have great friendships and bonds. The day I was there, some of them had to leave the party because they were going into the city to see a production of
Mamma Mia!. They were dressed up in Abba gear and that was a pretty good sight to see.
Being a birthday party there was food and a few celebratory drinks. I had the great honour of presenting Loreen with a certificate and a congratulatory letter on behalf of the constituents of Deakin. That was a particularly nice moment. With me also was the state member for Mitcham, Tony Robinson. He has a long association with the retirement village. I have been down there with him before when we had various other events.
Loreen was born to Ellen and Sydney Austin in Mildura, Victoria, on 24 September 1910. That seems so long ago. She was the youngest of seven girls and at the age of 13 her family moved to Melbourne. Loreen moved to Armadale after her marriage to Bert Bray and then settled in Box Hill South. Loreen has always been a big part of the local community in Box Hill South, being an active member of Box Hill Legacy, War Widows the Garden Club and Probus. Since she moved to Forest Hill last November, she has made new friends and actively participates in the many activities held at the retirement village and beyond. I have to admire Loreen. I could not believe that she is 100 years of age—she looks about 30 years younger. I hope I look even half as good at three-quarters her age.
Loreen’s family are very close. They constantly visit her at Forest Hill Retirement Village. On the big day a huge contingent of her family were there. It was a truly great occasion. When asked for her secret to a long life she said she never owned a car and still walks everywhere, keeping active and fit. That was the day before the first AFL grand final. There were large amounts of black and white stuff around, which I avoided, and there were large amounts of black, red and white stuff around, which I made sure I stayed close to. I certainly hope that the residents of the village have it all out again this week and are cheering on St Kilda to a win in the rematch of the grand final. I hope to go back many times in the future, not only for 100 birthdays but for other special occasions.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted.
376
00:00:00
House adjourned at 5 pm
NOTICES
376
Notices
The following
notices were
given:
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall
to move:
That this House:
-
notes that:
-
National Stroke Awareness Week was 13 to 19 September;
-
sixty thousand people will suffer a stroke this year, that is, one stroke every 10 minutes;
-
stroke is the second single greatest killer after coronary and a leading cause of disability in Australia;
-
one in five people having a first stroke die within one month, and one in three die within one year;
-
twenty per cent of all strokes occur in people under fifty five years of age;
-
eighty eight per cent of stroke survivors live at home, and most have a disability;
-
stroke kills more women than breast cancer;
-
stroke costs Australia $2.14 billion a year, yet is preventable; and
-
education plays an important role in reducing the occurrence of stroke; and
-
acknowledges:
-
the role played by the families and carers of stroke victims;
-
the work of the National Stroke Foundation;
-
the effectiveness of the FAST campaign; and
-
that prevention is the best cure.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
to present a Bill for an Act to protect the interests of Aboriginal people in the management, development and use of native title land situated in wild river areas, and for related purposes.