2010-10-28
43
1
1
REPS
0
0
2010-10-28
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9 am, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
1987
Committees
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Committee
1987
Membership
1987
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Fierravanti-Wells has been discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and that, in accordance with the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006, Senator the Hon. Ian Macdonald has been appointed a member of the committee.
Privileges and Members’ Interests Committee
1987
Report
1987
1987
09:01:00
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
1
0
Ms BURKE
—As required by resolutions of the House I table a copy of the Register of Members’ Interests, volumes 1-4, for the 43rd Parliament. I ask leave of the House to present copies of notifications of alterations of interests received from 24 June 2010 to 19 July 2010. The House was dissolved on 19 July 2010.
Leave granted.
83S
Burke, Anna, MP
Ms BURKE
—I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
83S
Burke, Anna, MP
Ms BURKE
—I have just presented, as is required by the resolution of the House, the initial statements of interests by members at the commencement of the 43rd Parliament.
I take this opportunity to remind members that, in the last parliament, the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests agreed that, from the 43rd Parliament, members’ statements of interests will be made available electronically on the Parliament House website. As it is a significant administrative task to load this material to the website, I advise that the register should be available on the website from mid next week. Members’ entries will then be updated as notifications of alterations are received.
I also advise members that a number of security features will be included in the electronic copy loaded to the website to protect members. The Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests will keep this matter under review.
Publications Committee
1987
Report
1987
1987
09:03:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Fowler
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—I present the report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
1987
Bills
R4471
First Reading
1987
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Shorten.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
1987
1987
09:04:00
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 has two purposes: one, to amend the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to authorise the subscription by Australia to additional shares in the capital stock of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD); and, two, to amend the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Act 1955 to incorporate a proposed amendment to the articles of agreement of the IFC and to amend the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) Act 1997 to incorporate four amendments to the MIGA convention which have recently been adopted by the MIGA Council of Governors.
The first purpose of the bill is to obtain parliamentary approval for Australia to subscribe to additional shares in the capital stock at the IBRD as part of the general and selective capital increases recently agreed, at a cost of around US$51.6 million.
The International Monetary Agreements (IMA) Act 1947 established Australia’s membership of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The bill proposes to amend the IMA Act 1947 to authorise the subscription by Australia to 7,128 additional shares in the capital stock at the IBRD, at a price of US$120,635 a share.
The World Bank, which was established in 1944, is the key multilateral development finance institution focused on fighting poverty throughout the world. As the original institution of the World Bank Group, the IBRD aims to reduce poverty in middle-income and creditworthy poorer countries by promoting sustainable development through loans, guarantees, risk management products, and analytical and advisory services.
Made up of 187 member countries, the IBRD (or the ‘bank’s’) capital consists of two components: paid-in and uncalled. This general capital increase involves actual payment by members of the paid-in component, and a potential liability for the uncalled component. The bank’s loans have been financed largely by funds borrowed from international financial markets. Since its inception, the bank has never made a call on its uncalled capital. The bank’s prudent financial policies make it unlikely that such a call will be made in the future.
The international financial institutions have been a central part of the global response to the financial crisis, with the multilateral development banks (MDBs) mobilising US$235 billion in financing. The G20 commitment to increasing MDB resourcing has helped ensure that the institutions have sufficient resources to address the impacts of the global financial crisis and the recovery, through US$350 billion in capital increases.
As part of this push to support the MDBs’ role in addressing development, in April 2010 the World Bank’s Development Committee agreed at the spring meetings to an increase of US$86.2 billion in capital for the IBRD, including US$5.1 billion in paid-in capital. The increase will enable the IBRD to provide the lending levels necessary to assist developing countries in their post-crisis recovery whilst maintaining appropriate prudential standards.
The proposed capital increase includes a selective capital increase of US$27.8 billion, with paid-in capital of US$1.6 billion, to implement the World Bank’s voice reform package, which increases the voting power of developing and transition countries. The long-term effectiveness and legitimacy of the World Bank Group will be strengthened by these reforms that move towards appropriate voice for all members—including the poorest.
The voice reforms begin the transition to a shareholding structure that is more reflective of economic weight in the world economy and each country’s contribution to achieving the World Bank’s development mission, breaking the historical reliance on IMF quotas.
Under the general capital increase, Australia is entitled to subscribe to an additional 6,661 shares. Reflecting our historical contributions to the concessional arm of the bank (the International Development Association), Australia is also entitled to purchase up to 467 additional shares as part of the selective capital increase. Taking the general and selective capital increases together, Australia’s total subscription amounts to 7,128 shares at a price of US$120,635 each. Only six per cent of the value of these shares is required to be paid-in. As a result, the annual cost of the subscription will draw on a very small part of Australia’s aid program over the five-year payment period.
The paid-in portion of these shares was included in the 2010-11 budget as a capital measure of US$51.6 million—based on budget exchange rates, that was A$55.9 million—to be paid-in over five years, commencing in 2011-12. The measure had no direct impact on the underlying cash or fiscal balances.
The budget measure also stated that Australia would increase its uncalled capital subscription by US$808.3 million, which could only be drawn down in the unlikely event that the IBRD is unable to meet its financial obligations. The increase in the uncalled component of Australia’s subscription appeared in the Statement of Risks as a contingent liability.
Timely passage of the legislation is necessary for Australia to meet the G20 Pittsburgh Summit and Toronto Summit commitments of ensuring that international financial institutions have appropriate capital for their resourcing needs, ensuring developing countries increase their voting power and modernising the World Bank. It is important that Australia demonstrates its commitment to the G20 agenda by ensuring prompt implementation of these reforms.
In supporting the IBRD’s capital increase, Australia recognises the significant contribution the bank has made to developing countries, both in its long history of supporting poverty reduction and in its response to the global financial crisis through new and innovative approaches to helping its clients.
The World Bank Group has embarked upon fundamental governance reform and developed a post-crisis directions strategy to sharpen its focus where it can add the most value, emphasising, among other things, targeting the poor and vulnerable. In the drive to become more efficient, effective and accountable, the World Bank has committed to a long-term governance reform agenda, which includes steps already taken to decentralise decision making and focus on results.
I believe the economic and political significance of the World Bank’s important developmental role thoroughly justifies Australia’s continued support of the bank by taking up its full additional subscription of the bank’s capital increases.
Further details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
The second purpose of this bill is to amend the IFC Act to allow Australia to incorporate a proposed amendment to the articles of agreement of the IFC and to amend the MIGA Act to adopt four amendments to the MIGA convention. The articles of agreement of the IFC and the MIGA convention form schedules to the IFC Act 1955 and the MIGA Act 1997 respectively.
The proposed amendment to the articles of agreement of the IFC aims to improve the voice and participation of developing and transition economies in the World Bank by increasing their basic votes, implementing the G20 commitment. This will increase the effectiveness and legitimacy of the World Bank as the leading global development institution and enhance the influence that developing and transition countries have over governance, policies and decision making at the World Bank. The proposed voice reform also allows shareholders to achieve voting power adjustments in both the IBRD and the IFC, taking into account different levels of shareholder interest in and support for the different institutions.
The four amendments to the MIGA convention recently adopted by MIGA’s Council of Governors will modernise MIGA’s mandate and expand the agency’s scope, allowing a greater range of projects to be eligible for MIGA coverage. The amendments will permit the agency to: provide coverage for stand-alone debt; broaden the process for investor registration; broaden the scope for coverage for existing assets; and eliminate the requirement of a joint application by the investor and the host country to authorise coverage for specific additional non-commercial risks.
The Treasurer, as Governor for Australia of the World Bank, voted in favour of each of these proposed amendments. Australia has significant interest in seeing these reforms implemented as they will enhance the effectiveness and legitimacy of both institutions.
The agreement and convention constitute international treaties for Australia and, as such, any amendments to the treaties will require tabling in parliament and consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. A national interest assessment will be tabled in parliament as soon as possible outlining these proposed amendments.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Laming) adjourned.
BUSINESS
1990
Business
Rearrangement
1990
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
09:13:00
—by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent orders of the day Nos 6, 8, 3, 1 and 5, private Members’ business, being called on immediately in that order.
Question agreed to.
EVIDENCE AMENDMENT (JOURNALISTS’ PRIVILEGE) BILL 2010
1990
Bills
R4468
Second Reading
1990
Debate resumed from 25 October, on motion by Mr Wilkie:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
1990
Mr WILKIE
(Denison)
09:15:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE BUILDING THE EDUCATION REVOLUTION PROGRAM BILL 2010
1990
Bills
R4469
Second Reading
1990
Debate resumed from 25 October, on motion by Mr Pyne:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question negatived.
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
1990
Private Members' Business
Youth Allowance
1990
Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Ms Marino:
That this House:
-
requires the Government:
-
urgently to introduce legislation to reinstate the former workplace participation criteria for independent youth allowance, to apply to students whose family home is located in inner regional areas as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics instrument Australian Standard Geographical Classification; and
-
to appropriate funds necessary to meet the additional cost of expanding the criteria for participation, with the funds to come from the Education Investment Fund; and
-
to send a message to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and request that it concur.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The question is that the motion be agreed to.
09:21:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
74
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Alexander, J.
Andrews, K.
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Buchholz, S.
Chester, D.
Christensen, G.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M. *
Crook, T.
Dutton, P.C.
Entsch, W.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
Frydenberg, J.
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Griggs, N.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Jones, E.
Katter, R.C.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, C.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
Matheson, R.
McCormack, M.
Mirabella, S.
Morrison, S.J.
Neville, P.C.
O’Dowd, K.
O’Dwyer, K
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Prentice, J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Roy, Wyatt
Ruddock, P.M.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D. *
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Tehan, D.
Truss, W.E.
Tudge, A.
Turnbull, M.
Van Manen, B.
Vasta, R.
Washer, M.J.
Wilkie, A.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wyatt, K.
70
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bandt, A.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Brodtmann, G.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Husic, E.
Jones, S.
Kelly, M.J.
King, C.F.
Leigh, A.
Livermore, K.F.
Lyons, G.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
Melham, D.
Mitchell, R.
Murphy, J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Neill, D.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Rowland, M.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Smyth, L.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
2
PAIRS
Broadbent, R.
Plibersek, T.
Moylan, J.E.
Bradbury, D.J.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Australia’s Future Tax System Review
1991
Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Hockey:
That this House:
-
notes that:
-
Australia’s Future Tax System Review (the ‘Henry Review’) made a large number of recommendations in relation to the system of taxation;
-
the Government implemented very few of the recommendations;
-
the Government has so far not released any of the Treasury modelling or other relevant information and advice underlying the recommendations; and
-
release of that information would be in the best interests of the community by facilitating a fully informed public debate about the way forward for taxation reform;
-
orders the Government to release within five working days from the date of this motion, all of the relevant modelling, costings, working papers and supporting information underlying the ‘Henry Review’;
-
requires that, from the date of this motion, no existing papers, emails or other information relating to the ‘Henry Review’ may be destroyed; and
-
requires the Secretary of the Treasury to warrant to the House that all relevant documentation underlying the ‘Henry Review’ has been released.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The question is that the motion be agreed to.
09:30:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
72
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Alexander, J.
Andrews, K.
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Buchholz, S.
Chester, D.
Christensen, G.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M. *
Crook, T.
Dutton, P.C.
Entsch, W.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
Frydenberg, J.
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Griggs, N.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Jones, E.
Katter, R.C.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, C.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
Matheson, R.
McCormack, M.
Mirabella, S.
Morrison, S.J.
Neville, P.C.
O’Dowd, K.
O’Dwyer, K
Prentice, J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Roy, Wyatt
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D. *
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Tehan, D.
Truss, W.E.
Tudge, A.
Turnbull, M.
Van Manen, B.
Vasta, R.
Washer, M.J.
Wyatt, K.
73
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bandt, A.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Brodtmann, G.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Husic, E.
Jones, S.
Kelly, M.J.
King, C.F.
Leigh, A.
Livermore, K.F.
Lyons, G.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
Melham, D.
Mitchell, R.
Murphy, J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Neill, D.
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Rowland, M.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Smyth, L.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, A.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Zappia, A.
2
PAIRS
Broadbent, R.
Plibersek, T.
Moylan, J.E.
Bradbury, D.J.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
Asylum Seekers
1993
Debate resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Morrison:
That this House:
-
notes that:
-
the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugees Convention) states that ‘contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin’;
-
the Government suspended the processing of asylum seeker applications from Afghanistan on 9 April 2010; and
-
there are more than 5000 persons currently being detained by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on the mainland and Christmas Island; and
-
calls for the:
-
immediate lifting of the discriminatory suspension of processing of claims by Afghan asylum seekers;
-
immediate processing of asylum claims of all Afghans held in detention; and
-
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to provide subclass 449 safe haven visas to successful refugees, to accommodate potential changes in refugee status resulting from changed conditions in the country of origin.
—And on the amendment moved thereto by Mr Morrison, viz.—That the motion be amended to read—
That this house:
-
notes that:
-
the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugees Convention) states that ‘contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin’;
-
the Government suspended the processing of asylum seeker applications from Afghanistan on 9 April 2010; and
-
there are more than 5000 persons currently being detained by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on the mainland and Christmas Island;
-
condemns the Rudd Gillard Government for their imposition of a discriminatory freeze of the assessment of asylum applications for persons from Afghanistan arriving in Australia; and
-
calls for the introduction of proven policies proposed by the Coalition to address unprecedented irregular maritime arrivals to Australia, including:
-
the application of temporary visas for all persons who have arrived illegally in Australia;
-
the reopening of a third country processing centre in Nauru for irregular maritime arrivals to Australia;
-
being prepared to turn around boats where the circumstances permit;
-
streamline the appeals process by removing the panel system and replace with a review by a single case officer as practiced by the UNHCR;
-
presuming against refugee status determination for persons who are reasonably believed to have destroyed or discarded their identity documentation; and
-
return unsuccessful claimants for refugee status to their country of origin.”
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Cook be agreed to.
09:38:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
72
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Alexander, J.
Andrews, K.
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Buchholz, S.
Chester, D.
Christensen, G.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M. *
Crook, T.
Dutton, P.C.
Entsch, W.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
Frydenberg, J.
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Griggs, N.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Jones, E.
Katter, R.C.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, C.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
Matheson, R.
McCormack, M.
Mirabella, S.
Morrison, S.J.
Neville, P.C.
O’Dowd, K.
O’Dwyer, K
Prentice, J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Roy, Wyatt
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D. *
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Tehan, D.
Truss, W.E.
Tudge, A.
Turnbull, M.
Van Manen, B.
Vasta, R.
Washer, M.J.
Wyatt, K.
73
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bandt, A.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Brodtmann, G.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Husic, E.
Jones, S.
Kelly, M.J.
King, C.F.
Leigh, A.
Livermore, K.F.
Lyons, G.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
Melham, D.
Mitchell, R.
Murphy, J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Neill, D.
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Rowland, M.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Smyth, L.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, A.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Zappia, A.
2
PAIRS
Broadbent, R.
Plibersek, T.
Moylan, J.E.
Bradbury, D.J.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
Original question negatived.
PARLIAMENTARY ZONE
1
Parliamentary Zone
Approval of Proposal
1
1995
09:41:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
1
0
Mr COMBET
—On behalf of the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, I move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 25 October 2010, namely: New Access Road from Kings Avenue to the National Archives of Australia.
The National Capital Authority, at the request of the National Archives of Australia, has developed a design proposal for a new access road from Kings Avenue to the archive. The new access road is required to improve accessibility to and legibility of the entrance to the archive and by creating a more formal entrance road and new set-down area.
Approval of both houses is sought under subsection 5(1) of the Parliament Act 1974 for the proposed new works in the Parliamentary Zone. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Approval of Proposal
1
1995
09:43:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
1
0
Mr COMBET
—On behalf of the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, I move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 25 October 2010, namely: Installation of five new outdoor exhibits within the Parliamentary Zone adjacent to the Questacon building and to make permanent seven existing temporary outdoor exhibits.
The National Capital Authority has received a works approval application from the National Science and Technology Centre, known as Questacon, for the installation of five new outdoor exhibits adjacent to the Questacon building and to make permanent seven existing temporary outdoor exhibits. The exhibits are part of a master plan developed for the site.
Approval of both houses is sought under subsection 5(1) of the Parliament Act 1974 for the proposed new works in the Parliamentary Zone. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
1995
Committees
Public Works Committee
1995
Reference
1995
Mr GRAY
(Brand
—Special Minister of State and Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity)
09:44:00
—I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Integrated fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Taxation Office at 12-26 Franklin St, Adelaide, SA.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
1995
Reference
1995
Mr GRAY
(Brand
—Special Minister of State and Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity)
09:45:00
—I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the Attorney-General’s Department at 4 National Circuit, Barton, ACT.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
1996
Reference
1996
Mr GRAY
(Brand
—Special Minister of State and Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity)
09:45:00
—I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: HMAS Penguin and Pittwater Annexe redevelopment, Mosman and Clareville, NSW.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
1996
Reference
1996
Mr GRAY
(Brand
—Special Minister of State and Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity)
09:46:00
—I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed redevelopment and construction of housing for the Department of Defence at Largs North (Bayriver), Port Adelaide, SA.
Question agreed to.
SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010
1996
Bills
R4459
Second Reading
1996
Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by Mr McClelland:
That this bill be now read a second time.
1996
09:47:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
0
0
Mr KEENAN
—I rise to talk on the Sex and Age Discrimination Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The Sex Discrimination Act makes discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, pregnancy and family responsibilities unlawful in specified areas of public life. It has been in place for over 25 years and has been an important tool in addressing discrimination and in changing attitudes about the participation of women and men in a range of areas of public life.
The Sex Discrimination Act, similar to other antidiscrimination laws, has been an important mechanism in changing community perceptions and setting appropriate standards to recognise that men and women should be able to fully participate in the social, economic and public life of Australian society. Notably, the bill contains two measures: (1) amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to strengthen protections in the legislation and, (2) amendments to the Age Discrimination Act 2004 to establish an Age Discrimination Commissioner in the Australian Human Rights Commission. These amendments give effect to recommendations of the 2008 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry into the effectiveness of the Sex Discrimination Act in eliminating discrimination and promoting gender equality. The amendments in this bill address issues of significant community concern by strengthening protections for Australians in the workplace, including workers with family responsibilities, as well as providing specific protections for women who are breastfeeding.
The coalition has a history of supporting equality in the workplace. Successfully balancing paid work with family responsibilities remains a major challenge for a large number of Australians. With women continuing to carry the majority of Australia’s unpaid caring work, creating workplaces that support women and men to balance paid work and share caring responsibilities is critical to achieving gender equality. The coalition’s paid parental leave scheme alleviates the burden of the hardest choice that women in the workplace are forced to make. The decision to sacrifice financial security to have a child is made easier by our plan to extend the period of leave and have it paid at the same level as the individual’s income. The coalition recognises that the family is the foundation of our society. Through our policies, we aim to give families every opportunity to find a harmonious balance between work and family life.
I will turn now to the provisions in the bill. The bill proposes to make four substantive amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act: to extend the act to ensure equal protection for men as well as women; to broaden the prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of family responsibilities to include indirect discrimination against both men and women in all areas of their work; to establish breastfeeding as a separate ground of discrimination; and to strengthen the protections against sexual harassment in workplaces and schools to also include cyberbullying and electronic harassment.
The amendments to the Age Discrimination Act provide for the establishment of an Age Discrimination Commissioner in the Australian Human Rights Commission. This is intended to reflect the increasing needs of an ageing population and to address the factors that contribute to age discrimination in the workplace and community. To date, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, has had responsibility for age discrimination issues. The coalition would like to acknowledge her good work and strong advocacy in this area. Commissioner Broderick said in a media release on 1 October this year:
It is vital that we recognise age discrimination for what it is—something that stereotypes people, strips them of their individuality, robs them of choice and control and prevents them from being assessed on the basis of merit. Ultimately, age discrimination—like any form of discrimination—will result in less diversity in our workplaces.
Australia’s ageing population has highlighted the need for a dedicated commissioner to promote respect and fairness and to tackle the attitudes and stereotypes that can contribute to age discrimination.
This bill has already been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and the coalition reserves the right to move amendments pending the outcome of the committee’s report. There are certainly some things within the bill that we believe require further illumination, in particular the inclusion of relevant international instruments—a very extensive number of international instruments. We are very keen to find out exactly what that means and exactly how that might work within Australian law. Those are the sorts of issues that we will be particularly keen for the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to inquire into and we will also be keen for them to highlight what is actually going to happen when all of these extensive international instruments are incorporated within this act. On those grounds we support in principle this bill but we reserve our right to make changes in the Senate based on the outcome of that committee report.
1997
09:53:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women
1
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—I rise in the House today in support of the Sex and Age Discrimination Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. This is an incredibly important bill. It delivers on an election commitment to ensure that both women and men, regardless of their age, can confidently participate in the economic life of our nation without fear of discrimination. In making my remarks this morning, I would like to begin by commending the Attorney-General for bringing forward amendments of such significance, such importance and such impact.
One of my priorities as the Minister for the Status of Women is to achieve greater economic security for the women of Australia. Research shows that there has been a shift in Australia from a more traditional model of a family with a male breadwinner and a female caregiver to one of a family with two incomes. Yet, despite these shifts, we know that Australian women continue to do the greater share of unpaid caring and domestic work. We also know that there are in fact many men out there who would love to play a larger role in unpaid care and in spending time with their young children. Men want to be able to access more flexible arrangements. We know that the number of men undertaking this unpaid work is beginning to increase.
The amendments in this bill mean that more men can now seek these work arrangements to undertake child rearing or other caring or domestic work without fear of discrimination or reprisal in their workplaces. In order for women to hold an equal place in Australian society, we must consistently and systematically remove all barriers to women having a fulfilling working life. The unequal burden of caring responsibilities is one of these barriers and has meant that women have often had fewer options in their working arrangements or careers. This bill provides the conditions for families to make a decision about how their work and caring responsibilities can be shared between both women and men. Effectively, the amendments encourage greater participation for women in the workforce and greater participation for men in caring and unpaid domestic work—an excellent outcome for women and an excellent outcome for men and, importantly, ultimately an excellent outcome for our nation’s children. These amendments are part of the government’s continuing commitment to make flexible work options available to all Australians. We have introduced the new National Employment Standards under the Fair Work Act, which provide parents of both genders with a right to request a flexible work pattern from their employer. We have also announced parental leave entitlements for fathers as well as mothers to help Australian men increase their participation as caregivers.
More generally, the bill before the House also amends Australia’s sex discrimination legislation so that its protections apply equally to men and women. The bill also establishes breastfeeding as a distinct ground of discrimination, making it unlawful for people to be discriminated against on this basis. It also seeks to strengthen protections against sexual harassment and recognises that sexual harassment does take place far too often within Australian workplaces but that there are also changing forms of harassment with the advent of new technologies. I welcome these amendments as establishing a framework for working conditions that will allow women and men to pursue fulfilling work and family lives free from discrimination or reprisal.
I will now change hats briefly. It is also a priority, as the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare, that we ensure that the labour market is accessible to all Australians, regardless of their age. This government has adopted particular measures to skill up our young workers and to support mature age workers to expand their career options. This amendment will, for the first time, establish a dedicated Age Discrimination Commissioner to advocate for the rights of older Australians in the community and in the workplace. I particularly welcome the establishment of this role as it relates to older workers who are experiencing discrimination in their workforce. We know that this is a huge concern and a significant concern for far too many Australians out there. The majority of age discrimination complaints received by the Australian Human Rights Commission in 2008 and 2009 related to employment. The commission has also told us that unlawful age discrimination has emerged as a serious disincentive to mature age workers continuing in paid work. This is something that should be of grave concern to all of us, particularly given the composition of our workforce over the coming years and the demographics that we know that we are facing. This is a major issue which must be addressed.
Age discrimination can occur in a number of ways in the workplace—in recruitment processes, access to training, promotions, flexible work practices, targeted restructures and age based bullying. Unfortunately, age discrimination can go unnoticed too often. It is my hope that the establishment of this dedicated role will raise the profile of this issue and provide redress for a number of older workers. We know that mature workers bring significant benefits to the workplace, including a strong sense of loyalty, reliability and insight. The new commissioner will encourage employers and the broader community to appreciate these important qualities and the remarkable skills older Australians bring to the workplace and their communities.
This initiative builds on amendments made to strengthen the Age Discrimination Act in 2009. The establishment of a new commissioner will also complement the work of the government’s consultative forum on mature age participation. In the establishment of a new stand-alone commissioner, I would like to acknowledge the huge efforts of Liz Broderick in this role to date. In making these changes it is absolutely no reflection on the hard work that she has put in and the priority that she has given to this issue. It is, however, an acknowledgment that this is a huge and growing concern—that our demographic changes mean that we need to take the issue seriously. We need to bring about change to these cultures and that means we need a commissioner who can be responsible for overseeing this. This bill will create the conditions for a more equal and more productive workforce and will be in the best interests of all Australians. I would like to commend the Attorney-General for these insightful amendments and also commend the bill to the House.
1999
10:00:00
Marino, Nola, MP
HWP
Forrest
LP
0
0
Ms MARINO
—As members in this House are aware, for over 25 years the Sex Discrimination Act has made it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sex, marital status, pregnancy and family responsibilities but, whilst we in the opposition are supportive of moves to protect Australians against sex discrimination and harassment, we reserve our position on the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act pending the report of the inquiry by the Senate Legal And Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. Stakeholders have raised concerns that the amendments will have unintended consequences and, in some circumstances, do not perhaps go far enough. Given this, we have referred the bill to the Senate committee for inquiry and report and we will move amendments as necessary.
The second part of this bill relates to age discrimination and the establishment of an Age Discrimination Commissioner. We on this side are very supportive of the draft proposal. There are some really major issues for seniors. It is important that in an age commissioner they have someone who will engage with stakeholders, including industry and community representatives, to tackle discrimination in the workplace and the community. The promotion of respect and fairness for the seven million Australians who are over 50 is extremely important. I personally welcome this move given that there are around 19,000 people over 65 in my electorate of Forrest and given the fact that this number will increase quite rapidly with the growth in population in my region over the next decade.
However, I also draw the attention of the House to a submission made to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee by the Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. The commissioner submitted that there is urgent need of reform of anti-age-discrimination protections not only for seniors but for all Australians. The submission notes that the Gillard government has failed in this area, as it has in so many other attempts to reform governance in Australia. The commission stated:
It is disappointing that the Bill does not amend the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth) to improve the scope of … exceptions and exemptions to this Act.
The office of the commissioner, while broadly supporting the bill, specifically noted that in their view age discrimination is an increasing problem—something that would concern, I suspect, all members in this House.
Discrimination can come in many forms and, unfortunately, when I hear the word ‘discrimination’ I am immediately and forcibly reminded of the Labor government’s changes to youth allowance in the youth allowance legislation. Discrimination is a term that refers to the treatment taken towards or against an individual of a certain group, or consideration based solely on a class or category. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from the opportunities that are available to other groups.
It is worth repeating this—that discrimination involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups—because that is exactly what has happened in the government’s youth allowance legislation. We saw it in the result of the vote on my motion this morning in this House. The legislation directly and deliberately makes it more difficult for students in inner regional classified areas to access independent youth allowance—and therefore much more difficult to access tertiary education or training—than for students in outer regional and rural or remote categories.
I believe this is actually a human rights issue for students in rural and regional areas. It is certainly an issue for the families in my electorate. It is a piece of legislation that, by the admission of Labor members in this House, picks winners and losers and, in this case, many of the losers are in my electorate. Students in those areas defined as inner regional are effectively being discriminated against, as are their families. Labor certainly is discriminating against inner regional students by restricting the workforce criteria for these students to only one option while students in outer regional areas have several options to qualify for independent youth allowance. This is discriminatory for students who have no choice but to relocate to study or train, or who have a set of criteria different from the student who attends the same school, lives perhaps only metres away and yet has multiple choice options to qualify for the same opportunity.
During the private members’ business debate on independent youth allowance last week, the member for Hunter outlined the inequality Labor deliberately and knowingly devised in his words:
… the people who are currently disadvantaged are typically those living in rural and regional Australia …
He went on to state, in a reference to Labor’s youth allowance legislation:
Yes, there will be losers.
I, unlike the member for Hunter, am not satisfied with allowing the Labor government to discriminate against great young people and families not only in my constituency but in many others across Australia, and this is why I moved my motion. I do not believe that discriminating against some students based on geographic location is ‘just tough’. I will continue to fight this and I will continue to represent people on these issues.
I note that one of the comments made was that funding was being ‘distributed in a way that was more equitable’. Unfortunately, it is more equitable for one group than another—the very definition of discrimination. More equitable means more just, right, fair or reasonable. They are not words I would use to describe the youth allowance changes that this government forced upon regional students and families throughout Australia. I would not call it just to make parents who live in regional areas—and we in regional areas are all aware of the number of disadvantages faced by families, by businesses and by individuals—choose which of their children to send to university or force them to get a second or even third job to support their child’s tertiary education costs, just because the Labor government drew a line on a map and classified them as inner regional.
The fact that universities will not hold the places for those students that have to work for two years is an even more disastrous decision and the implications are all, unfortunately, lose-lose. If the Labor government is serious about introducing legislation to provide equity and remove discrimination, I think they should start with the youth allowance legislation. In conclusion, the coalition supports the amendments to the Age Discrimination Act as drafted and reserves its position on the Sex Discrimination Act pending the inquiry and report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I call on the Labor government to act on the results of the division today on youth allowance.
2001
10:09:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—I speak in support of the Sex and Age Discrimination Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. This bill has two aspects: the second aspect is the creation of a dedicated Age Discrimination Commissioner in the Australian Human Rights Commission; the first aspect deals with protections against sexual discrimination and sexual harassment by amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Since we came into office, we have made significant improvements with respect to aged care in this country. For a long time aged care languished as almost the Northern Ireland of Australian politics, where coalition members were appointed either to get a promotion or to be sent to political Siberia for their sins. We have not adopted that attitude with respect to aged care in this country. We have committed about $44 billion over four years to aged-care funding and changed the funding methodology for residential aged-care premises and providers to bring in a new system called ACFI, which made a big difference in the lives of people in the area. I also applaud the nurses union for their wonderful commitment to aged care, particularly to justice for nurses and other workers in the aged-care sector. We have made a big difference in aged care and there is a lot more to do.
One of the things we did when we came to office was appoint our first Ambassador for Ageing, Noeline Brown. This was an important improvement because it said something about what we felt about aged care in this country. We face an enormous challenge in Australia with respect to adequate provision for our elderly. The cost to the taxpayer will be enormous, but how we treat our senior citizens in the years ahead will say a lot about us as a country. The third Intergenerational report outlined significant challenges for us. By 2050 there will be 2.7 Australians for every Australian living over the age of 65 years. This is an enormous challenge. In the 1970s it was about seven Australians; now it is about five. This will be an enormous cost not just to the health and hospital system but to the Department of Health and Ageing and FaHCSIA, because a lot of the assistance we give our senior citizens through funding for carers comes through that department.
I am pleased to see the dedicated position of an Age Discrimination Commissioner in the Human Rights Commission. I think that is important. I think it is extremely timely. I think it says that we treat discrimination on the basis of age seriously. An advocate, someone to turn to, someone to be there to stand up and to listen to people in the aged-care sector and someone to be a voice for them, is important not just as an ambassador but also as an honest broker. The ageing population in this country has highlighted the need for a dedicated commissioner to engage with residential aged-care providers, to advocate on behalf of the aged and to address discrimination in the workforce. As we get older, more and more people of an age at which our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents would have thought about retiring will continue to work. As we get older, as medicine improves and as the health and hospital system improves, they will work for more years. This is an important reform and it is very warmly welcomed.
The other area of discrimination that I think is most pernicious in our society is the area of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment. About one in three Australian women will suffer physical violence in their lifetimes. In many cases these people will suffer it in their workplaces. Almost one in five Australian women will suffer sexual violence. The impact on our community and our workplaces is simply immense. I commend the government for their commitment to addressing this problem, which was made clear in the National plan to reduce violence against women: immediate government actions April 2009.
We know that 85 to 90 per cent of victims of domestic violence are women, usually assaulted by their male partners. Domestic violence takes many forms. It can be simply a look, a gesture, a phone call, the destruction of property, the physical punching of walls, the use of an implement, cruelty to domestic pets or the showing of a weapon. It takes many guises and has many disguises. Verbal abuse to children is a form of domestic violence. So too are threats to commit suicide, name-calling, ridicule, social abuse and isolation, emotional abuse, stalking, controlling behaviours—so not just the act of sexual violence, which simply is a matter of sexual oppression, power and control. So making a stand against sexual harassment and sexual discrimination in the workplace and strengthening the protections—as this legislation does—are very important. It sends a message that we will not tolerate this, that this is a national tragedy and a disgrace and that we should stand up against the perpetrators of such horrendous deeds, not just in their homes but in the workplaces of Australians.
Nearly one in five complaints received by the Australian Human Rights Commission under the Sex Discrimination Act relate to sexual harassment, and the vast majority of those take place in the workplace, according to complaints data from the Human Rights Commission. It is very sad that more than one in 10 Australians have witnessed sexual harassment in the workplace in the last five years, according to the commission’s Sexual harassment: serious business report. Only 16 per cent of those who have been sexually harassed in the last five years in the workplace formally reported or made a complaint—another tragedy. We need to support those who feel that they have been sexually harassed and indeed have been sexually harassed.
There are other aspects of this legislation in terms of amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act. They provide equal protection for men and women. They broaden the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of family responsibilities to provide equal protection against discrimination, including indirect discrimination, for both men and women in all forms of work. Family responsibilities these days are different from what happened many years ago and what was the perception of the norm in our Australian community, so we are committed to supporting families in any way that we can, to making sure that there are adequate protections in place and to allowing a greater degree of structural flexibility and domestic malleability in people’s arrangements in their homes and workplaces.
I am pleased with the third aspect of the amendments in this legislation: to establish breastfeeding as a separate ground of discrimination, rather than as a subset of sex discrimination. This comes from a recommendation from a committee. We know, as previous speakers have talked about, of the fact that there was an inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs into this particular matter and that the committee tabled a report entitled Inquiry into the effectiveness of the Sex Discrimination Act in eliminating discrimination and promoting gender equality. The government’s response to that report of 12 December 2008 was tabled on 4 May 2010 and, as a result of that government response, we have put forward legislation. That report specifically recommended that breastfeeding be noted by way of legislation as a specific ground of discrimination. I am pleased that the government has taken up the mantle and put this amendment in the legislation.
I did mention before the fact that there are strengthening provisions as to sexual harassment in workplaces and schools. We have seen some notorious cases in the media recently, and I will not discuss or go into those, but sexual harassment takes many forms. It can be simply physical, but one of the most serious aspects of sexual discrimination and of sexual harassment in particular concerns areas of cyberbullying. With the proliferation of the internet we have seen more and more of that happening, with Facebook and other forms of internet media becoming an electronic means by which sexual harassment continues.
These amendments are particularly important because they protect the lives of women at home and in the workplace. Also they stand up for the rights of our senior citizens and they make a very clear statement that we in this parliament are against all forms of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination, whether at home or in the workplace and so throughout our community, in any organisation or in any context. These things must be stamped out. We need to say that these things are totally unacceptable in the Australia of the 21st century.
2003
10:20:00
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
0
0
Dr STONE
—I too stand to support the Sex and Age Discrimination Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. It covers an area of significance in Australian society. Whether you are male or female, young or old, it is about the business of making sure that, whatever your racial or ethnic background in Australia, you are not subject to discrimination. We must make sure the laws of this country do provide equal protection. The bill proposes to make four substantive amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act, and I commend all of them. I would hope that they will actually bring about real change in the norms of our society and to the culture itself. It is one thing to have the right words in legislation but it is another to have those words become part of our daily living and for people to understand what a fair go in our country is.
The first point made in the bill is that we extend the act to ensure equal protection for men as well as women. This might sound a bit amazing given that typically women have been on the hard end of egalitarianism or equal opportunity, but it is important, as our family caring is changing with more men choosing to support the mothers of their children, that it is not seen as abnormal or something to be discriminated against when the father who is in a caring role—or sharing a caring responsibility with his partner—asks for family leave or for a flexible workplace or for part-time work. So it is an important extension of the act to ensure equal protection.
The second point is to broaden the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of family responsibilities to include indirect discrimination toward both men and women in all areas of their work. That is very like the first point. We are saying it is discriminatory if a man or woman on returning from parental leave is given lesser opportunity in their workplace and denied access to the sort of mentoring or career advancement which was offered or available to them before they took parental leave. It is subtle but it is true that one of the biggest career limiters in Australian society right now is to have a baby. When a woman takes maternity leave and then return to work after a short or longer time of leave she very often encounters a different response to her as a committed and dedicated career minded person in that business or public sector position. That is not fair, and it is often indirect.
We have to make sure, as women become pregnant in our society, have their children and perhaps choose to exclusively breastfeed for the first six months at least, that they do not meet a new set of ceilings in their future advancement because they are seen as a higher risk in the time they will spend at work. There is an expectation that they will not be the first at work in the morning or the last to leave and that they should, therefore, be limited in their future careers in that place, with men or women without children given better opportunities. We have also got to make sure that breastfeeding is seen as something that is natural in our Australian society. It is the best for the baby. So there is a third element of the bill which establishes breastfeeding as a separate ground of potential discrimination.
The bill aims to strengthen the protections against sexual harassment in workplaces and schools to also include cyberbullying and electronic harassment. This is the fourth and final substantive amendment to the SDA. This is a very sad outcome of our new electronic communications age. Teenagers and younger girls can be subjected to the most horrific bullying and intimidation via their text messaging or the internet. We have to make sure that we keep up with the changes in technology and that parents are able to identify exactly what is going on in the lives of their children and how these new technologies can be used to make the life of bullied children hell. This is a very important addition to the bill to recognise that this is a growing and serious problem in our society as well as internationally in many developed countries.
In this whole business of sex and age discrimination, Australia is not doing well. Perhaps as a result of better reporting or more police awareness, we have growing numbers of women reporting domestic or family violence. Significant injuries and emotional distress are a consequence of family violence and it is often learned behaviour in the family so that it becomes intergenerational. If children see their mother being abused, it becomes the learned response of boys—and girls—in the family that how you act out your aggression, rage, impotency and sense of society rejecting you is to cause great physical and emotional harm to those nearest to you.
It is a fact that, when women go to the police or in some other way report violence being directed against them and their children, that is when they are often most in danger or at risk of that violence escalating. Often in these abusive relationships women are threatened that, if they tell the police or someone else who might intervene, they will be killed or it will get worse for them. The realities are that it does get worse for them. So we have to be much more determined as a society to go back to the beginning of the problem and understand how we are going to make sure respect for women is somehow transmitted and communicated to younger children where they are not learning this respect in the family. We have to make sure that our younger people growing up understand the rights of men and women, boys and girls—their rights to be safe, to be respected, to be treated as human beings who have the right to express their own independence and to develop and maximise their opportunities, that they are not to be owned by a man in a marital relationship and their every waking moment is not to dominated by a partner who may be abusive.
This government has not yet responded sufficiently to the national council’s call for a national response to domestic and family violence. We have not had adequate resourcing for places of refuge or support for women fleeing these very difficult situations. In my own area I heard recently of a program commenced under the coalition government called Bsafe—B stands for Benalla. It was a cost-effective program where women who had a restraining order taken out against partners who were abusive—and who had already proved through our legal systems that they needed protection—were issued with a fairly low-cost monitor. If they saw the abusive partner approaching, coming to their home or trying to break the restraining order in any way, they could press the button on the monitor and immediately, via a call centre, the call was directed to local police.
That was a very effective way to enable those women to tell their partners that help was on the way for them and that there were others who were aware that he was breaking the orders that were in place. The women found that there was then a lessening of attempts by abusive partners to break those orders. It gave the women and even some family members who also knew how to use the monitoring device a much greater sense of security. There were several instances where sons were able to use the monitor to alert the police when their mothers were not able to, so a very serious and dangerous situation was averted.
The tragedy is that this program runs out of funding at the end of this year. It involves only several hundred thousand dollars. It involves a coordinator who manages the use of monitors by some 70 women. At the moment, they have applied for new funding and they have been told that there is no funding to carry on this excellent program. The coordinator told me the agony she is going through having to tell this to these women, who have been given a life back through the use of these monitors and who can live safely in their homes and leave their homes with some sense of security. The coordinator has had to say: ‘Sorry, we’re going to have to cut this service off. We’re going to have to remove this monitor from you. We’ve lost the government funding. We know this program has been very successful and we can demonstrate that, but the Gillard government is not choosing to continue this funding.’
This is a very, very sad situation and I beg the appropriate ministers to revisit Bsafe. It involves very little money when you consider the great benefits that have come out of the program. One of the main benefits of the program is that women and their families can stay in their own homes. They have not had to relocate to a motel, a hotel or a refuge in another place, disrupting their children’s schooling and cutting them off from their peers, their friends and other supportive family networks. It is a cost-effective but very important program. It is something that should be expanded across Australia, not cut off when it is providing the means for a lot of women to regain a decent life and break the cycle of intergenerational abuse.
Australia’s gender pay gap is getting wider, and that is another very serious situation. It is astonishing to know that laws were passed in Australia for equal pay in the 1970s. But look at the situation now. For example, a woman accountant and a male accountant with the same qualifications and similar work experience receive pay rates that are, on average, substantially different. The average difference in pay for a first-year-out male law graduate compared to a first-year-out female law graduate doing similar legal work in a similar sized company is $7,000. And as they progress through their careers that pay gap gets wider.
The difference between the pay packages for men and women at the level of chief executive officer or chief financial officer in Australia can be up to 50 per cent. It is no wonder that a lot of women feel discriminated against and that their true worth in the workplace is undermined. Very often, the confidentiality agreements or secrecy agreements wrapped around these packages are specifically designed to keep women from knowing what their male colleagues are earning. This adds to the problem of full disclosure and transparency in the workplace to help ensure women get a decent go. It quite obviously affects the productivity of women. It affects their superannuation. It is one of the reasons that 73 per cent of single age pensioners are women. Women have a fraction of the savings and superannuation when they reach retirement, and are more likely to have to end up dependent on welfare. They live a poor old age compared to their male counterparts. Given that women are typically the carers of children, grandchildren and their older relatives—their own parents or their in-laws—this is a very, very poor outcome for a country like Australia that claims to be a land of equal opportunity and one that provides a fair go for all.
The percentage of women on boards is a disgrace—only 8.3 per cent of board members are women. Very few women hold directorships. In the top ASX 200 companies only seven women hold directorships. Looking at all that, we would have to say that Australian society does not understand that women have a biological determinism affecting their careers. Women are going to take time off when they are pregnant and when they are raising children. May it always be the case that women in Australia can choose to have families, but they should not be discriminated against in the workplace and blocked from becoming senior board members, managers or directors in companies because they have a work history which includes some time off or some period of part-time work. That is the case in Australia right now.
It is good we have the Paid Parental Leave scheme starting in January next year, but it is sad that it is not going to be a decent paid parental leave scheme like the one the coalition endorsed—and that we will bring into this country when we are next elected. However, it is a start. But it should not be the poor paid parental leave scheme that it is: no superannuation, for example. This just perpetuates the problems for women as they retire. (Time expired)
2007
10:35:00
Perrett, Graham, MP
HVP
Moreton
ALP
1
0
Mr PERRETT
—I thank the member for Murray, mostly, for her contribution. I am pleased to speak in support of the Sex and Age Discrimination Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. This bill is another step along the way to breaking down the barriers that discriminate and divide us. The most notable achievement is our Paid Parent Leave scheme, which will kick off from 1 January next year and provide real support for working mums and dads and their young families. But Labor have also worked hard to remove discriminatory language from legislation and provide equal treatment for same-sex couples for superannuation and other financial matters—although there might be an argument that there is more work to be done there.
This bill delivers greater protection against discrimination for Australians in the workplace. It does so by expanding the grounds for discrimination of family responsibilities beyond termination to include other forms of direct and indirect discrimination. This applies to men and women equally and is part of the Gillard government’s commitment to support working families. Australian workplaces will need to provide greater flexibility for workers to allow them to fulfil their caring responsibilities.
This bill provides specific protection for women who are breastfeeding, making it a separate ground of discrimination. It also extends protection against sexual harassment in workplaces and schools. The test for sexual harassment will be amended so that harassment occurs if a reasonable person would anticipate the possibility that the person harassed would be offended, humiliated or intimidated—an important consideration, particularly when it comes to breastfeeding. Sexual harassment is unacceptable, and I welcome any measures to ensure it is not a part of Australian workplaces and schools. I spent 11 years as a schoolteacher and five years as a union organiser working in schools as well, so I know some of the battles that take place in education workplaces in particular.
This bill also implements an election commitment of the Gillard government to creating a new position of Age Discrimination Commissioner in the Australian Human Rights Commission. All of us would agree that Australians of all ages, young and not so young, have the right to be treated fairly and to have access to the same opportunities as everyone else. Already the Age Discrimination Act 2004 protects people from discrimination on the basis of age in employment, education, accommodation and the provision of goods and services.
In 2007, Elizabeth Broderick was appointed Sex Discrimination Commissioner and Commissioner Responsible for Age Discrimination. However, the Gillard government recognises that age discrimination has become such a significant issue in the community that a commission with responsibility solely for age discrimination is required. This bill will establish the new position of a dedicated advocate for people, particularly older Australians, who experience age discrimination. The Age Discrimination Commissioner will also work with the community and industry to tackle discrimination in workplaces, promote respect and fairness and fight the attitudes and stereotypes that contribute to age discrimination.
The election of Wyatt Roy, the new member for Longman, to the House of Representatives as the youngest ever member shows that age really is no barrier—unfortunately I did not get to hear his first speech but I gather it was a commendable effort—just as age was no barrier for Edward Braddon. I was not around when Edward Braddon was elected to parliament—that was in 1901—but he was elected aged 71 years and nine months. Hopefully, the current member for Longman will avoid Edward Braddon’s fate. He died suddenly at his home in February1904 while parliament was in recess.
I thank the Attorney-General for introducing this bill and for his work over three years to eliminate discrimination and inequities in Australian law. I commend the bill to the House.
2008
10:40:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—I congratulate the member for Moreton on his fine contribution to this debate. I know he has a total commitment to eliminating any form of discrimination. The Sex and Age Discrimination Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 amends the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to strengthen protections against sexual harassment, establish breastfeeding as a separate ground of discrimination and extend protection on the grounds of family responsibilities against discrimination in the workplace. Also included in this legislation is the establishment of the position of Age Discrimination Commissioner.
Firstly, I will touch on the subject of breastfeeding. In the parliament before last, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing conducted an inquiry into breastfeeding and, in its report, made a number of recommendations relating to changes that needed to take place in the workplace. I am pleased to say that, following the tabling of that report, this parliament has become a breastfeeding-friendly workplace, and is recognised as such by the Australian Breastfeeding Association.
This legislation is vitally important. We need to eliminate age discrimination and we will do that by the appointment of a commissioner, through this legislation. We need to look at discrimination against young people and we will do that through the changes in the legislation that we have before us today. I come from an electorate that has the 11th oldest population of all Australian electorates. People talk to me on an ongoing basis about the discrimination that they face because they are older and looking for work. Discrimination can be very subtle. It can be as subtle as an old person in hospital being ignored by staff because they are deemed to be older and not as strong cognitively at other patients. Quite often that older person is brighter, more alert and more in touch with things that are happening around them than other people, but they are discriminated against on grounds of age.
I did a brainstorming exercise with a group of people. We asked what old age stands for and put the answers up on a board. There were words and phrases like ‘disability’, ‘dependence’, ‘frail’, ‘not as alert’—a whole lot of negative terms—rather than the positives that are associated with age such as ‘wisdom’, ‘life skills’, ‘life experience’ and ‘knowledge’. The establishment of an Age Discrimination Commissioner will give those people who are discriminated against on the grounds of age a focal point for lodging complaints about that discrimination. I know that in New South Wales the most commonly reported form of discrimination in the workplace is on the grounds of age.
The amendments in this legislation in relation to breastfeeding will ensure that all workplaces are set up so that mothers rejoining the workforce can continue to breastfeed, a decision that will deliver the best health outcomes for their babies. Mothers will not be discriminated against when they return to work. All workplaces need to become breastfeeding-friendly workplaces, as is Parliament House.
The changes the minister has made concerning discrimination in educational institutions are very important. They will prevent a person being discriminated against not only within their own educational institution but across wider educational institutions. I would recommend that the House read an article by Susan Fineran and Larry Bennett titled Teenage peer sexual harassment: implications for social work practice in education. That article highlights a number of issues in relation to sexual harassment—sexual comments, jokes, gestures or looks, pictures, photographs, illustrations, messages or notes and sexual rumours—and quotes a number of young people who attend educational institutions.
The Sex and Age Discrimination Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 is very important legislation. It goes to removing discrimination in our society and I commend the minister for bringing this to the House. I put on record my strong support for the legislation.
2009
10:48:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—It gives me great pleasure to support the Sex and Age Discrimination Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The reason this bill is important is very simple: it is about ensuring that we are a society of genuine and full equal opportunity. Of itself, it will not guarantee those great goals but it is part of the ongoing process of ensuring that we are a society based on merit and opportunity which gives all people the chance to live, to the best of their ability, the life of their choice. That is the broad parameter which underpins this bill and unites both sides of this House.
Let me begin with my electorate of Flinders. Demographically, Flinders is the fifth eldest electorate in the country. We have over 25,000 seniors, we have a great tradition and a base of seniors who are part of the workforce. Many seniors talk to me of their difficulties, most particularly blue-collar labourers who have had difficulty maintaining employment. Often they have found that it is the nudge on or the isolation which represents discrimination within the workplace—hard things to quantify and define, but real nevertheless. They face the problem, if they are retrenched or they have a period of unemployment, that it is very difficult for blue-collar manual labourers over 50 years of age to get new employment. That is a great personal challenge. It is a burden for workers which brings with it a sense of isolation, an economic impact, doubt as to self-worth and the question, ‘What future lies before me?’ That is a profoundly important element.
In 1989, I did a thesis in my second last year of university, in the subject Law and Discrimination, on age discrimination. It was absolutely clear then that we were in need of significant steps forward, including an age discrimination commissioner, adequate age discrimination protection and recognition of the different forms of age discrimination. It has been an abiding interest for over 21 years. I am delighted that we have made progress as a parliament, as a body politic in this space.
The particular amendment contained within this bill to establish an Age Discrimination Commissioner under the Australian Human Rights Commission is a welcome development which I endorse and embrace and for which we provide bipartisan support. It comes from a bipartisan report of the parliament and I believe it is an important step forward. I am only sorry it has not happened previously, but we are moving in a positive direction, building on the work of both sides of this House over the years.
The second element of this bill is the issue of sex discrimination. I make the point briefly that the first of four elements within this legislation to extend the Sex Discrimination Act to ensure equal protection for men as well as women is important, although it has to be used judiciously. There is a place for female sporting clubs and we do not want to erode the appropriate protections that people have; there can be sanctuaries. Women need sanctuaries and places, and it is appropriate in certain circumstances that they have the right staff. The second element is that we broaden the prohibition on discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities to include indirect discrimination to both men and women in all areas of their work. The third element is that we establish breast feeding as a separate ground of discrimination and the fourth is that we strengthen the protection against sexual harassment in workplaces and schools to include cyberbullying and electronic harassment.
These are important steps forward. I am delighted to support them. Obviously we want to look through the Senate process to see if there are any further amendments, and we reserve our rights on those, but we support this bill. We support the steps within it. We support its place in the history of the development of equal opportunity and equal treatment in Australian society and the Australian workplace. I am delighted to give my support under those circumstances.
2010
10:53:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
Attorney-General
1
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—in reply—I thank all honourable members for their very constructive contributions to the debate on the Sex and Age Discrimination Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and especially the member for Flinders, who is just leaving, I will have to get hold of a copy of his thesis so I can appreciate his reference to the work he has previously undertaken. I note, just by way of another example, the member for Murray made the important observation that the legislation is only the first step. We hope that this does lead to a cultural change to recognise the idea of a fair go for all regardless of sex, age or family responsibilities or any other circumstances. We certainly take on board the points she made and that there is more work to collectively do in this space.
The bill itself will make important amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act to better protect both women and men from discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace, in schools and in the community at large. These changes will ensure that our antidiscrimination laws meet the needs of contemporary Australians and will make it easier for people to understand their rights and their responsibilities. It is in the interests of individual citizens but also, we believe, more generally to have more productive, flexible workplaces where the churn and turnover of staff is minimised by the development of this culture.
The amendments have been informed, as has been mentioned by members, by the bipartisan report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs into the effectiveness of the Sex Discrimination Act, which now has been in place for some 25 years. I again thank members from all sides of the parliament for the work they did. The government will also consider other recommendations from the committee’s report as part of the government’s commitment to the Australian Human Rights Framework. That commitment is a commitment to consolidate federal antidiscrimination laws into a single comprehensive act. That will also provide the opportunity to revisit not only the structure of our antidiscrimination laws but also any gaps or areas where improvements could be made, having regard to contemporary standards and developments.
I am also pleased that the bill includes amendments to establish the position of a stand-alone Age Discrimination Commissioner, which the member for Flinders has just welcomed. The government is committed to tackling age discrimination in all its forms through the creation—for the first time at a federal level—of a dedicated Age Discrimination Commissioner, and that position will be located within the Australian Human Rights Commission.
I also take the opportunity to mention and commend the outstanding work that Sex Discrimination Commissioner Liz Broderick has done in the area of both sex discrimination and age discrimination. Having a dedicated Age Discrimination Commissioner is no reflection on the outstanding work that she has done but is simply a recognition of the changing demographics in our society and the increasing need to focus on the rights of senior Australians. The Age Discrimination Commissioner will be able to advocate on behalf of all those who face age discrimination, including obviously older Australians.
In conclusion, this bill will implement important reforms in the areas of sex and age discrimination. These reforms are but one part of the government’s strong commitment to fostering an inclusive Australia and ensuring that our antidiscrimination laws are relevant now and into the foreseeable future. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
2011
Mr McCLELLAND
(Barton
—Attorney-General)
10:58:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
BUSINESS
2011
Business
Rearrangement
2011
Mr GRAY
(Brand
—Special Minister of State and Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity)
10:58:00
—I move:
That order of the day No. 2, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT BILL 2010
2011
Bills
R4422
Second Reading
2011
Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
2011
10:59:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—The Radiocommunications Amendment Bill 2010 was first introduced into this House on 16 June. On 30 September the Senate referred the bill for inquiry and report on 17 November this year. In the late 1990s the Australian government commenced auctioning a number of spectrum licences to support a market based approach to the licensing of radio frequency spectrum. As we know, spectrum is a valuable but finite resource; however, it is instantly reusable. Spectrum licences provide explicit and continuing rights of access to defined parts of the radio frequency spectrum in defined geographic areas for a stated period—normally 15 years. Although there has been limited use of these provisions, spectrum licences are also fully tradeable and can be shared through third-party authorisations.
Australia was among the first countries in the world to issue licences on this basis. Today, many of these licences are being used by telecommunications carriers to provide mobile phone and wireless access services to millions of Australians. The first of the key spectrum licences will expire in 2013, with the remainder expiring by 2017. Because Australia was an early adopter of auctions as a means of allocating spectrum, there is relatively little international experience on the best approaches to spectrum licence reissue.
On 4 May 2010 the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, announced the Australian government’s approach to the reissue of current 15-year radio frequency spectrum licences. In April 2009, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy issued a public discussion paper, Public interest criteria for reissue of spectrum licences. In May this year the department commenced information gathering discussions with a number of spectrum licence holders to inform decisions on possible spectrum licence renewal.
The coalition is in broad agreement with the industry and the government that the majority of the amendments proposed in this bill will lead to greater efficiencies in the issuing of spectrum licences; however, key experts in the industry are concerned with aspects of the amendments, particularly around the coexistence of class and spectrum licences. The first concern relates to the value of a shared spectrum asset. The bill’s explanatory memorandum states:
New and developing technologies have the potential to greatly increase the technical and productive efficiency of spectrum use. These new technologies may be authorised by the ACMA under class licences. Such technological developments will potentially allow devices to share spectrum by utilising a variety of technically sophisticated methods to avoid harmful interference with other services and will be subject to the ACMA being satisfied that:
-
unacceptable levels of interference will not occur to the operation of radiocommunications devices operated, or likely to be operated, under spectrum licences; and
-
it is in the public interest to issue class licences, in spectrum designated or reallocated for spectrum licences, to authorise devices with the new sharing technology.
These changes impact on dozens of telecommunications carriers who provide mobile phone and wireless access services to millions of Australians. Wireless services are what people are gravitating to in great numbers and they are growing at around six or seven times the rate of fixed line services. The market has strong demand for wireless, particularly wireless data services.
The carriers who are servicing this growing demand invest very significant capital for the exclusive but highly competitive use of licensed spectrum, and permitting other users to access that spectrum dilutes the value of these assets. The bill and the explanatory memorandum fail to provide certainty for these carriers about how their assets will be valued if class licences proceed and spectrum is shared.
The industry’s other main concern is that the bill does not go far enough to clarify what is or is not unacceptable interference and how ACMA will manage that interference. The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association is the peak industry body representing Australia’s mobile telecommunications industry. AMTA is concerned about the terms and conditions of reissued spectrum licences that would permit other uses encroaching on the licensed spectrum assets held by its members. The main issue is that there is a high level of anxiety about possible interference. AMTA summarises the concerns of its members as follows: there is not a sufficiently clear framework of principles and procedures for ACMA to follow when determining what qualifies as unacceptable interference in spectrum that a carrier has purchased; there is no simple mechanism to measure, manage or rectify adverse outcomes of coexistent use; and if adverse impacts occurred, the business impact on the primary licence holder could be significant and long lasting. According to the minister’s second reading speech:
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 government is correct in pointing out the importance of certainty but these two concerns I have raised need to be resolved to provide the certainty that the industry needs before making substantial investments in spectrum, and I respectfully encourage the Senate committee currently conducting its inquiry to look very closely at these matters.
I would also seek to draw the attention of the House, and indeed of the Senate committee, to the changes the bill proposes to make to certain ministerial determinations making them no longer disallowable instruments. The bill amends the act concerning written directions by the minister to ACMA about determinations made by ACMA regarding spectrum access charges. The amendment will specifically provide that such a direction is not a legislative instrument, according to the explanatory memorandum which says:
The intention of this amendment is to protect commercially sensitive pricing information relating to the reissue of 15 year spectrum licences. By giving a written ministerial direction to the ACMA … which is not a legislative instrument and not subject to disallowance, it will protect this information during licence reissue discussions.
Removing parliamentary oversight on ministerial decisions is always a very serious decision for a parliament to make. I look forward to the Senate inquiry and report which I hope will clarify why the government thinks it needs to take this step.
There is no doubt that there is a lot happening in the spectrum space at present. I note that ACMA last week released a discussion paper which aims to provide stakeholders with background information on the digital dividend reallocation, including its close relationship with broadcasting planning, and the proposed steps for the reallocation, both legislative and technical. This consultation offers industry stakeholders the opportunity to shape and inform ACMA’s thinking at an early stage about various aspects of the upcoming digital dividend allocation.
The coalition understands that this area of communications policy is moving very rapidly. We are not interested in delay. As I said earlier, the growth of broadband wireless subscriptions has gone literally off the chart—they have been growing at a much faster rate than anybody expected—and of course the 4G and LTE wireless technologies coming down the track very soon will allow much greater speeds and make wireless an even bigger connectivity competitor. We have moved from an era, not very long ago, when most people would have regarded a fixed line as a necessity and a wireless mobile device as an optional extra. We now have more wireless devices than we have fixed line connections, and increasingly wireless connectivity is becoming the necessity and fixed line is becoming an option that people choose not to take up at all—hence the continuing and accelerating decline in fixed line connections. Wireless spectrum is right at the heart of the information revolution. I note in the context of the debate about broadband that in the United States the focus on greater broadband connectivity is very much directed at the opportunities which 4G and LTE wireless technology offer for ubiquitous, affordable and fast broadband.
We are not interested in delaying this legislation. We have put forward some concerns that have been raised by the industry. I trust the Senate committee will look at them very carefully. We are concerned to ensure that the carriers, the industry, the investors and above all the consumers get the certainty they need to continue to supply and receive better wireless services. We look forward to the report from the Senate committee and we hope the findings of that inquiry will take into account the matters I have mentioned. It may be that there will be some amendments moved in the Senate to reflect these concerns and the conclusions of the Senate committee. Subject to the reservations I have outlined, I commend the bill to the House.
2014
11:10:00
Rowland, Michelle, MP
159771
Greenway
ALP
0
0
Ms ROWLAND
—Some members might not be aware that this proposed piece of amending legislation, the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill 2010, really is of the utmost practical significance to everyone in this place and to everyone we know. That is because mobile communications use spectrum as a fundamental input. This bill deals directly with the ability of mobile communications providers to continue utilising those parts of the radiocommunications spectrum that are currently authorised by their respective spectrum licences. Spectrum is in one of those special categories of scarce resources—it is finite and it is used but not consumed, and therefore it must be subject to an allocation system that recognises its value and directs how it can be used but at the same time provides sufficient flexibility so that the value of its use can be maximised by the person who is authorised to use it.
It is hard to believe it is approaching 15 years since Australia granted its first spectrum licences under the processes set out in the landmark legislative reforms of the early 1990s in radiocommunications and telecommunications. We have come an incredibly long way. Lives have been transformed, new jobs and new industries have been created and the digital dividend is now approaching. We are now approaching what a lot of people call 4G, or long-term evolution. We are able to maximise the reutilisation of what is called the sweet spot in radio spectrum bands that can be used for things we would not have imagined 15 years ago. There has been some discussion in this place about how far we have come on different issues in the communications space. There has been discussion about why we need, for example, 100 megabits per second broadband.
The lesson that I think has been drawn from radiocommunications and from what mobile spectrum has been used for in the last 15 years is that we should never underestimate the future. This is demonstrated by the development of mobile technologies, uptake, the development of competition in the sector with the managed duopoly of the early 1990s and then the open carrier licensing and carriage service provider authorisations, the development of resellers, mobile virtual network operators, prepaid options—and the list goes on.
I point to the Access Economics June 2010 report, Economic contribution of mobile telecommunications in Australia. It is instructive in showing how much this single part of the sector contributes to Australian society. The mobile telecommunications industry contributed $17.4 billion to the Australian economy in 2008-09. As at 30 June last year, there were 24.22 million mobile subscribers in Australia. There has been a huge growth in mobile data. The GSM Association has charted the enormous growth in mobile data, and in Australia 3G has finally overtaken 2G or 2.5G.
I doubt the members in this place at the time licence terms were established could have foreseen what technological and consumer regulatory frameworks would look like when those licences expired. Like many others in this place and in our communities, I am constantly fascinated by how far we have come and how much we take for granted. I remember very early on in my career as a telco regulatory lawyer going to a briefing about on-the-horizon issues in the early 2000s. I had someone telling me that in a few years we would be looking at our mobile device much more than we would hold it to our ear. I could not comprehend what he was talking about. I recall drafting intercarrier service schedules in the early 2000s for the exchange of SMSs between carriers, and I could not think why anyone would want to communicate with another person in 120 characters. I remember the first time I used a laptop with an inbuilt modem. And who could have foreseen the development of what now looks like a whole new market in applications for smart phones?
One thing has remained constant: the basic building blocks of the radiocommunications regulatory landscape in Australia enabled those adaptive technologies to develop and thrive. Other aspects of the communications sector have proven to be more challenging, and it has long been recognised that the structure of the telecommunications industry is in dire need of reform. We will continue to discuss at another time in this place the next stage of telco reform in this country. That next stage has issues that the rest of the world has been grappling with too, such as the importance of getting the regulatory environment right so that we avoid the shortcomings of the past and future-proofing against the risks to competition and the long-term interests of end users in the future as far as possible. We have had more than a decade of near constant inquiry into the state of competition in the telco sector. Both technological developments and the delivery of strategic policy for the public good will require a fundamental transformation of the industry’s structure, which will culminate in the separation of the wholesale and services layers of our own next generation broadband network.
I think it is useful to reflect on the regulatory journey which has led Australia to this point in terms of the bill we are looking at today. The current spectrum licences held by wireless operators, including carriers which provide public mobile telecommunications services, were allocated via an option process which started in the late 1990s using the procedural framework set out in chapter 3 of the Radiocommunications Act 1992. Those licences could be granted for a term of up to 15 years. I think there was foresight in the methodology granted to the Spectrum Management Agency at that time in the exercise of its powers. In addition to the ability to grant long-term tenure to maximise certainty for licence holders, spectrum licenses were required to include a set of technically logical core conditions. Those conditions included the relevant parts of the spectrum in which the operation of the radiocommunications device would be authorised under the relevant licence, the geographic area within which the operation of the device would be authorised and the maximum permitted level of radio emissions outside the boundaries of the licence.
Today, we are witnessing what is actually a historic milestone in the management of radcoms frequency in Australia, because those spectrum licences originally allocated in the late 1990s are now approaching the end of their term. We are about to activate a provision in the Radiocommunications Act—namely, division 4 of part 3.2—which has lain there patiently for 18 years, waiting to be activated, and we have come to this point of reissuing spectrum licences. The people who sat in this place 18 years ago conferred powers on the minister of the day and the regulatory authority to do certain things when this day arrived. Honourable members have come and gone, the regulatory agency has changed in structure and name and here we are today, taking the next step to activate this particular section of the statute and provide some long-term business and investment certainty to existing spectrum licence holders.
Spectrum planning is a multifaceted activity and it is conducted within an overarching international framework. In most countries, including Australia, planning starts at the international level through participation in the International Telecommunications Union. The spectrum licence regime under the Radiocommunications Act 1992 has served us well. Indeed, since the road to liberalisation of telecommunications in Australia began in 1991, I think it is fair to say that the principles of sound regulatory practice in the radcoms sector, consistent with the objects of the legislation and international practice, have been consistently maintained. These include: to maximise, by ensuring the efficient allocation and use of the spectrum, the overall public benefit derived from using the radiofrequency spectrum; to encourage the use of efficient radiocommunications technologies so that a wide range of services of an adequate quality can be provided; to provide an efficient, equitable and transparent system of charging for the use of spectrum; and to provide a regulatory environment that maximises opportunities for the Australian communications industry in domestic and international markets.
I want to make some brief comments about the spectrum-licensing framework to give some context for the amending bill before us. There are various forms of spectrum categories, and users need licences for each type. They are apparatus licensing, spectrum licensing and class licensing. Under the apparatus licence regime, a licence is granted for a specific use of both technology and transmitter characteristics which use the allocated spectrum. An apparatus licence is allocated for a year and there is no presumption of renewal of an apparatus licence. Spectrum licences are different. Under the spectrum licence regime, the licence is granted for any use of the allocated spectrum, provided that the boundary conditions set out in the licence are met. Typically, these boundary conditions limit the geographic extent of the licence and the adjacent channel interference requirements. Spectrum licences are usually allocated for a period of 15 years and licensees are able to permit other users to share their spectrum, and spectrum licences are also tradeable. Class licences are different again. Under the class licence regime, a licence is granted for a class of devices within the specified frequency band. The class is technically described in the class licence and class licence spectrum is used for a range of common services that you and I would use every day, Mr Deputy Speaker, such as garage door openers, CB radios and WiFi.
I want to talk briefly now about the consultation on the renewal process which has led to this bill. As I mentioned, unlike other categories of licences, spectrum licences have generally carried a presumption of renewal. In light of the impending expiry date of the existing spectrum licences, the department issued a discussion paper in early 2009. The focus of this consultation was the criteria for spectrum licences to be reissued upon expiry and the terms of that reissue. There are two grounds in the legislation that enable reissue of a spectrum licence. There is section 82(1)(a), which enables the reissue of a licence if it was used in the provision of a service included in a class of services determined by the minister. The practical effect of this approach is that the minister may determine that it would be in the public interest for a specified class of existing licence holders to have their spectrum licences renewed. And there is section 82(1)(b), which enables the reissue to occur if the Australian Communications and Media Authority is satisfied that special circumstances exist, as a result of which it again would be in the public interest for that person to continue to hold the licence. The practical effect of this approach is that ACMA may determine it is in the public interest for a particular licence to be reissued.
The discussion paper noted two policy choices for whether and how existing spectrum licences should be reallocated or renewed. These were whether spectrum licences should be reissued to the existing licensees by ACMA in accordance with the section 82 procedures or whether reallocation of the spectrum licence should be undertaken using a price based method. One of the key elements in the consultation was the question: what would constitute ‘public interest’ for the purpose of a spectrum licence being reissued? This was not a straightforward question and was problematic for several reasons: there had never been a ministerial determination to specify a class of services as being recognised as being in the public interest for spectrum licence renewal, a public interest test had never previously been exercised in this area before, there had never been challenges to the minister or the ACMA’s powers that could provide precedent value and there was scant guidance in the radcoms act itself as to what would constitute the relevant public interest criteria.
The discussion paper set out five possible public interest criteria, which were expressed not to be mutually exclusive or exhaustive. These were: promoting the highest value use for spectrum, investment in innovation, competition, consumer convenience and determining an appropriate rate of return to the community. Following this detailed consultation, the minister was able to announce in March 2010 a decision to undertake a process to provide long-term reissue of existing spectrum licences, including an appropriate price for their renewal. Under this bill, spectrum licence renewal will be contingent upon licensees satisfying the public interest test, which most respondents agreed with in consultation, and those criteria will be considered before the ACMA is given any directions on the spectrum access charges that will apply on renewal.
There are other elements to this bill that are worth noting for the improvements they provide in promoting investment certainty for incumbent licensees. These include flexibility given to the ACMA in its renewal process and removing the time limit of two years within which the ACMA can initiate reissue or renewal of 15-year spectrum licences. There will be provision for the coexistence of class licensed and spectrum licensed services within the same spectrum, but with the safeguard that such coexistence will not result in unacceptable levels of interference. I noted the member for Wentworth saying earlier that interference is an industry concern. Of course, minimising interference is fundamental to the efficient operation of the radcoms spectrum. I will say two things about that. The first is that one of the ACMA’s jobs is to manage interference, including interference disputes that are raised with it. So it will actually be nothing new for the ACMA to be dealing with any issues of interference. I would also point out, as noted by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in his announcement on 4 March 2010, that a 15-year spectrum licence pathway would be commencing and that the conditions of this coexistence would be to allow two or more wireless services to share the same spectrum, subject to the development of provisions to mitigate unacceptable levels of interference. This could be in the form of some regulatory guidance or direction. But, as I said, the management of interference is nothing new for the regulator; that is its job. I am confident that the concerns of industry will be heard by the regulator and will be addressed by the regulator.
Finally, I will give a clarification on ministerial directions that may be given to the ACMA about spectrum access charges to be payable upon reissue of specific spectrum licences. The intention here is that the minister will consult with the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and the Prime Minister in establishing the value of 15-year spectrum licences and take into account the public interest before giving a direction to the ACMA. This is ongoing sensible management of a scarce, valuable resource, which should be supported by all members.
2018
11:25:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
0
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill 2010. The bill contains a number of amendments to the management of spectrum licences and determinations on spectrum made by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. There is no question that the government understands the importance of spectrum licensing to the communications industry.
Since parliament has resumed, Labor has reintroduced their Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 that threatens to prevent Telstra from bidding on spectrum releases unless Telstra structurally separates its fixed line business. This decision by the government is effectively holding Telstra to ransom in an attempt to make the National Broadband Network viable by eliminating potential competitors. The coalition does not agree with holding Telstra to ransom by denying spectrum and forcing Telstra to divest its Foxtel assets. However, the government’s decision demonstrates the importance of spectrum availability and the ability of communications companies to bid for and access bands of spectrum. This importance highlights the need for government to continue reviewing how the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the parliament manage spectrum licensing.
The provisions in this bill come in the wake of the government’s announcement in March this year that spectrum licence reissue will be considered for those existing 15-year spectrum licences providing services to significant numbers of Australian consumers. The legislation contains a number of amendments to spectrum management. Firstly, the amendments aim to give the ACMA more flexibility in the time it takes to commence processing for re-issuing spectrum licences. Specifically, the bill removes the two-year restriction on ACMA regarding when it can publish a notice that a licence is to be reissued and issue a draft spectrum licence containing licence conditions. The bill also allows ACMA to issue class licences in the same radio frequency spectrum as expired or reissued licence allocations. This will allow spectrum access to new technologies that have the potential to share spectrum. However, ACMA must be satisfied that unacceptable levels of interference will not occur to the operation of radiocommunications devices operated under the spectrum.
Finally, the legislation will amend provisions relating to ministerial determinations and directions with regard to issuing spectrum. Currently, ministerial determinations are disallowable instruments. The bill will convert future determinations into legislative instruments that are not subject to disallowance, although the determinations will still be published on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. Removing the disallowable status of determinations is something being sought by the government because the spectrum licence reissue process is currently being renewed. During this process, a number of determinations may be necessary in order for ACMA to reissue licences. The bill’s explanatory memorandum states:
Future investment certainty for incumbent licensees is central to successful licence re-issue discussions.
The amendments within this bill are designed to provide certainty to incumbent licensees or competing companies who wish to bid for spectrum. Some in the communications industry have indicated that the change to ministerial determinations will streamline the licence reissue process. These concerns are valid, but preventing ministerial determinations from receiving parliamentary scrutiny is another example of Labor avoiding scrutiny of its communications policies.
The parliament should have the fundamental right to oversee government projects, particularly those which are spending billions of dollars in taxpayers’ funds, such as Labor’s communications policy. The National Broadband Network is the largest taxpayer funded investment in Australian history. Under the network, around four per cent of Australians will need to access the network by accessing spectrum through a wireless network providing speeds of up to 12 megabits per second. In order to provide this service over the NBN, the government will need to acquire and use a suitable range of spectrum to deliver the required speeds specified by the government. The 4G spectrum ranges are becoming available and the government will be auctioning spectrum licences in the future. NBN Co. will also need to access this spectrum to deliver its intended speeds to the section of regional Australians covered by wireless.
The coverage requirements stipulated by the government mean that specific conditions will be placed on spectrum licensees. For example, the McKinsey implementation study recommended:
Government should add carrier license conditions—
to the upcoming 4G spectrum auction—
to require network operators to implement future technology upgrades in rural/regional areas in parallel with metropolitan areas and should review options to include data rate and coverage requirements.
If the minister is to place conditions on spectrum licensees with relation to the NBN, it is important that the parliament be given the opportunity to scrutinise any ministerial direction on spectrum.
But this has become a pattern for this government. Labor is simply intent on avoiding scrutiny and transparency in its communications policies. The coalition is calling for a joint select committee and an analysis of the NBN by the Productivity Commission. It is reasonable to expect that a government committed to transparency would have no problem with additional scrutiny on such an important project. The track record of this government is that very little actually goes right. The Rudd-Gillard government has wasted over $10 billion in its first term and the NBN alone has the potential to exceed this level of waste if Labor is left without scrutiny. By establishing a gigantic monopoly that is exempt from the Trade Practices Act, the government is asking Australian taxpayers to trust it when it has done very little in its first term to earn that trust.
This is an eight-year, $43 billion project that does not have a cost-benefit analysis. The government is trying to rush it through with no scrutiny in the same way it rushed to try to implement the Home Insulation Program, the Green Loans Program and the Prime Minister’s BER scheme—and we all know what happened with those: wasted taxpayers’ money and failed schemes. Labor simply cannot be trusted with money. Australia has been forced into record levels of debt and deficit in this Labor government’s first term because Labor cannot be trusted to spend money wisely. This Labor government has wasted and mismanaged $2.4 billion through the pink batts disaster, and a further $8 billion with the school halls rip-off program. We saw a $1.2 billion blow-out in the school laptops program and another $850 million wasted on solar homes.
Spectrum management and broadband services are so important to the Australian economy, and to regional areas more generally, that oversight cannot be left in the hands of a Labor government that has mismanaged multibillion dollar programs. This is why the parliament must be able to monitor the government’s programs in communications and particularly the $43 billion that will be spent on the NBN. The National Broadband Network is the largest taxpayer funded program in Australia’s history. Taxpayers have a fundamental right to know that government programs can be completed on time and are financially viable. There is a big question mark concerning the financial viability of the NBN. Also at issue is whether other models would be better able to deliver the sorts of services proposed.
In order to improve its viability, Labor is actively removing any competitive pressures on the NBN which could provide incentives for efficiency and technological progress. Telstra and Optus will be actually contractually prevented from competing with the NBN. They will not be able to provide telephone or broadband services across their HFC pay TV cables, which are capable of delivering 100 megabits per second and pass 30 per cent of Australian premises.
NBN Co. is forcing every Australian who wants a home phone, and every business, onto its network. There will be no competition and a guaranteed level of demand once customers are forced onto the network. This business structure provides no benefits from the efficiencies and innovation that can be gained from competition. Yet the government continues to argue that the network will provide productivity gains to all Australians and that the network is an economic reform. If this is the case, then why will the government not commit to a Productivity Commission review? The only possible reason for denying such a review is that the government knows that the NBN model is not financially viable.
Even though the government is forcing customers onto the NBN and establishing a monopoly, it knows that its model is not financially viable. Unless Labor commits to transparency and stops preventing facts about the NBN Co.’s business model from being revealed, the parliament must continue to assume that there are grave doubts about the future of the NBN and its financial viability.
The government must show more transparency in its communications policy. How else can we improve services to regional areas, many of which are relying on efficient access to spectrum? An independent cost-benefit analysis is important to ensure that regional and rural areas which are lacking in broadband services can be identified. The analysis would identify the black spots and the target areas for improvement, and a joint select committee of parliament could monitor the rollout and ensure that services in those rural and regional areas were being improved.
The legislation introduced by the coalition this week will require the Productivity Commission to complete an analysis of the availability of broadband services across Australia, identifying those suburbs and regions where current service is of a lesser standard or higher price than the best services available in the capital cities. This analysis is important because the government has left many questions unanswered on its policies in relation to broadband and spectrum usage in rural and regional Australia. For example, the government has declared that wholesale prices will be the same for regional service providers and that this will ensure that Australians living in regional areas pay the same cost as those living in our cities. The Prime Minister promised in September:
Whether you’re on the broadband in Tamworth or on the broadband in CBD Sydney … the wholesale price for your broadband will be the same …
She repeated this promise in the House on Tuesday, 26 October.
It is an expensive task for NBN Co. to install 70,000 kilometres of transit backhaul to set up the network in rural and regional areas. As such, the McKinsey implementation report into the NBN recommends:
NBN Co transit backhaul services should be specified and priced separately from access services …
According to the report, around 20 per cent of premises will require access to transit backhaul to connect to the NBN. The revenue expected from providing this backhaul access is estimated to be $100 million each year. The government needs to detail how the uniform wholesale price will be implemented and whether it will include access to transit backhaul. If so, how will this impact upon the viability of the NBN as a commercial enterprise? These issues can only be clarified with more scrutiny and more transparency, which seems to go contrary to Labor’s communications policies. Unless Labor ends this pattern of avoiding scrutiny, as evidenced by this bill, the parliament can only assume that it has something to hide.
Whilst this bill attempts to improve spectrum management, the removal of binding parliamentary scrutiny on ministerial determinations demonstrates problems with Labor’s whole approach to communications. If Labor do not allow their communications policies and the NBN to be examined by an independent cost-benefit analysis, and if they do not allow the rollout to be overseen by a select parliamentary committee, the results will be disastrous for communications and Australian taxpayers.
This is why the coalition has some concerns about this bill. The government must be prevented from avoiding scrutiny. As I have outlined, the coalition is particularly concerned about the provisions which remove parliamentary scrutiny from ministerial determinations. The importance of spectrum to providing improved services to regional areas demonstrates why parliament must be able to oversee how spectrum is managed. We have to ensure that decisions on spectrum licensing will not be left to the minister for broadband and the mismanagement of this Labor government.
The bill has been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications for report before the end of the year. The coalition will consider the outcomes of that committee and the impact that this bill will have on spectrum management. The coalition will pay close attention to the committee’s review of the scrutiny of ministerial determinations and will reserve the right to reconsider the bill in the Senate.
2021
11:38:00
Jones, Stephen, MP
A9B
Throsby
ALP
1
0
Mr STEPHEN JONES
—I support the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill 2010, which will amend the Radio Communications Act 1992. It will provide greater flexibility to the regulator and more effectively manage the allocation and reallocation of spectrum licences and importantly provide greater certainty for the industry, particularly those companies that hold mobile telecommunications carrier licences. As the member for Cowper has correctly identified, this bill is part of our broader plan to ensure that we have modern and effective telecommunications infrastructure in this country. It is a part of our plan to ensure that we have the infrastructure that will drive productivity, encourage investment, create jobs and ensure that our country is set up to prosper from the next wave of technological change and the challenges in our region and around the globe in the future.
We are committed to ensuring that we have modern telecommunications infrastructure and an efficient allocation of spectrum in this country because we understand that modern telecommunications infrastructure and the effective management of spectrum not only drive investment and productivity but are the backbone around which community building occurs, by bringing communications into our homes and into our schools and making the world a smaller place. It shows that we have a plan for telecommunications and communications in this country, in stark contrast to those opposite.
The member for Cowper made a number of criticisms of the steps that we have taken to modernise telecommunications infrastructure in this country after only three years of government, in stark contrast to the 19 failed broadband plans of the former government, which did nothing to deliver enhanced or improved telecommunications facilities to constituents in the member for Cowper’s electorate or to the citizens in my electorate. We have a plan for the industry. We have a plan for more than just the privatisation of a company.
This bill will provide certainty in the allocation of spectrum and it will do that by the adoption of five critical principles. It will ensure the allocation of spectrum to the highest value use or uses. It will enable and encourage spectrum to move to its highest value of use or uses. It will ensure that the management authority will use the least cost and least restrictive approach to achieving its policy objectives. It will ensure, to the extent possible, that there will be both certainty and flexibility. Finally, it will balance the cost of interference and the benefits of greater spectrum utilisation. The bill proposes to amend the Radio Communications Act to give the regulator more flexibility and to remove the two-year time limit before which ACMA can initiate discussion on the reissue or renewal of the 15-year spectrum licences. This provides more certainty to those holders of current licences, which is critical in ensuring that we have continuity of investment and continuity of employment within those companies.
When the telecommunications industry in this country began to be deregulated in 1991, and three mobile carriage licences were issued and spectrum allocated to the holders of those mobile carriage licences, we could not have imagined the development in technologies that would ensue. The original brick size mobile phones that were carried around in briefcases have been replaced by minute handsets. When SMS services were originally included as a package for modern mobile phones, people did not know what they were to be used for, but now they are the mainstay of telecommunications and mobile telecommunications.
What we know from this is that the telecommunications industry is rapidly changing and that we cannot predict the way that it will change into the future, but we have to put in place the infrastructure to ensure that we are well placed to manage those changes and to get the growth in productivity and employment that will be available as technology changes into the future. This bill is a part of our plan. It will provide greater flexibility to the regulator and certainty to the industries and companies in the sector. I commend the bill to the House.
2022
11:44:00
Fletcher, Paul, MP
L6B
Bradfield
LP
1
0
Mr FLETCHER
—In making some comments on this bill that is before the House today, the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill 2010, I wish to address three principal areas: firstly, why radiocommunications is important; secondly, what this bill does and what views we in the opposition have on the provisions of this bill; and, thirdly, to what extent the bill does reflect some fundamental tensions and inconsistencies in the views that have been put forward by the Labor government about communications policy. I put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it reflects and reveals a remarkable number of gaping inconsistencies.
Let me start by talking about why radiocommunications is important. As we have heard from previous speakers, radiofrequency spectrum is a finite resource and it turns out that this finite resource is, firstly, enormously valuable to society in terms of providing very useful services and, secondly, of great value to the organisations which obtain the right to use that spectrum to deliver communications services, be they mobile, fixed wireless, digital or analog television or any other such services. Therefore this raises a problem: how ought we efficiently and fairly allocate the use of radiofrequency spectrum given that it is a vital national resource which is in limited supply and given that it presents significant financial benefits to those who are fortunate enough to gain access to that spectrum?
Historically, it was allocated by administrative fiat and, as we saw in Australia in the 1950s, a small number of fortunate companies and individuals were made very well off indeed by being granted television licences. A similar experience occurred around the world when spectrum was allocated in this administrative fashion. Over time policymakers began to think that there might be a better way to do it and, as we have heard from a number of speakers today, in fact Australia was at the forefront of a different approach to public policy in the allocation of radiofrequency spectrum. Economists began to argue that it would be a good idea to allocate spectrum through the use of auctions, so as to allow spectrum to go to its highest value use and also allow the community, through government, to capture a share of the economic value of that spectrum through the prices charged to companies which successfully bid for that spectrum.
We have had a long series of auctions of spectrum in Australia over the last 15 to 20 years, starting, as we have heard, with the allocation of the 900-megahertz spectrum for GSM licences, which was not by an auction. It was part of the opening up of telecommunications to competition in the early nineties. Then we had the 800-megahertz spectrum and then the 2-gigahertz spectrum and a whole range of other spectra allocated which are used for a range of services today: second- and third-generation mobile and also fixed broadband services, such as, for example, the 2.3- and 2.4-gigahertz bands. So we have had a public policy process in Australia which has been successful, but it has carried with it the seeds of some problems because the spectrum licences that were allocated were allocated for a term of 15 years. At the time that this was done, it was thought, naturally enough, that 15 years was very distantly in the future so there was not really a necessity to think very carefully about what might need to be done when the 15-year period expired.
We are now facing that expiry. That will start to happen between 2013 and 2017 in relation to spectrum licences currently on issue. That presents a problem because there is a presumption in the act that the spectrum will be reallocated by auction. Potentially, this presents the prospect of very significant public inconvenience if spectrum which is today used by a party which may be serving millions of customers is reallocated through auction. The consequences would be quite complex. Of course, weighed against that are all the good arguments in favour of using auctions. Therefore the essence of this bill is to take an approach to reallocation which allows a range of factors to be considered and also to give ACMA some additional flexibility as to the timing in which it commences a reallocation process. That is reasonably uncontentious.
This brings me to the second part of what I want to talk about, which is what this bill does and the coalition’s attitude to that. As I have indicated, the variation in ACMA’s powers to give it more flexibility in terms of timing is uncontentious. What is considerably contentious is the proposal that the reallocation determination issued by the minister should no longer be a disallowable instrument. The importance of public policy in this area suggests very strongly that parliament ought to retain the capacity to oversee the actions of a member of the executive—in this case the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—so we view with considerable scepticism the proposal that that reallocation determination should no longer be a disallowable instrument. Other aspects of the bill are not so contentious—for example, the proposal that ACMA should have the power to issue class licences over spectrum which is also the subject of spectrum licences. This recognises developments in technology and the fact that it may now be technologically possible to allocate spectrum both to the holder of a spectrum licence and to other users in a way which does not interfere with the rights of the holder of the spectrum licence.
We have seen other examples of the practices in allocating spectrum change over time with technological developments. For example, when analog television first came into operation in Australia in the fifties, there were 7-megahertz guard bands which applied between each allocation of spectrum to a broadcasting licensee. The reason for that was that, with the technology at that time, there was a risk of interference if you simply allocated one block of spectrum and then the immediate next block of spectrum was also allocated. With the introduction of digital television in Australia, we have been able to reuse those bands of spectrum, which until now have been lying fallow, because today’s technology means that you do not face that same risk of interference. So the fundamental notion of changing the evolving regulatory framework by which we allocate spectrum, having regard to the improvements in technology and the capacity now to use spectrum in more flexible ways, is a sensible policy and it has our support. However, as I have indicated, we do not share the government’s confidence in the capacity of its minister to make reallocation determinations without being subject to the necessary scrutiny of parliament.
The third point I want to touch on is the extent to which this bill reveals—perhaps inadvertently—the fundamentally conflicted attitudes of the Labor Party when it comes to communications policy. The first area of conflict is that we have seen in the approach to the National Broadband Network a tremendous faith in centralisation, a tremendous faith that government knows best. A government which could not even competently give away pink batts apparently has the knowledge and capacity, mystifyingly, to build a network bigger and more ambitious than any private sector company has ever built, a network that will go all around Australia using a technology which has never been used for this purpose in Australia—all to be delivered on time and on budget. Wouldn’t it be remarkable if we could all share that faith in the capacity of government to do this thing?
On this side of the House we do not share that faith. We continue to believe that the best approach to telecommunications policy is to give primacy to the market and to competition. That is the philosophy which, interestingly, underlies the whole regime for allocating radio communications spectrum. The whole principle which underlies the approach in the act which is amended by this bill is that you allocate spectrum using a competitive process and it will go to its highest value use. Very importantly, spectrum licences are not technology specific. The user of the spectrum is free to use it for the purpose which he, she or it believes will be the most productive. We rely upon the auction process to identify who believes they have the highest value use for the spectrum. If they believe that using it to deliver broadband services over third generation mobiles—or over the shortly arriving fourth generation—then it is open to them to put in a high bid and take advantage of the capacity to get that spectrum. A philosophy that relies upon competition and the market is what underpins our approach to radio communications spectrum allocation. There is a rich irony in the fact that this government are putting forward a bill to amend the act that is consistent with the philosophy which underlies our approach to allocating radiofrequency spectrum at the same time as they are using a naively centralising approach—a government-knows-best approach—when it comes to the overall question of broadband.
But that is not the only area where this bill reveals the fundamentally conflicted attitudes within the Labor Party. The second thing that reveals a fundamental degree of confusion is their attitude to wireless. Minister Conroy said in a press release earlier this year:
Wireless spectrum is a valuable public asset.
We heard in a speech in the second reading debate from the minister representing the minister in this House that many of the licences to be allocated under this bill ‘are now used by telecommunications carriers to provide mobile phone and wireless access services to millions of Australians’.
So there is recognition that wireless is an enormously important service of enormous value. We can expect as a nation to raise very significant amounts of money from private sector players when it comes to the re-allocation process. This is a recognition that all of us could agree with but, regrettably, when it comes to the politics of broadband, all recognition of truth and of fact based assessment of reality goes out the window and it all gets down to grubby politics. This is what Stephen Conroy had to say on Lateline on 18 August. Criticising the former shadow minister Tony Smith, he said:
He still won’t answer you how many people he is going to condemn to a wireless network that can’t deliver the services that Australians are increasingly going to need and demand over the coming years.
I am confused. What does Minister Conroy believe? Does he believe that wireless is an enormously valuable public asset, that wireless services are of high value in delivering broadband, mobility and other things or does he believe when he is engaged in grubby politics that wireless is something to which Australians are to be condemned? He cannot have it both ways. The fact that this bill which highlights the central, vital importance of wireless communications is being introduced reveals fundamentally the stark hypocrisy of Stephen Conroy in the approach he took in the last election in putting forward a particular perspective on broadband. It is very, very disappointing that something as fundamentally important as telecommunications and broadband policy in this country is being compromised by the grubby political attitude which this present government is bringing to bear.
Let me quote from somebody else who has been a significant cheerleader of the government’s national broadband program. I am talking about Professor Rod Tucker of the Institute for a Broadband-Enabled Society. He wrote an article which appeared in the Age on 10 August in which he said:
Critics claiming wireless is all we’ll need are living in the past.
Again, this is part of an attack on wireless for political purposes that seems to be wholly inconsistent with the central thesis of this bill with which we fully agree, which is that wireless is of vital importance. Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, I am sure it would be evident to you from that brief description the fundamental inconsistencies and attitudes delivered by the Labor Party.
I might also quote what Senator Conroy said on 10 August. He said the coalition’s plan to focus on wireless ignores the advice of industry experts and that:
It will consign Australia to the digital dark ages.
This is very confusing stuff. Is wireless a good thing or a bad thing? It is very hard to tell from Minister Conroy. If this is the kind of political approach we are seeing to an area of vital public policy, is it any wonder that we view with enormous scepticism the proposal that this minister ought to have the power to make a re-allocation determination without it being subject to the scrutiny of parliament. We are very concerned about that and that is a matter which requires very careful consideration.
Debate (on motion by Ms Roxon) adjourned.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH
2026
Governor-General's Speech
Address-in-Reply
2026
Debate resumed from 27 October, 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
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Before I call the honourable member for Bennelong, I remind the House that this is the honourable member’s first speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.
2026
23:59:00
Alexander, John, MP
M3M
Bennelong
LP
0
0
Mr ALEXANDER
—Mr Speaker, I rise to speak to this chamber for the first time as the member for Bennelong. I congratulate my new colleagues from both sides of the House on the quality and substance of their maiden speeches. Your stories have been diverse, compelling and educational. Your stories have been moving, motivating and yours, Ken, inspiring.
It is an honour to be in this position, and I am truly grateful to the people of Bennelong for the trust and faith that they have placed in me. However, that honour is immediately replaced with a deep sense of responsibility to do my best, with integrity, honesty and fairness. I acknowledge my predecessors in Bennelong: Sir John Cramer, our former Prime Minister John Howard and Maxine McKew.
The electorate of Bennelong, located in the north-western suburbs of metropolitan Sydney, was named after a senior man of the Eora people—one of the first Indigenous Australians to effect influence and understanding with the English settlers. Befriending Governor Phillip, they travelled to England together in 1792 on what would now be called a cultural exchange. Bennelong died in 1813 at Kissing Point in modern-day Putney, and a landmark remains to this day on the spot where he is buried. A rowing race and our first brewery were also established on the site at around this time.
In 1868 a local grandmother by the name of Maria Ann Smith, also known as ‘Granny Smith’, grew the first batch of green apples that bear her name and are now grown the world over. Two weeks ago an estimated 85,000 people were attracted to the 25th anniversary of the Granny Smith Festival in Eastwood to celebrate the history and culture of our Bennelong community.
Bennelong has transformed from market gardens to billion-dollar shopping malls like Top Ryde City and the third largest business district in the region, Macquarie Park. It was also the birthplace of Betty Cuthbert, one of our greatest ever Olympians. Sport has had a significant role in our country’s history, in defining our character, and in my own personal development. I am honoured by Ken Rosewall’s presence here today. Ken is the most enduring champion tennis has seen. Ken played in his first Wimbledon final in 1954—and I can see he is embarrassed already—and his last 20 years later. I won’t say what the result was!
When you enter Centre Court at Wimbledon there is a quote from Rudyard Kipling’s poem If that reads:
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster; and treat those two imposters just the same.
This is the hallmark of champion people. Ken Rosewall and John Howard grew up in close proximity and are of a similar vintage. John Howard demonstrated every characteristic of a champion; he was both modest in victory and gracious in defeat. John and Ken both treated those two impostors just the same.
My motivation to enter politics was largely inspired by a meeting with John Howard and another with Brendan Nelson. Both expressed the view that our party would benefit greatly by attracting people with real-life experience who could contribute to the development of policy. John made the point that the only way a party should seek government was through the strength of their policies, and the only legitimate way a government should hold office was to implement those policies.
I grew up as the youngest member of a great family filled with love, laughter, support and encouragement, whatever the latest endeavour. Not long ago my mother quizzed me on hearing a report that I was entering politics. She was incredulous, but quickly repaired to assure me that she thought that I would make an excellent Prime Minister—and you think she was optimistic! My dad went bush before finishing school. Mum had been a school teacher. Dad was passionate, the dreamer, the joke teller, the man with a raucous laugh and a very naughty sense of humour. Mum was proper, restrained, reasoned, practical: moderation her motto. They were a great team. We were a classic Menzies-era family: Dad a small businessman, our ultimate prize to own our family home.
I have three sisters, Pam, and Annette and Sue, who are both here; three great brothers-in-law, Lach, Alan and Marcus, and three wonderful children, Emily, Georgia and Charlie. Annette threw me my first tennis balls to hit. I was using Pam’s racket. I swung and missed time and again but Annette was patient. The racket was abused—I am sorry, Pam! I became angrier and angrier at my inability to make contact with the ball despite my enormous confidence. I persisted, leading to a series of death matches with my sister Sue. Losing to her was worse than death. It was very hard to be a good sport. Sue went to boarding school, and against my next opponent—Hughey from across the road—the death matches continued. It was years before I won a set. When I finally did I ran around the court cheering and screaming with delight, punching the air. I was not modest in victory.
At my first major event I met a girl called Evonne Goolagong. We were both 10. Sitting next to her was comforting as we seemed to share an equal amount of apprehension and pre-match nerves. My first coach, Sid Drake, had a saying that you don’t learn much when you win, but you should learn when you lose. Many losses followed. I learned to try hard. I learned to keep trying regardless of the score. I learned to observe and analyse, to stay calm in a crisis and to control my temper. Sometimes the pursuit of my tennis dreams meant that I had to miss school. I loved tennis!
My education was very different to that of many of my colleagues. Year 11 was replaced with the world as my classroom, and Harry Hopman, the legendary Davis Cup captain, my teacher. Harry was more mentor than coach. He often talked of his friendship with our party’s founder, Sir Robert Menzies, whose daughter, Heather, is here today. We travelled to Europe in 1968, which was plagued with industrial unrest. The Italians had elevated strike action to an art form, which provided them with more time to be Italian, and they did it with such style. The French Open was nearly cancelled because of the strikes. The event proceeded, with an added benefit: as no-one was working, the crowds were great, and so was the tennis. Rosewall beat Laver in the final. Later that year we were due to play in Czechoslovakia, but that event was cancelled: Russia had invaded! We then went to Russia. Our guide kept to the Communist Party line for much of the time, but by the end of our time there her private thoughts were being confided. We played in Poland and were taken to Auschwitz by Harry’s friend from before the war. He cried and we cried. These were not the experiences enjoyed by a regular 16-year-old boy from Sydney’s Northern Beaches.
I learnt of discrimination travelling to South Africa with Arthur Ashe. He had been granted a visa declaring him an ‘honorary white’. In Arthur’s home town I practised on the adjoining court at the Richmond Country Club; he was the first African-American allowed to play there. In one of life’s great ironies, Arthur’s father had worked as a janitor at that same club. I played my first professional tennis match in China. I played in Iran when the Shah was the ruler and I toured India on many occasions. It is these experiences that have provided me with the opportunity for a real life education and has served as preparation for my role as a representative of one of Australia’s most diverse and multicultural electorates. Bennelong boasts nearly every language and culture, attained through a strong history of migration dating back to the English settlers. People have come from every part of the world to make Australia their home. In many ways, Bennelong is modern Australia.
Bennelong perfectly reflects the diversity and harmony we are so proud of in this country. Why do people leave all that is familiar to go half way around the world to start over again? They bring their dreams for a better life for themselves and their families. They bring their courage to ‘have a go’, with the odds stacked against them, playing so far from home. Our new Australians bring energy, effort, innovation and, most of all, their hopes. Every soul who comes to our country enriches us and continues the constant redefining of what it is to be Australian. In the case of Bennelong, with vibrant Chinese, Indian and Korean communities, all they want is opportunity, the opportunity to have a ‘fair go’. Our country was founded on those who came here seeking opportunities. Opportunity is the first essential ingredient to achieve success.
Through tennis I was fortunate to have the opportunity to be coached, mentored and, most of all, subjected to the scrutiny of competition. The system was clear and encouraged competitive performance and the scoring gave no advantage to reputation. It was a performance oriented occupation. Harry Hopman’s core philosophy was to relieve his players of any expectation of winning, leaving them free to go for their shots, to expand their envelope, to do their best and to fulfil their potential. Playing safe may achieve a short-term goal against inferior opposition, but the ultimate goal would be lost. As Alan Jones says, ‘To win without risk is victory without glory.’
To realise our country’s full potential, every Australian must have the opportunity to compete and earn just reward for their effort and success. For the past 15 years I have been involved with the development of multiactivity sports centres. The formula is the sporting equivalent of the modern shopping mall. These facilities have been successful throughout Europe and North America and provide communities with the opportunity to exercise, participate in sports and socialise. This is the best medicine for physical and mental health. These centres are in reality preventative medicine health clinics, but more fun.
In Australia we have gone from the highest levels of participation in active sports to now being amongst the most obese and unhealthy people with increasing health costs spent on illness resulting from poor lifestyle choices. In Britain, land zoned for sport and recreational development may be leased from 99 to 125 years. In contrast, I needed an act of parliament in South Australia to scrounge a 50-year lease to redevelop the historic Memorial Drive Club. The entire process took seven years. The Ryde Aquatic Centre and Next Generation club in my electorate of Bennelong only exist because of the once-in-a-lifetime event of the Olympic Games coming to Sydney. A decade later, that centre attracts over one million visitors each year. In the time it took to develop three clubs in Australia, our founding company in Britain went from having 20 clubs to over 90 clubs, employing thousands of staff and having over half a million members. This business sold for over £900 million. If our laws mirrored those in Britain, it would have given us the opportunity for this kind of investment in our nation’s economic and physical health.
During six months of campaigning, including doorknocking over 9,000 homes, one of the most common complaints was that neither the state nor federal governments showed any clear vision for the future. No business operates without serious consideration of its plans for the future. What is our master plan? Where will we be in 50 years time?
One of the big issues confronting my electorate is population density. Community organisations like RAID, MARS and CAPO have sprouted up from the grassroots to challenge the overcrowding and overdevelopment, with little consideration for infrastructure planning. In their maiden speeches, so many of my colleagues have talked about these coinciding dynamics on a collision course in their own electorates. There has been talk in the past of decentralisation and a conversion from the lucky country to the clever country, but little has been achieved. It is now time for us to make our own luck and not squander our inheritance. We must look beyond three-year cycles and embrace long-term vision.
The growth of our two largest cities has been disproportionate to the rest of the country, and infrastructure development has not kept pace. It is outrageous when you consider that the air corridor between Sydney and Melbourne is the fourth busiest in the world, and yet the highway linking these two cities is still not four lanes all the way, and the railway line reduces to a single one-way track for parts of this journey! I witnessed similar growth pressures whilst based in Atlanta, Georgia in the 1970s. During this time the great northern cities of the United States were encountering problems of overdevelopment and the infrastructure was not keeping up. The cost of living was skyrocketing and the cost of doing business was rising in line. The deterioration of the quality of life in overcrowded and underserviced cities brought with it the prevalence of crime. Does this sound familiar? Atlanta seized on this opportunity of selling the competitive advantage of relocating companies south, where housing prices and business costs were a fraction of those in the north. Infrastructure was vital. Highways and railroads were built to anticipate demand. Hartsfield-Jackson airport was upgraded to the point that it is now the busiest airport in the world. There is a saying in Atlanta: ‘If you die in the south, you got to go through Hartsfield to get to heaven.’ And that is true.
This phenomenal growth in Atlanta triggered the boom in the sun-belt from Florida to California. Where is our Atlanta, to trigger a broader, more sustainable, efficient and competitive plan for growth in Australia? The current path of relentless expansion of two or three cities, and little more than a welfare mentality of handouts to regional areas, is simply not sustainable. By partnering with business and planning long-term infrastructure programs, government can help develop a far better outcome for our citizens. Through this comes sustainable economic development for those regions, allowing them to lift themselves up and stand on their own strong, proud feet. Sydney and Melbourne will remain our two greatest cities. This greatness should not be judged by population and size but by liveability and efficiency. If we continue to focus our growth largely on these two cities, we are limiting how much we as a nation can grow. If, through infrastructure, we can encourage the development of tens of cities, our potential for growth is enhanced commensurately. Strategic long-term planning is essential for optimal growth.
With less than a week to go in the recent federal election campaign, the biggest single election pledge—$2.1 billion—was made by this government to build a railway line from Epping to Parramatta: a piece of infrastructure that would greatly help an overcrowded and underserviced part of my electorate. This pledge was given despite the New South Wales state government spending millions of dollars on analysis of transport and infrastructure needs and not even listing this railway build in their 10-year plan! Such rash planning decisions, made in the heat of a campaign, should never corrupt our nation’s long-term infrastructure development. We have become victims of a need to play infrastructure catch-up. We must follow the lead of visionary Australians like John Bradfield and build beyond our present needs and effectively plan for our future. Can we capture, harness, use or modify what we have seen in the phenomenal growth of the sun-belt corridor of the United States? Progress on these issues will help ease pressure on the limited amenities, roads and classrooms in Bennelong and around the country. This is a national issue that impacts on each one of us.
Let us debate in this chamber a contest of ideas, a contest of visions. As with any endeavour in life, true and honest competition unfettered by political bias will produce, in this case, the best plan and the best result for our nation’s future. We need the courage to attack this challenge. It has been ignored for too long. To shirk this responsibility, to say it is too tough, would be an affront to those who fought to make Australia what it is today—our forefathers, who had a plan, an optimistic vision, and who made the most of their opportunity to have a go.
My ability to be addressing these issues here today is due to a tremendous effort from a large team and unflinching support from the Liberal Party, captained by our leader, Tony Abbott. Tony, your strong message—to stop the waste, stop the boats and repay the debt—really cut through. You led from the front; you led by example. As a result, our party is intact, our policies are intact and our integrity is intact. We are united. Thank you for your inspiring leadership. To Julie Bishop, Mark Neeham, Richard Shields, Chris Stone, Michael Photios, Wendy Black—I’m sorry I called so often—Barry O’Farrell and all the members of the Liberal Party: thank you. To my patron senator, Connie Fierravanti-Wells: doorknocking was never more fun. To my neighbouring Liberal colleagues Philip Ruddock—my new Harry Hopman—Joe Hockey, Paul Fletcher and Marise Payne, and state colleagues Victor Dominello, Greg Smith, Anthony Roberts and Stuart Ayres: your advice, encouragement and many hours of hands-on assistance will always be highly valued, but most of all I value your friendship. To our local representatives, Mayor Artin Etmekdjian, Councillors Bill Pickering, Roy Maggio, Sarkis Yedelian, Sue Hoopmann and Ivan Petch: I appreciate your support and look forward to working closely with all of you over the coming years to put control over local decisions back in council hands.
Alan Jones, Ita Buttrose and Lachlan Murdoch all encouraged me from day one of this new career. I thank you for your friendship and for your support—in particular, Alan’s role as MC of our Legends Dinner with Ken Rosewall, Mark Waugh, Benny Elias, John Konrads, Don Spencer and Bettina Arndt. To watch Alan interview Bettina on the issues raised in her latest book on sexuality and relationships was most entertaining—and educational for Alan! The generous support of Carolyn Currie on that night was phenomenal, and David Hayman’s great support and generosity were also present.
The core team that prepared me for political life and guided me, too, in my fight for preselection were Josh Bihary, Bill Gough, Craig Brown and Rob Moffatt. I thank you for your hard work, your dedication, your honest advice—at times too honest. We are due for another dinner. Our campaign team was led by our general, Rod Bosman, a military man, and his trusty lieutenant, Nat Smith. Nat, thank you for coming today. Mitch Geddes accompanied me on every single one of those 9,000 doorknocks. Thank you to Peter Poulos, Caroline Beinke, Matt Dawson and Michael Kitmirides, who mail dropped 35,000 homes. Stephen Woodnutt spent from dawn till too late, for him—and me—as my PA; thank you, Stephen. Thank you Sue Honeybrook, Jerome Smith, Richard Henricus, Miriam Geddes, Peter Graham, Peter Bardos and Artin. To every booth captain, stall worker, scrutineer, pamphlet distributor, dinner jacket wearer, balloon blower and to every one of the hundreds of volunteers: I have had many chances to express my appreciation since election day, but I say here, in this place, thank you so very much.
We had a campaign slogan during this time of battle. I would call out: ‘What time is it?’ and whoever I was near had to respond: ‘The best time of your life!’ My office staff have this chant now. They are known as Team Alexander. Jaci, Josh, Peter, Belinda, Suzanne and Jennifer: I am just one member of your team and we have much work to do.
Gillian, you have been by my side throughout this odyssey, quietly supportive, the voice of reason, always ready to listen, even when I call late at night. Thank you for your understanding. Thanks also to your daughters, Sophie and Georgia, for their support and to your mother, Elizabeth, who is here today.
In the lottery of life I have been very fortunate with regard to family. My children, Emily, Georgia and Charlie, are all perfect. When they are not perfect, I threaten them with DNA testing with the possibility of expulsion. Christopher, I think you understand this—where is the love? Naturally, we play tennis together. Sometimes we hit a lot and talk a little. Generally we talk a lot and do not hit very much at all. Today Emily drove a manual car from Sydney, which I taught her to drive. It was a bonding experience. Emily is fearful that I will tell jokes—dad jokes, which are the worst jokes in the world. Georgia is safe from such embarrassment, as she is on gap year in England. I talked to her this morning; she is now in Ireland. I taught her also to drive a manual car. When I express an opinion, as I have today, Georgia always refers to me as ‘theory man’. Charlie and I watch Two and a Half Men together, and I apologise for that. We laugh at the same time, and I apologise for that too. I am teaching Charlie to drive a manual at the moment. That is a work in progress.
What do I want for my children? What I want for every Australian: opportunity—the opportunity to pursue their dreams, whatever they are, and not be restrained by their age, their sex or their colour. Opportunity is to be able to have a go. Opportunity without discrimination is to be given a fair go. We here have much work to do.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and I thank the House.
2032
12:27:00
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
0
0
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—I would like to congratulate the member for Bennelong on an excellent first speech. I would like to begin by thanking voters in the electorate of Boothby for the privilege of representing them for a sixth term in parliament. As we know, the last election was the closest election since 1940 and the electorate of Boothby was one of the three closest seats. So it was an electorate in which everyone’s vote really did count.
I would like to thank my hardworking electorate office staff. I would also like to thank the hundreds of volunteers for the Liberal Party. I would like to thank especially the Boothby federal electorate committee: Fran Southern, who was an effective, hardworking president, and Janet Hillgrove, who coordinated many things during the campaign and has been over a very long time a tremendous volunteer for the Liberal Party. I would also like to thank the state and federal secretariats and the state director, Bev Barber, and her team for their timely and welcome assistance during the campaign.
The electorate of Boothby is a tremendous electorate to represent. We have many outstanding institutions. The Waite Research Institute, one of the top agricultural research institutes anywhere in the world, represents what Michael Porter has described as a real ‘cluster’. We have the University of Adelaide agricultural science course, the CSIRO and the Wine Research Institute and we also have some new facilities: the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics and now a plant accelerator. It has been with tremendous pride as the local member that I have seen this outstanding organisation continue to grow. We have people from all over the world coming to work at the Waite institute.
We also have many great institutions, including Flinders University, Flinders Medical Centre and Daw Park Repatriation Hospital. I cannot let the opportunity go past, but many people may have heard the previous Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, talking about local hospital networks. If he said it once, he said it a thousand times: ‘We’re going to have hospitals funded nationally, run locally.’ To give a little bit of background: in South Australia we had a generational health review. We moved to three local health services: the Southern Adelaide Health Service, which was Flinders Repat and Noarlunga; a northern health service; and a north-west health service. Some years after that, the state government decided to move to two health services. Only a week after the state government signed the COAG agreement for these local hospital networks the state government made a decision to have every metropolitan hospital in the same health service. Rather than having local autonomy and local hospital boards—as the coalition would prefer—we now have every hospital in the same health service. So it shows a real disconnect between the way the federal government sees a way around national health and hospital networks, specifically their local hospital networks, and how the state government sees a way of getting around it. The idea was to have activity based funding and to reward the more efficient places. Instead, 95 per cent of the effort which occurs in the metropolitan hospitals will all be in the same health service.
A second issue which I would like to raise is adult education and adult re-entry. About 20 years ago South Australia developed adult secondary colleges. There are five in South Australia, including Hamilton Secondary College in my electorate. These colleges have continued under successive state governments, Liberal and Labor. It is fair to say that these colleges have been life transforming. They are for people who did not have a good experience at school and who left school early. They get a second chance to go back and do their year 12. It is good to have a second chance.
HW9
Champion, Nick, MP
Mr Champion interjecting—
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—The member for Wakefield agrees. That is why he, like me, would be absolutely shocked at the state government’s decision to phase out adult re-entry and adult education for students over the age of 21. In fact, the state Minister for Education was likening it to a WEA course—that people were doing this as a form of interest, without actually having a career path in mind. This decision would have been absolutely devastating for Hamilton Secondary College. They have built up the expertise and, while they do have a high school for years 8 to 12, they had more than 1,600 students—
HW9
Champion, Nick, MP
Mr Champion interjecting—
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—Absolutely; it is in Mitchell Park. These were people who had not had a good experience at school—it would have taken a lot to get them back through the doors of a school—yet the state government were actually going to leave these people on the scrap heap. I am pleased that the state government have backflipped on this very short-sighted decision.
Turning to the election, the Labor Party made only two specific commitments in the local electorate of Boothby: funding for lights at the Bowker Street Oval for the Southern Districts Junior Soccer Association, also used by Little Athletics, and also $100,000 for CCTV cameras for Blackwood. I will be pursuing the government to ensure that those election commitments are delivered. Essentially, Labor’s commitments for Boothby were virtually non-existent. Having a Labor government means that Boothby residents will miss out on an extra $5 million to complete the Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer and an extra $5 million to reduce traffic congestion and increase road safety in Blackwood. They will also miss out on the opportunity of having green army teams working on the local environment. I was particularly keen to see them working on wild olive eradication in the Mitcham Hills and Brownhill Creek area. It poses a fire hazard, but it is also destroying the local environment. I was particularly keen to see them working on sand dune rejuvenation and care between Seacliff and Brighton. We have sand dunes on the beaches at Seacliff and Brighton. We also have very important remnant sand dunes at Somerton Park, at the Minda site. Also, green army teams were working on preparing the wetlands at Oaklands Park, another important development.
Locally, the electorate will miss out on the opportunity of having a user-friendly mental health service, or headspace site, at Marion. They will miss out on an upgrade to the clubs of the Brighton Sports Complex and on the installation of solar power for Unley High School. These are all important priorities for me and for the community which I represent. Moving forward as the member for Boothby, there are a number of things I would like to see. I remain strongly committed to South Road becoming a non-stop expressway, from Darlington to Wingfield. It is an important priority for the southern suburbs. We want to see 22 kilometres of non-stop expressway. I am frustrated and disappointed that the state government, which committed to fixing the intersection at Sturt Road—
HW9
Champion, Nick, MP
Mr Champion interjecting—
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—I am even-handed with bouquets and brickbats! In March 2006 the state government were going to fix the Sturt Road and South Road intersection. In November 2007 federal Labor were going to fix this. There is a feasibility study, which will report in the middle of next year, but the money for this project is pretty well allocated to the superway on the northern part of South Road, so there is no money, at least until 2014, to fix this intersection, which was first promised by Labor in 2006.
We need to see action from the state government on the Oaklands railway crossing. This is a major bottleneck for the local community. There are a couple of projects, which I am pleased will be going ahead very shortly. Work has begun on the Flinders Cancer Centre, and work is well advanced on the state aquatic centre. Both of these facilities will be fantastic for the local community.
A major issue during the election campaign for all South Australian’s is the future of the Murray-Darling and the basin plan. It is very important that we do have a workable national plan. Residents in my electorate would like to see much more work going on in improvements to infrastructure. It is incredible that, of $5.8 billion, which was left by the previous government infrastructure improvements, has not happened. That is something that I will be keenly engaged on in this term of parliament.
I would like to touch on the issue of the private health insurance rebate. This is an important issue for my electorate. More than 70 per cent of households hold private health insurance coverage. That is almost 96,000 people who are covered by private health. The Labor policy—which was a broken promise from 2007—is to means test the private health insurance rebate. Before the 2007 election, the Labor Party were going to keep the rebate. They broke this promise. And of the three budgets Labor have delivered so far, they have already wound back their support for private health insurance—first by increasing the thresholds for the Medicare levy surcharge and then by means testing the private health insurance rebate, beginning at incomes of $75,000. What we will see is a return to the old system we had under the previous Labor government, whereby rates of cover for private health insurance fell dramatically. This is an important issue in my electorate, not just for all the people who hold private health insurance but for important private hospitals, like Flinders Private Hospital, Blackwood Community Hospital; and, out of my electorate, but used by people in my electorate, the Ashford Hospital. It is important that we do maintain strong levels of private health insurance. This is another issue that the government needs to reconsider.
I am very pleased to be involved in health policy on behalf of the opposition, and to have direct responsibility in the area of primary healthcare and in preventative health as well. These are both issues that are close to my heart and I look forward to working closely with opposition members in this area. We have seen some great improvements in primary healthcare over the last 10 years. Some of the most significant, I think, have been the computerisation of general practice, which was started under Michael Wooldridge; and also the greater role for practice nurses. While general practice has always had a strong focus on prevention, I think with those two developments—the practice nurses and computerisation—we are now seeing a much greater effort in preventative health in terms of that infrastructure.
That leads me to another point I would like to make, which goes to the area of GP super clinics. This is a classic Labor slogan: it sounds good but what does it really mean? By way of background, more than 20 years ago, as a medical student, I worked in a medical centre which offered pharmacy, which offered radiology, which offered allied health and which offered physio, as well as many doctors. This would have been a GP super clinic, but it was provided by the private sector. All around Australia there are GP super clinics, but they are provided not with taxpayers’ money but through the private sector, through companies or through individuals actually raising money themselves. What we see is Labor’s promise from 2007, where they promised 36 GP super clinics, and three years later there only four of them are operational. This has been a massive waste of taxpayers’ money. Despite falling short on their pledge to deliver 36 clinics, the Gillard Labor government have extended this pledge to 60 GP super clinics. The coalition strongly supports general practice as the cornerstone of primary healthcare; however we do not believe that GP super clinics are the answer. That is why, at the recent election, the coalition committed to invest significantly in longer GP consultations, after-hours care, practice nurse services, MRI referrals, infrastructure grants and rural bonded scholarships to help improve access to GP services. We actually think the better way to go is to build on what is already there—enhance the capacity of existing infrastructure and existing practices; enable them to have more rooms to allocate to provide for registrars, allied health professionals or to provide for an extra doctor. Rather than building these white elephants to come along and try and reinvent the wheel, we actually think it would have been more value for taxpayers’ money to build on existing infrastructure with private family practices, which are already in the community.
That is why any scan of news reports will show that there has not been one positive story about the GP superclinics over the last couple of years. Many patients, doctors and other allied health professionals share our view, believing that GP superclinics are not the answer. Our concern is that they put existing practices in jeopardy. They create an unfair environment whereby existing practices that have already put up their own capital are receiving competition from taxpayer funded and subsidised businesses. The existing clinics have invested time and money in their local communities, providing an invaluable service, only to be undercut by the government. The government needs to guarantee that no existing general practice services will be closed as a result of its GP Super Clinics Program.
The GP Super Clinics Program is really just emblematic of the Labor government’s approach. ‘GP superclinic’ sounds good, but what does it actually mean? It means a program which has failed. There are only four operational superclinics of 36 which were promised at the election before last. It is just another case of something that sounds good and looks good but is another Labor lemon.
I would like to conclude by once again thanking the voters in the electorate of Boothby for the opportunity to serve them in parliament. It is a great honour, and I look forward to doing that over the next three years.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Before I call the member for La Trobe, I remind members that this is the honourable member’s first speech, and I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.
2036
12:46:00
Smyth, Laura, MP
172770
La Trobe
ALP
0
1
Ms SMYTH
—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to give voice to my reasons for being here and to record particularly my thanks for the considerable efforts of all of those people who have assisted along the way and who have had such confidence in me that I have been capable of being elected.
I have flown into Tullamarine quite a lot recently and, each time that I do, I remember the first Melbourne landing that I made with my family in 1983. Nineteen eighty-three was part of a different era, at least for those of us on this side of the chamber. I was almost seven and I really did not know very much about Australia. I certainly did not know what it was going to be like here. It had not occurred to me that I would grow up anywhere other than Dunmurry, in Belfast. I just remember leaving my grandparents at the kerbside and watching them wave us goodbye. I remember the haze of smoke in the non-smoking section of our flight as it wound its way through every conceivable airport destination in the Northern Hemisphere and much of the southern.
My first contact with the Australian Labor Party was somewhat indirect but quite fateful. Our plane was stranded on the tarmac at Jakarta for several hours because Australia’s newly elected Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, had flown into town and was being given a 21-gun salute. Almost three decades on and he is still very much a show stopper, and deservedly so.
Reflecting now on what my parents undertook almost 30 years ago to come to a country while having nothing, knowing barely anyone and leaving behind family and everything familiar, I am struck by their bravery and their resilience. They handled the upheaval of migration quietly and without fuss, as they have done with most things in life.
Belfast is a now a city with promise. It is a pleasure to visit, and its people, with their black sense of humour and their immense pride, deserve the peace and the prosperity that they have worked incredibly hard for. In the early 1980s, it was rather a different place.
Dad taught at a local Catholic primary school in Twinbrook, a Catholic area of Belfast. I went to school each day with him. Kids at our school would sometimes fall asleep in class because they had been out rioting late into the night. I remember being in the back of the car on the way to school one day when Dad stopped at a roadblock, a usual occurrence. A child casually holding a gun stepped up to the window and said, ‘I’m not coming to school today, sir.’ Teachers at our school wondered where kids were vanishing to en masse when the bell rang at the end of each school day. They discovered that most of the school was going to throw stones at the ‘pop-ups’—the armoured vehicles which drove through the neighbourhood with soldiers who would step out of the roofs.
My parents and others like them made a concerted effort to try to get kids away from the city on school camps during the most dangerous parts of the year so that they did not get caught up in the very worst of the troubles. Living in a mixed area of Belfast, my parents tried to live as normally as possible in a city divided. As they continued to see their children being hassled and bullied because of sectarianism, they realised that they had to leave.
I speak of this because the situation in Belfast always, always reminds me of how fragile our democracy can be. It reminds me that, while we have institutions and procedures, checks and balances, these are of little value when there is a breakdown of basic trust in a society and amongst citizens. We have countless examples around the globe of communities which are painstakingly trying to rebuild trust and, with that trust, a future for themselves. We think of these as far-off troubled societies. We do not think that, with just a little less trust, a little more animosity and a failure to share the spoils of our society fairly, these same troubles could affect virtually any democracy, including our own.
No-one can overestimate the damage caused by setting up a division or a wedge in a society, setting citizen against citizen and preying upon the most base emotions in ourselves. It is not something to be experimented or toyed with. We can have differences of opinion. We can, in this place and in the community generally, have robust debate, but we must have honour in our dealings with sensitive issues of public policy. Matters which affect our longstanding human rights obligations and the dignity of our society, in particular, should not be treated casually.
Tampa, back in 2001, and the plight of the SIEV X were classic examples of the kind of division that the Howard government, with the notable exception of a few of its backbenchers, was content to see thrive. As it did for many others, this reinforced my belief that we all have an obligation to stand up for basic human rights. As it did for many others, this drove me to volunteer my services in the judicial review of certain applications for asylum. Work like this is not about being a bleeding heart. It is about consistency. The rule of law applies to us all, and we must apply it fairly. We cannot apply it selectively, we cannot use it politically, and it must be fair and beyond reproach. This must be our approach to all international obligations to which we have committed ourselves. I believe that we can and must be sensible and pragmatic in our handling of these issues. But we must do so without victimising people who are already victims.
Human rights protections and the way that we treat the most vulnerable in our community reflect the basic strength of our democracy. I have long considered that the way that we treat the most marginalised and disenfranchised of people reflects this. The status of women; the respect which we afford to Indigenous peoples; the efforts to which we go to ensure rights protections for gay and lesbian people; providing opportunities for the disabled, the homeless, children and the aged—these are the things that reflect the progress, and the health, of our society. Let us speak rationally about those matters as legislators; let us not set out to cause division for political ends. It is curious that conservative parties, which have had a tradition of asserting the rights of the individual against the might of the state, have now abandoned this. Individual rights do not seem to matter to these people. The next election does.
I joined the Australian Labor Party as a 16-year-old. I had heard Paul Keating’s speech at Redfern, I heard him talking about a republic and—as with so many of us on this side—I loved his words, his zeal for the big things and his withering disdain for the small. And what followed him for 12 years was so terribly small.
During the Hawke-Keating years, Labor had implemented significant reforms to the economy. It had taken our legacy of the eight-hour day, social security, maternity leave, workers’ compensation and Medicare and moved us another step on. As just one example of this, the superannuation system remains a demonstration of just how effective the Labor Party and the union movement can be in achieving sustained national reform. The pool of assets generated and acquired by superannuation funds plays an increasingly important role in the Australian economy. This year, assets under management of Australian super funds are equal to 94 per cent of Australia’s gross domestic product. By 2020, it is estimated that those assets will amount to $2.6 trillion. Our superannuation industry increasingly generates investment, provides capital, creates employment and will, I hope, in future have a more expansive role to play in the development and ownership of more of our national infrastructure. It supports working Australians right now and, with the increased superannuation guarantee levy, it will in future give all retirees participating in superannuation the quality of life that those opposite would never have made a national priority.
It is extraordinary that, more than 20 years after Labor mooted a superannuation system in this country, the fundamental benefits of that system are still being questioned by our conservative counterparts. Though they have come to accept a basic need for superannuation, they still resist any increase to the superannuation guarantee levy to better provide for the retirement of working Australians. Once again, those who regularly laud themselves as the saviours of the economy and the voice of commerce have demonstrated a desperate lack of vision.
For the last nine years, I have worked as a corporate lawyer. I have had the fortune to work as an external lawyer and, in some instances, an in-house lawyer in businesses which have supported jobs and industry throughout Victoria and Australia. I have worked for manufacturers, distributors and exporters. I have worked with government agencies, hospitals and superannuation funds, with longstanding family businesses that have contributed to the prosperity of the country through generations and new enterprises making the best of emerging markets and new technologies. In recent years, I have been especially fortunate to have worked at Holding Redlich. The firm has been extraordinarily supportive of my endeavours to represent La Trobe in this place and I am particularly grateful to Michael Linehan, who is in the gallery today, Lou Farinotti, Chris Lovell and Peter Redlich, and all those who I suspect will be watching in Studio 350. In coming to work for the firm, I realised that my views were not dissimilar to its original objectives: to be able to run a strong practice in corporate and property law while supporting legal work for the benefit of the community. I am very glad to have worked for them.
Having walked much of the electorate and spoken to many thousands of its residents, I know that La Trobe does not lend itself to easy definition. It takes in some of the fastest-growing suburbs in Australia. Pakenham, Officer and Berwick, Beaconsfield and Narre Warren are now attracting new families and new industries. Planning for the development of those parts of the electorate will be crucial and it is Labor that has its focus on sustainability, new infrastructure, hospital and school funding, innovation and job creation for our newest regions. It is Labor that has renewed the relationship of the federal government with local government, and I consider that partnership to be a very effective one. It is in the dialogue with our community about sustainability that we are again set in stark relief against the opposition’s situation. It has no sustainability ministry and little, if any, policy in this area. Its focus on growth has been largely and almost exclusively in fear-mongering about migration. Labor is addressing the practicalities and the logistics of making growth benefit communities such as those in La Trobe and ensuring that our quality of life is sustained.
The electorate is named for Charles La Trobe, the first Lieutenant Governor of Victoria. Charles and I may have had little in common, he with his propensity for mountaineering and me with my white-knuckle fear of heights, but I suspect we would have shared the view that the Dandenong Ranges is amongst Victoria’s and Australia’s most valuable environmental assets. It takes in much of the spectacular beauty and forest-scapes which were so well captured on canvas by Arthur Streeton and Tom Roberts. Charles La Trobe had the foresight to preserve significant tracts of land throughout Melbourne for use as parks and gardens and had a vision for our future environment. It is important to me that we protect the biodiversity of the Dandenong Ranges. It is important to me that we ensure that it is retained for future generations. At a local level, this means having the foresight to support initiatives to better protect native flora and fauna. At a national level, this means having the absolute foresight to support whole-of-economy reforms, to set a carbon price and deliver on our global environmental commitments.
To live in and around the Dandenongs is to be instantly involved in community organisations and activities—CFA, Landcare, the local Neighbourhood House, church groups, environmental groups, and the list goes on. One of the things which I hope to do during my time in this place is to encourage more young adults to become involved in our community through local leadership initiatives. I have started to encourage this in our electorate. Volunteering, community connectedness and participation in important civic activities have perhaps declined as we have become more time-poor and focus our energies elsewhere. It is extremely pleasing that the electorate of La Trobe is already home to an impressive group of young community activists and aid campaigners, active members of World Vision, Oxfam and other organisations. During the campaign, I was approached by a number of them asking if I might mention our Millennium Development Goal commitments in this speech. I am very pleased to be able to do so. I would particularly like to address those goals which focus on the welfare of women in developing countries.
I have never been much of a believer in role models, but the characteristics which I most admire are resilience, tenacity and compassion. There are millions of women in the developing world who demonstrate those qualities and the very best of humanity in the very worst of conditions that humanity and nature can inflict—women in the floods of Pakistan, in the upheaval of Afghanistan and in the unspeakable atrocities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; women who are still regarded as the lowest of the low, who care for and educate their children and keep their communities together; and women who are still not afforded control over their fertility, health or basic finances. Just as we share in the benefits of a global community, so we must also share in our humanitarian and human rights obligations to that community and, most particularly, we must do our best for women in developing countries.
The generosity of Australians has been made apparent time and again during global crises. The current government have shown their commitment to the Millennium Development Goals, in particular the improvement of maternal and child health throughout our region and around the globe. This government’s recent commitment of $1.6 billion to improving the health of women and children over the next five years will have an extraordinarily profound and lasting impact on infant mortality rates and women’s health in the developing world. Since 2005, we have doubled our overseas aid program. Labor have committed to increase our aid budget for developing nations to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2015. We have done so even against the backdrop of the global financial crisis. I support the target of contributing 0.7 per cent of GNI in overseas aid and progressively increasing our aid commitment until we are able to reach that goal together with other nations around the globe. I am extremely pleased that young people in my electorate have made this their priority: to campaign against poverty and for a fairer world. People, no matter where they are from, deserve a basic quality of life. That is what Labor are about and that is what I am about.
The opportunity to represent my community in this place is a tremendous honour. I am grateful to all La Trobe electors for giving me a very fair hearing during the election campaign and for the support of so many local residents and community leaders. The opportunities which the Australian parliament presents to each individual member and senator are considerable and it seems to me that much of the skill of a successful parliamentarian must be in whittling down to those things which he or she wishes to achieve in what is a relatively short period of time.
My priorities are civic involvement, jobs for my community, ensuring that Labor’s significant commitments in education and health continue to be delivered, and making decency the benchmark in our treatment of those who are disadvantaged by virtue of their finances, health or cultural background.
The La Trobe campaign was owned very much by local branch members and supporters, Young Labor members and students, colleagues, friends and family. I am delighted that many of them are in the gallery this afternoon. Through the sunburn, the windburn and the very soggy shoes of the La Trobe campaign in 2010, there were three people who were indispensable: Gavin Ryan, Chris Davis and James Raynes scraped, cajoled and, in many instances, duct-taped it all together, and I am forever grateful to them. We always knew that at the end of it all there would either be a victory or a sitcom script in the making.
I am indebted to Phil Staindl, who is also in the gallery this afternoon, for his extraordinary generosity and his guidance. I regret very much that he is not a member of this place. Mat Hilikari, Sarah Wickham, Garry Muratore and his family, Barbara Crisp and Geoff Champion were the backbone of the campaign. Everything that they took on they did and they did it with good humour. I am incredible grateful to Jacqueline Cameron, Marita Foley and Toby Yiu for their incredible generosity and friendship. My many thanks to Senator Gavin Marshall, Mark Dreyfus, Brian Tee and James Merlino for their considerable support and belief in me, and to Senator Jacinta Collins and Alan Griffin. I am also very grateful to the CEPU Communications Branch and particularly Matt; and the tenacious campaigners of the TCFUA, the CFMEU, the AEU and the VIEU and EMILY’s List.
There are many, many more whom I have thanked in person and will continue to thank, whose efforts contributed to what was very much a community based campaign and victory. My family has been in equal measures supportive and protective. I would like to acknowledge the perpetual support of my parents, Eddie and Mary, my brother and sister, Francis and Deborah, and Deborah’s family. I thank my partner Matt, who came to all the dawn train-station visits and the debates, and who extracted mirth from the campaign at every opportunity. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support across the miles of two delightful, principled and extremely strong women, my great-aunts Patricia and Mildred Jordan. They are in their 80s and have just discovered the internet. I feel sure that they will be watching this.
Since joining Labor in my teens, I have known it to be a party capable of leading with both intellectual rigour and compassion; pragmatic and responsible in its handling of the economy; a constant focus on jobs; a very solid sense of our place in the world and our capacity as a nation to lead. But at the party’s core, there is a fierce desire to make life considerably better for working people and people on the margins.
Labor are a party which was built on a belief that life should be made better for ordinary working Australians. We are a party which has sought to unite Australia through reforms which make life better for all of us. Universal health care, abolition of discrimination, prioritising education and rights at work are all reforms which have united and strengthened our community. We will not bow to the pettiness and division that will weaken and undermine the civil society that we have fought so hard to create. We have rightly set ourselves an ambitious reform agenda and we will build on the very significant gains that Labor have already made for working people.
2041
13:09:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—May I use this interlude of congratulatory chaos to inform the House that we have in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Roger Price, who was of course, until the last election, a member in this place for over a quarter of a century, a parliamentary secretary and a feared chief whip, both in opposition and government. On behalf of the House, I welcome him warmly.
Order! Before I call the member for Chifley, I remind the House that this is the honourable member’s first speech and I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.
2041
13:10:00
Husic, Ed, MP
91219
Chifley
ALP
1
1
Mr HUSIC
—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate you not only on your election but also on your great love of the great game of basketball. While we are no longer able to caucus together, we can still test who has the better shot—somewhere else, where standing orders and new paradigms do not dictate the outcome.
I begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of this land and pay my respects to their elders, past and present.
I am often asked how it feels to have arrived in this place. It took me a while to get here; you would think I could answer the question quickly. All I can say is that I am humbled by the weight of moment, especially considering I follow in the footsteps of a tremendous servant and advocate for the residents of Chifley, the Hon. Roger Price. He dedicated his heart and soul to Chifley, something remarked upon with respect and regard by so many residents during the campaign. It is without doubt he is well regarded in Chifley, but he is remembered warmly here. On a personal level, I am so grateful that you gave a 21-year-old who knew everything a job and the chance to prove he had way more to learn. To Roger, his wife, Robyn, and all his children: I know I am not the only one to thank him for his friendship, advice and support.
When I reflect on the electorate of Chifley and the man it was named after, it seems to me a perfect unison, for the path worn by a great Australian in Ben Chifley is a path embarked upon by so many in the electorate named after him, where the application of education joined with a commitment to improvement of the self and others has allowed residents in neighbourhoods from Mt Druitt through Blacktown and up to Marsden Park the chance to see beyond the present to a richer future.
I admire so much within the people I have the privilege to represent: the value they place on reward after hard work; their decency; their dignity; their faith and love of family; and their support for their neighbours, their community and those ‘having a go’ to make something better. For so many of us in the Labor movement, Ben Chifley’s words spoke to us across generations when he said:
The urgency that rests behind the Labor movement, pushing it on to do things, to create new conditions, to reorganise the economy of the country, always means that the people who work within the Labor movement, people who lead, can never have an easy job.
And with advice to constantly guide and inform, he reminds us:
The most that we can do is to help the masses of the people and give to them some sense of security and some degree of human happiness.
While recognising the importance of Labor’s role in generating material wealth, he saw the Labor movement as being driven by a deeper motivation, shared by many of us today, to deliver security and peace of mind and to ensure, in part, that Australians will never be haunted by an inability to provide. Sons and daughters of the blue-collar workers of this country have witnessed that ambition spur on their own parents and then spark within them an ethic of effort, service and sacrifice.
I am an indebted and proud product of our public education system, having benefited from my learning at Blacktown South Public School and Mitchell High School. On this day, I place on record my deepest thanks for the regard and care teachers dedicate to their students, day-in day-out, like the teachers who helped me—people such as Ferdo Mathews and Rhona Morath. I, like many others in my area, cannot thank enough those responsible for pushing for the establishment of a university in Western Sydney. I am happy to be one of its first graduates to make a contribution in this place, but for me graduation from UWS is distinction enough. To those before us in the Labor movement who have been responsible for providing my generation with educational opportunity perceived beyond reach: I stand here as an appreciative beneficiary.
We continue to carry this ambition to this day and beyond—inheriting a desire to ensure an even greater breadth of educational opportunity—expressed in our push to lift spending in schools, and establish trade training centres. Schools in the Chifley electorate have witnessed a surge of new investment like never before. Prime Minister, it is a source of enormous satisfaction that during the greatest economic challenge of the last 75 years, an arm of the Commonwealth response mobilised government investment in a way that has left an enduring benefit to students for years to come. And, just as two decades ago when Labor moved to open avenues of education in the tertiary sector, Labor today is building the platform for the delivery of new skills to our society and economy through the rollout of trade training centres. Doonside Technology High, Evans High, Loyola Senior High and Tyndale Christian School are all advanced in their preparations for new trade training centres. Other schools are also lining up to do the same and I look forward to eagerly supporting them.
Retention rates in our area are stubbornly lower than the national average. Our trade training centres hold great potential in the campaign to lift the numbers of students staying on to years 11 and 12. Lessons from times past speak to me about the value of this initiative. While we have had 20 years of continuous economic growth in this country, there have been those that have been buffeted by movements in industry. The drive for productivity and change can be a great platform from which growth and value spring but it can be a tough teacher to those who fail to possess the skills and qualifications to weather these changes. We would be condemned if we failed to learn from the pain of past economic restructuring. The trade training centres demonstrate, in part, we have an ear to history and a heart for the future of our young.
Besides lifting local retention rates, I am also focused on other issues in the area of education and early childhood development, be they the need for early childhood speech pathology or building on the work being carried out to boost student performance and attendance rates at schools, along the successful lines of what is being achieved at Plumpton High School under Principal Eric Jamieson, or taking on the issue of childhood obesity, which doctors I have consulted with locally tell me disturbs them the most or working to help lift the quality of life for people with a disability and their carers.
These issues demand my focus because they stand as challenges to our young and Chifley is a young electorate, with a third of its residents aged 19 or under—the second most ‘youthful’ electorate in our nation. We must seize every opportunity to help them fulfil their promise and potential. Besides its youth, Chifley is marked by its potential growth, swept up within the wave of residential development that continues to transform Western Sydney. As we grow, we need to ensure that the infrastructure is there to improve the experience of our new residents and their existing neighbours.
Our party has moved to invest in infrastructure to involve itself in urban development and to lift healthcare spending—all vital to our country, especially so in Chifley. Our investment in the development of a high-speed, modern National Broadband Network threads us to a future of prosperity and development in line with, or better than, what is being experienced in other corners of the globe.
Some of the issues I have referred to are not issues confined to one electorate; they span suburbs in Western Sydney. On these matters, I look forward to joining with my good friend, the member for Greenway. Both of us committed to giving something back to the areas we have been raised in and are still tied so closely to. We have travelled some way from the days of setting up our local Young Labor Association in her dad’s backyard 20 years ago.
While we are brought here as individual representatives, we bear a collective responsibility to national life and fortune. Pressing issues affecting the country bind us in national mission. Looming before us is the challenge of environmental repair, the task of addressing the impact of climate change. Regardless of the accumulated contributions of generations before, we are now called upon to correct the damage done.
We will either take decisions on this matter now or avoid them. In so doing, we will either liberate generations of Australians from a poorer future or consign them to it. On this issue, I am conscious of those who are to follow us. I would hope they would judge us in the way we proudly remember Australian generations of times gone past who said that, ‘We bore sacrifice to ensure that our children’s children could live their lives as richly if not better than us.’
Growing up I saw how Labor governments of the eighties and nineties appealed to a sense of national purpose to build a better country. We are drawn now to what I would describe as a generational purpose. We cannot be distracted by the notion of waiting for others before committing to action ourselves—seduced to embrace a form of ‘climate change isolationism’, to make us shirk our responsibilities—as if hoping our consciences will be secure in blaming others for our own unwillingness to take up our environmental obligations.
I recall the economic reforms in years gone by, such as the massive trade liberalisation we undertook 20 years ago. We never waited for trade doors to be opened elsewhere before doing what was right for this country. We made the right call: we set up the Cairns Group, we pushed for APEC and we prosecuted the cause elsewhere. Australia and the world are now better for this. The same must follow on addressing climate change and preparing our economy for a future less reliant on current carbon levels.
I was born in a generation where capitalism and communism struggled across different planes for supremacy and we lived under a shadow of potential elimination. That contest has been closed but I argue that the question of how we organise ourselves to improve society continues to evolve. We are now driven by a new quest to establish a balance between the hunger for individual freedom and the need for us to act collectively. My overarching desire is to ensure our collective actions can help individuals and their communities reap their full potential.
My fundamental world view rests—at its core—on the notion of balance. I do not just tolerate alternate views; I remain open to them, I learn from and grow from them—and I value differences in our society and in our debates about the future of our society. We should celebrate our different skills and ideas, while realising that at some point we must combine our energies and effort for the sake of community and country.
Having said that, I do not believe in delegating burden or responsibility to others. Industry can and should advocate economic and tax reform—but they cannot expect someone else to pay for it. Small business should be freed from red tape and benefit from strong trade practices laws but understand that there will be those that strive to improve the security of employment for their employees. Employees should be protected by fair workplace laws while understanding that strong balance sheets and stronger profits are one of the best job security measures going around. And politicians cannot expect that perpetual electoral victory through short-term, tactical wins at the expense of hard but necessary reform will honour the country we love and work for.
Fear is not what should be used to win or run government. It is what we beat back with the courage within government; courage to prove we can be better than who we are. Ultimately, we are all in this journey together. We will make sacrifices together and we will be enriched together.
Following these previous points, I seek to make one other. I mentioned earlier that we rightly celebrate 20 years of economic growth. On so many levels, we live a vastly better life than our parents and their parents. But while wealth has expanded phenomenally, we are not only failing to share this better within society, but it seems we expect greater sacrifice from those who should not be called upon to bear so much.
We work some of the longest hours in the world, much of it as unpaid overtime. Full-time employment is being challenged by casualisation as the predominant form of work. Outsourcing wears down conditions and security. And the share of economic growth and wealth that is snared by profits is at its highest level in 50 years while the wages share stands at its lowest. Wealth has certainly blossomed, but it is not hard for me to sympathise with the view that we are witnessing a distorted transfer of wealth from pay packets to balance sheets.
The laws of this land have a big part to play in bringing back some balance. If we all have a stake in the success of our country we should ensure we savour a fair share of that success. In this place, this issue remains a critical concern to me because, with respect, we are not—as some would describe—a ‘market democracy.’ We are a democracy which operates a market economy. We have civic responsibilities and economic priorities. It is worth remembering that in some parts of the world, the hand of the market works one way while another hand suppresses the liberties of those that live and work within it. Again, a concentration on balance should guide the decisions we make in this House.
At this point I would like to turn to the experiences of a man who, 50 years ago, decided his fortune and future lay beyond the confines of a country village in Europe. He travelled from one hemisphere to the other. He made hard choices and sacrifices. He did it without formal education. He succeeded without the safety net of a healthy bank balance. He brought his wife over and they started a family without one around them. They raised their children in Western Sydney.
He travelled the country for his work as a welder, working on iconic projects inaugurated by the Chifley government such as the Snowy Mountains Scheme. His wife taught herself English and made sure their children learned their multiplication tables before dinner, regardless of their resistance or howls of hunger.
Their story may sound similar to many, but was very special to my brother Alan, my sister Sabina and me. On behalf of my siblings, we remain perpetually grateful that our nation’s public service was so efficient in processing my father’s application for immigration because we do not know how we could have ever brought ourselves to support the Springboks.
Between both of my parents—Hasib and Hasiba—I was taught the biggest of life’s lessons but I always carry within me my mother’s words:
As important as it is to have food on the table, we also have to feed the soul.
My parents are here today along with our friends and my ‘extended Bosnian family’—welcome. To my family spread across Europe, my love and thoughts. And welcome to the honourable Ambassador of Bosnia-Hercegovina, Damir Arnaut, who joins us in the chamber today. Mum and Dad, I dedicate this speech to you, your dreams, your journey, your toil:
Od mog srca, tvome srcu: nemogu da ti se dosta zahvalim.
From my heart to yours, I cannot thank you enough.
As I make this contribution in response to the considered words of our current Governor-General, I am mindful of the words of one of her predecessors and one of our nation’s most noble citizens, Sir William Deane, who said:
I am convinced that it is our multi-culturalism which has made possible our national unity notwithstanding that we Australians directly or indirectly come from all regions, races, cultures and religions of the world.
A truism is buried within those words because no migrant undertakes the dislocation and sacrifice to reach these shores and set up a new life upon them with any aim other than to provide a better life for their family, and repay in part their debt to our great nation by being loyal, proud, hardworking citizens, such as the ones I see every day in an electorate as diverse as Chifley.
This is exactly the experience that brings greater meaning to the words of Sir William. Migrant families bring with them a tenacious determination to join in unity with the ambitions and hopes and purpose of a new nation—a multicultural nation. To me, multiculturalism represents a vast reservoir of energy this nation can tap into. When we harness all the goodwill and talent across all the corners of this land, from the first owners to the recently arrived, we build one of the greatest countries on the planet.
I continue to draw inspiration from a nation whose success vaults off the backs of many, regardless of their background. We continue a mission that sprang from the birth of our nation, spelt out by one of our founding fathers, Sir Henry Parkes, when he called out to our country by saying:
We should grow at once—in a day, as it were—from a group of disunited communities into one solid, powerful, rich and widely respected power.
The words of 1890 are heard clearly in 2010.
As much as I and the sons and daughters of migrants across our land are thankful for the opportunities extended to us by our new home, I am mindful that this was only possible because of the sacrifices made by our land’s traditional owners. As we acknowledge their ownership, we are obliged by dint of national kinship to repay this debt by ensuring that they too have every opportunity to prosper, grow and pass on their culture and traditions to a generation that will be stronger than the last.
My arrival here finally brings together the children of Abraham, Christians, Jews and Muslims, working together with other people of faith, with other people of values, for the national good, united under this one roof. I recognise the words of Dame Enid Lyons in 1943, when she said:
I am aware that as I acquit myself in the work I have undertaken for the next three years, so I shall either prejudice or enhance the prospects of those who wish to follow me in public service …
I would hope to acquit myself in the way that any other member would seek to in this place where my faith, and its emphasis on bettering ourselves within an acknowledgement of responsibility to community, will be my companion in my efforts to represent all the residents of the diverse electorate I am honoured to represent, regardless of their background, respectful of their faith and values, without reference to their vote for my party or not, and supporting those efforts designed to build a greater community for our area.
Arriving in this place did not occur by chance, but with the support and effort of many. A range of friends extended to me the benefit of their support and the value of their advice. The strength of my gratitude for their help and support is as strong today as it was in 2004. My thanks go to ALP New South Wales General Secretary Sam Dastyari, NSW ALP President Bernie Riordan and Senator Mark Arbib. I would not be delivering this speech today without the support of the member for Griffith. My thanks also go to the member for Blaxland, the member for Perth and the member for Grayndler, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke and former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr, and to the late John Ducker, who opened the door of the party to me. I want to pay tribute to the member for Lilley for his steadfast, ready counsel in harder times.
I warmly thank my friends in the union movement: Derrick Belan and the NUW, the AWU, the FSU, the CPSU, the ANF, the LHMU, the TWU and the ASU. I pay special gratitude to the members and officials of the union I had the honour to be national president of, the CEPU. In particular, I single out the support from my good friend, Jim Metcher. I welcome all my CEPU friends and members in the gallery, including Cameron Thiele.
My gratitude also goes to the ALP branches and members, with special thanks to Chifley Federal Electorate Council Secretary Tom Kenny, President Gayle Barbagello and campaign dynamo Rebel Hanlon and wife Rachael. I also thank state MPs Richard Amery and Allan Shearan, Blacktown Councillor Charlie Lowles and his wife, Alma, and council colleagues.
My thanks go to those who devoted so much to our campaign: Barbara Williams, Rosanna Maccarone, David Field, Sejla Perviz, Nicole and Manassa Seniloli, my sister Sabina, and Behyad Jafari. A special mention goes to some people who are driving down from Lismore right now and listening to this, Nathan Metcher and Vanessa Pereya. My thanks go to all of them for the grind, the effort and the laughs.
For over 20 years, with fire, steel and heart the one many of us know as the Little General, Merleen Millson, has been in the background—enjoy today, my friend. And my thanks go to some friends along the way: Elvis, Harry, Adam, Yosi, Bec and big Johnny, along with the one whose life breathes courage and has inspired me, Jason.
There is one for whom my greatest thanks seems an inadequate gesture. The Labor Party is truly fortunate to have as one of its servants a man of great integrity, intelligence and strength, and I have been fortunate to be counted as a friend. To the member for McMahon, his wife Rebecca and children, Gracie and Max, my abiding gratitude. It is my hope and wish that another friend and a person of enormous potential will join with us in this place to make a contribution to national life in the way he ought: Brent Thomas, hurry up and get here already.
As many of us know, we travel through our days with simply the will and character within ourselves to find a way through this life, but ultimately the experience is made so much richer by sharing it and yourself with others. My eternal love and gratitude goes to my wife and true companion, Bridget.
To Phil Tilley, Christine Tilley and Ian Cooper, thank you for bringing me within your embrace. I recognise your lifelong passion for education and introducing so many young Australians to the world of learning and opening their hearts to the joy of music.
In drawing my contribution to a close, I make these final remarks. Life has taught me about the power contained within the black letter of the law, recognising implicitly that these laws may enhance or constrict individual or collective freedoms. Our decisions can and do impact on the lives of others and the way they live their lives. My preference will always be for government to bring in laws that aid individuals in pursuing their endeavours, exercising the greatest breadth of their freedoms, found upon a pre-eminent aim of enhancing the quality of life for communities across the country. The exercise of individual will best occurs within a framework of considered decision making along with accountability and responsibility for individual actions, particularly where there is a potential for impacting on the well being of self and others.
I thank my party for selecting me as its candidate and I thank our electorate for choosing my party. From this day, may I remain approachable, continuing to listen and continuing to act, and above all, may wisdom and humility guide me both in this place and beyond.
Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.
RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT BILL 2010
2048
Bills
R4422
Second Reading
2048
Debate resumed.
2048
13:36:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—in reply—I am pleased to have the opportunity to sum up the debate on the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill 2010 as the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. I thank the honourable members who have contributed to the debate. This bill proposes important reforms to the radio frequency spectrum regulatory framework to benefit consumers and industry. This bill is not related to the rollout of the National Broadband Network or the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill. Those opposite who have suggested that it is related are either attempting to mislead or have not read the bill. The Radiocommunications Amendment Bill is solely focused on improving spectrum efficiency and management.
The amendments in the bill have two main themes—to improve the spectrum regulatory framework and to facilitate spectrum licence renewal processes. The bill will improve the spectrum regulatory framework. Fifteen-year spectrum licences were first issued in the late 1990s and will start to expire from 2013. Currently these licences are used to provide communication services to millions of Australians spread across the continent. The Australian Communications and Media Authority is restricted by the current provisions of the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to starting the licence reissue process not more than two years before licence expiry. Industry has consistently called for greater investment certainty in relation to the renewal of spectrum licences.
This bill will give ACMA the freedom it needs to commence reissue processes earlier and it will provide improved certainty for industry. This recognises the significant investment required by licensees in spectrum and communication networks. Allowing different licence types to coexist in the same spectrum will potentially bring significant improvements in spectrum efficiency. Coexistence will encourage the provision of more communication services and devices in the future, giving consumers greater choice. Safeguards in the bill will mean ACMA must be satisfied that coexistence will be in the public interest and there will be no unacceptable levels of interference to other services before it authorises coexistence in a particular spectrum band.
The bill will also facilitate spectrum licence renewal processes. It will allow the streamlining of ministerial determinations and directions for licence reissue, thus minimising the potential for significant delays. The proposals in the bill to streamline ministerial determinations and directions are consistent with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and have been approved by the Attorney-General. Further, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills accepted the proposed approach to streamline ministerial determinations and directions as satisfactory. This is set out in the committee’s comments on the lapsed Radiocommunications Amendment Bill 2010, previously introduced into the House of Representatives on 16 June this year.
The objections of those opposite to this particular amendment are yet another attempt to delay and obstruct the important work of the government in reforming the telecommunications sector. We know this sector suffered 12 years of inaction and neglect under the Howard government. The coalition’s attempts to delay and obstruct the reissuing of licences would deny the industry the certainty that it needs.
This bill is both necessary and timely. I call on all members of the House to support the measures in the bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
2049
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport)
13:40:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
AUSTRALIAN CIVILIAN CORPS BILL 2010
2049
Bills
R4418
Report from Main Committee
2049
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
2049
Dr MIKE KELLY
(Eden-Monaro
—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry)
13:42:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONNECTING PEOPLE WITH JOBS) BILL 2010
2049
Bills
R4473
Report from Main Committee
2049
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
2049
Dr MIKE KELLY
(Eden-Monaro
—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry)
13:43:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
POKER MACHINE HARM REDUCTION TAX (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 2008 [2010]
2049
Bills
S611
POKER MACHINE (REDUCED LOSSES—INTERIM MEASURES) BILL 2010
2049
Bills
S783
Reference to Committee
2049
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—Mr Speaker has received the following message from the Senate:
The following resolution has been agreed to by the Senate: That the Poker Machine Harm Reduction Tax (Administration) Bill 2008 [2010] and the Poker Machine (Reduced Losses—Interim Measures) Bill 2010 be referred to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform for inquiry and report in line with the terms of reference of the committee
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
2049
Statements by Members
Ryan Electorate: CSIRO Land
2049
2049
13:43:00
Prentice, Jane, MP
217266
Ryan
LP
0
0
Mrs PRENTICE
—I wish to speak about the recent announcement of the federal government’s sale of the CSIRO land at Long Pocket. This comes as a massive blow to the residents and community groups in Ryan who have been lobbying against this sale for a number of years. The prime 7.2 hectare riverside site is in a unique location and offered an excellent opportunity to conserve green space for future generations. Instead it has been sold in yet another Labor fire sale to balance its books. The Gillard government stands condemned for its lack of vision.
The Labor candidate in Ryan constantly campaigned on his so-called green credentials. It is therefore not surprising that the government waited until after the election to make this announcement. This highlights Labor’s hypocrisy on the environment—all talk and no action. No wonder the Greens outpolled Labor so convincingly in the Walter Taylor ward by-election last Saturday. The land has been sold to a developer who intends to build over 100 houses on the site. As well as destroying an important nature corridor, such a development will have a major impact on local roads already congested after years of poor infrastructure planning by state Labor governments. Only two roads access this site and, with the presence of four large schools and the University of Queensland within the immediate vicinity, the area is already one of Brisbane’s largest generators of traffic, without adding more pressure.
The government knows that a recent high-density development application on neighbouring land was rejected due to overwhelming community concerns. Labor would do well to learn that, contrary to their belief that Canberra knows best, many local issues are better understood by locals. The sale of this land demonstrates the Gillard government’s contempt for the views of the local communities, absence of any green values and a total lack of vision. (Time expired)
Home and Community Care Services
2050
2050
13:45:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—Today, I warmly welcome the massive $51 million boost in funding for home and community care services in Queensland announced by the federal Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, and the Queensland Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs, Annastacia Palaszczuk. The funding is provided under the Home and Community Care program—a joint initiative of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments.
The HACC initiative provides a comprehensive, coordinated and integrated range of basic maintenance and support services. People want to be independent in their homes and communities, close to friends and family, for as long as they can. The funding will provide the practical assistance that a wide range of frail older people and younger people with a disability need to help them stay at home. The HACC program provides a vital role in assisting frail older people and younger people with a disability in the Ipswich and West Moreton communities particularly to remain independent, providing essential services such as meals on wheels, home care, respite, social support and community transport.
I warmly welcome the fact that 13 community organisations in Blair received funding totalling $873,427. These organisations include Blue Care Ipswich, CODI, ALARA Association, Ipswich Dementia Day Respite Centre, West Moreton HACC, Home Visiting and Support, Luke’s Place, Ozcare Ipswich Homeless Outreach, Ipswich Meals on Wheels, We Care A&TSI Service, Blue Care Multicultural Liaison Project and others. (Time expired)
Dawson Electorate: Election Campaign
2050
2050
13:47:00
Christensen, George, MP
230485
Dawson
NATS
0
0
Mr CHRISTENSEN
—I want to thank various people who assisted the Liberal National Party with its fantastic win in Dawson. To the campaign office team, in particular Dennis O’Riely, Shelley Argent, Dawn Klibbe, Ursula Murray, Enid Forsyth, Theo De Costa, Leonie, Shirley and Dora—thank you. A special thanks also goes to Bill Lockley for his support and guidance. To the campaign committee, including Jolyon Forsyth, Richard Wallace, Chris Galuptis, Ken Kelly, Les Durnsford, Peter Byers, Ross Lewis and Jim Wort—thank you also. Thanks also to Roger Kelly for his advice. To the LNP’s party unit heads, including Jason Costigan, David Kidd, Bill Boyd, Bill McLean, Tony Large, Bob Harris, Matthew Filby, Jim Gist, Don Hick and Peg Holborn: I thank you and your members. I want especially to single out helpers in Townsville, given the feeling of disenfranchisement they felt being removed from Herbert.
To mail runners Laura Sinclair and Laurie Bogie, sign maintainer extraordinaire Martin Gordon and booth captains Tony Bobeldyk, Dr Peter Fon, Melinda Holborn, Graeme Lemmon and all of your volunteers: I thank you and look forward to working with the member for Herbert to get a better deal for Townsville.
To Bill and Eileen Deicke, Jane Benson, Matthew Fitzpatrick, Casey Channon and Terry and Colleen McAuliffe who all let me camp a night or two in their homes during the campaign—thank you. To Senator Ian Macdonald, state MPs Ted Malone and Rosemary Menkens and your helpful staff, my thanks. To De-Anne Kelly and Ray Braithwaite: thank you for your advice and encouragement. To all my helpers, supporters and LNP members—I am forever grateful.
Sudan
2051
2051
13:48:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
1
0
Mr DANBY
—My friend Abdelhadi Matar, the founder of the Darfur-Australia Network, has condemned the appointment of the Sudanese ambassador to Australia. He pointed out, and I agree, that the scale of destruction in Darfur is continuing apace. Darfur has been widely labelled as the world’s worst humanitarian disaster and has been described as such by UN officials since 2004. Various reports estimate that since the outbreak of violence between 200,000 and 400,000 people have died as a result of fighting. The conflict in Darfur has left the world’s headlines, but the violations of human rights continue. As recently as 3 September, Sudanese government planes bombed the Alhemidia market in the Darfur town of Zalingi killing 37 people. Also last month the Sudanese military attacked the Kalma refugee camp killing 15 people.
Whether Australia should be welcoming the representative of the Sudanese regime and granting him credentials is something that could be widely considered by this House. But I do support the people of Darfur. I do hope that they are considered amongst the refugees coming to Australia. They are some of the most deserving people in the world, given the tragic situation that continues to prevail there at the moment.
Association of Independent Retirees
2051
2051
13:49:00
Irons, Steve, MP
HYM
Swan
LP
0
0
Mr IRONS
—In light of it being Seniors Week next week, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge an important organisation which I have had the opportunity to meet with on a number of occasions. Along with the member for Tangney, I was invited just last week to their 10-year anniversary celebrations held at the Willeton Sports Club. The organisation is the Association of Independent Retirees Perth Southern Districts branch. The theme of the anniversary was to thank federal and state governments for their support over the past 10 years. I was asked to speak on behalf of the federal opposition. I congratulate all the members of the Association of Independent Retirees Perth Southern Districts branch, including their president Mr Charles O’Donnell, national president Ms Theresa Kot and foundation member Diane Blades, for reaching their 10-year milestone.
The Perth Southern Districts branch of the AIR are a dedicated group of people, who advocate on behalf of retirees. In particular, the AIR has put together a set of recommendations aimed at improving the aged-care system. The AIR supports the direction and recommendations of the National Aged Care Alliance and has compiled a list of 13 recommendations which encompass AIR and NACA priorities. The recommendations include aims to improve the aged-care system to make it more flexible, consumer focused aged care, better funding arrangements, improved workforce requirements and more mental health and disability investment. I have one more organisation to congratulate before I finish, and that is Kent Street High School, which is celebrating its 70th anniversary, which is quite a milestone. It is having a celebration on Saturday. I wish it all the best for its 70th anniversary.
OzHarvest Canberra
2052
2052
13:51:00
Brodtmann, Gai, MP
30540
Canberra
ALP
1
0
Ms BRODTMANN
—I draw the House’s attention to the work being done by OzHarvest Canberra, which is managed and supported by Communities@Work. OzHarvest Canberra is a not-for-profit organisation that collects excess perishable food from local caterers, corporate offices and restaurants. OzHarvest Canberra then provides this food to charities to feed the homeless, aged, refugees, women and youth in crisis and recovering addicts.
OzHarvest Canberra has been operating since February 2008. In that time it has delivered over 500,000 meals to 55 charities in Canberra and Queanbeyan and prevented the waste of 170 tonnes of food. It is the only service in Canberra that provides perishable food on the same day. OzHarvest Canberra delivers 30,000 meals per month from 50 food donors using only two vans and a passionate group of volunteers, and they do this for less than a dollar a meal.
The volunteering sprit embodied in OzHarvest Canberra is a credit to our community. I would particularly like to thank and commend OzHarvest Canberra manager Dave Burnet and Communities@Work CEO Maureen Cane for their passion, commitment and dedication to helping Canberrans in need. I would also like to thank the volunteers and donors who help out with OzHarvest Canberra.
Building the Education Revolution Program
2052
2052
13:52:00
Markus, Louise, MP
E07
Macquarie
LP
0
0
Mrs MARKUS
—Billions of dollars have been wasted on the Building the Education Revolution program under this Labor government. Now another issue highlights their incompetence. Schools and school communities are incensed that their trees are going to be cut down as a requirement under the BER. New South Wales legislation requires that trees considered a fire risk have to be removed before a BER building can be handed over. Each school in a bushfire prone area that has had BER work has to have an assessment for fire risk—fair enough. However, no-one told many of the schools this was happening. When one school returned from holidays to find unexplained red crosses on 15 shade trees, the school community was understandably angry that there was no consultation.
They do not want to lose their shade trees—so badly needed when summer temperatures can reach 40 degrees or more. The school community have a building they did not want, without air-conditioning and with water tanks they cannot access. Despite belated consultation, this school has been told the trees will come down regardless of the merit of any argument it may put forward. It is unacceptable that our school communities can be treated in this way. The BER has been a disaster from day one. Labor has failed to scrutinise, to think through and to understand the needs of the local community or, indeed, consult. Many members of the local rural fire service who are involved in this school community believe that these trees do not need to be removed.
Bass Electorate: Junior Sports
2053
2053
13:54:00
Lyons, Geoff, MP
M38
Bass
ALP
1
0
Mr LYONS
—I rise to congratulate all those volunteers in the electorate of Bass who are supporting junior sport. It has been a fantastic effort and the BER money in Bass has made a major contribution to some of those sports. I have been to the opening of the South George Town Primary School and it was fantastic to see the number of community groups that are now able to use its facilities. I also visited other schools that have used BER money to undertake work. Some of these schools had not had any work done on them for over 20 years. It has been a fantastic effort.
Some of the local sports facilities in my area have had no work done on them for 50 years. I really hope as we move forward and put money into the community that we think of sports facilities. The local netball association in Launceston has over 2,000 girls playing at its facility. The community has not had any money spent on work in that area for over 20 years. It is a great facility. This is something that we should be working on. The Labor Party has always been about opportunities, and the opportunities are sometimes just about giving kids the chance to play in team sport.
Murray-Darling Basin
2053
2053
13:55:00
Ley, Sussan, MP
00AMN
Farrer
LP
0
0
Ms LEY
—The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has no doubt been a little bit hopeful that a lack of appearances by members on the floor this week might indicate that irrigators and communities throughout the Murray-Darling Basin have been soothed by his recent statements on water reform. As the member for Mallee quite rightly attempted to do yesterday, I can inform the House, and particularly the minister, that the mood of yesterday’s community consultation meeting at Wentworth-Mildura was one of confusion on all sides. Around 1,800 concerned, confused and, in many cases, angry people attended the two consultation sessions. And I might mention, yet again, that a representative from the other side of this House failed to front to find this out for themselves. Elsewhere, our key farming lobby around the basin, the New South Wales Farmers Association, has taken the extraordinary action of demanding the authority withdraw the plan, arguing it would speed up population decline in regional areas—in contrast to this federal government’s aspirations to maintain them.
We have also heard this week that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s guide to the guide—which the government does not now endorse or know its correct legal status—needs further clarification from the Australian Government Solicitor to decide whether it can come close to reality. If this is real and genuine consultation, as the minister revealed to the House yesterday, perhaps he could make time to attend the next meeting tomorrow in Albury, in my home electorate, to make sense of this mess.
Robertson Electorate: Mangrove Mountain Country Fair
2053
2053
13:57:00
O’Neill, Deborah, MP
140651
Robertson
ALP
0
0
Ms O’NEILL
—I rise to congratulate the Mangrove Mountain community and its community leaders, who pulled together to celebrate life on the mountain at the annual Mangrove Mountain Country Fair on Saturday, 24 October. The fair is a celebration of community that brings together people from right across the Central Coast. People flocked from all over our region to attend the fair. It is testament to the organising committee that attendance is increasing every year. I congratulate the president of the organising committee, Neil Berecry-Brown, his fellow committee members and all those who arranged events and stalls; Rowena Wilcher, who organised the stage appearances; Dr Christine Wade, who organised the very entertaining pig races and the livestock displays; and Dennis Fisher, a school farm assistant, who ran the petting farm and who was also ably assisted by several local students. I am pleased to inform the House that Somer, the Somersby school pig, was the winner of the pig race, and Mud House won the Battle of the Bands. So, if members want to be as happy as a pig in mud, I recommend they visit next year’s Mangrove Mountain Fair.
Importantly, this year’s event raised $24,000. The CWA stall alone raised $2,400. All this money will go back into the community—into local schools, community organisations and sporting clubs, including the local bush fire brigade. I warmly congratulate the organisers and supporters of the Mangrove Mountain Fair for their enterprise and community spirit. I look forward to supporting their event and their community for many years to come.
Youth Allowance
2054
2054
13:58:00
Marino, Nola, MP
HWP
Forrest
LP
0
0
Ms MARINO
—I welcome the parliament’s support this morning for my motion on youth allowance, which aims to put fairness back into the criteria for independent youth allowance. The parliament has now spoken, and it is up to the Labor government to listen, to change the legislation and to allow all regional and rural students the same access to youth allowance. Today’s outcome sends a very strong message to the Prime Minister that the changes she made while Minister for Education were unfair and have undermined the educational opportunities for regional students and their families. In particular, I welcome the support from the Independent members, who obviously recognise the effects of the discrimination against their own electorates that the Labor government is inflicting by giving access to some students and not others.
But the true test of whether this new parliament will be effective is if the government actually responds to the will of the parliament itself, such as we saw this morning. The challenge is there: will the government respond to the will of the parliament that we saw this morning, or will it not? Will it address the disadvantage of rural and regional students that the parliament itself recognised this morning? A majority of 74 to 70 members of this House agreed that the government was discriminating against students.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 2pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
2054
14:00:00
Questions Without Notice
Economy
2054
14:00:00
2054
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr ABBOTT
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Since Labor came to office, electricity prices are up by 42 per cent, gas prices are up by 27 per cent, water prices are up by 46 per cent, health costs are up by 17 per cent, education costs are up by 17 per cent and rent is up by 18 per cent. Why is the Prime Minister trying to impose a great big new tax on families struggling with cost-of-living pressures? When will she start listening to the concerns of real people?
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this is precisely the same question that was asked yesterday.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have another problem with the question in that the description of programs in an argumentative way is to be avoided. I think the preamble to the question was couched in a different way from the question yesterday but, without checking, I cannot be absolutely sure of that. I think that the argumentative way that we have lapsed into of describing programs or proposals is outside of the standing orders. I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition and other members will take recognition of that in the future.
2055
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—In answer to the Leader of the Opposition’s question, I understand, and the government understands, that Australian families are struggling with cost-of-living pressures. We do understand that and we understand that a contributor to those cost-of living-pressures is electricity prices. When the Leader of the Opposition asked me a similar question yesterday, I did explain to him and to the House that pressure on electricity prices arises in part from underinvestment in electricity generation capacity and that, in order to get certainty into the market to facilitate investment, particularly in long-term baseload power, businesses and the electricity sector are asking us for certainty about carbon pricing.
On the general cost-of-living issues I reiterate the points that I made yesterday. I understand that it is a struggle for families. The government understands that and that is why we have done things like introduce the Fair Work Act so that people have security as to their pay packets and living standards—something they did not enjoy under Work Choices when, on any day, they could have had an Australian workplace agreement shoved into their hand and had their pay and conditions reduced.
We have acted to assist families with cost-of-living pressures when it comes to education. We understand that there are costs involved in getting the kids back to school, which is why we introduced the education tax rebate and will add to it by enabling the deductibility of costs related to school uniforms. We understand that for families with young children, particularly in circumstances where the partner providing the care—usually the mother—wants to return to work, that occasions childcare costs. Consequently, we increased the child care tax rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent and we will move to fortnightly payments.
We also understand that families with teenagers have particular pressures. Teenagers are not cheaper to support than younger children, and that is why we will move in this parliament to increase the family tax benefit arrangements for families with teenagers. For families on the maximum range, that will be a benefit of more than $4,000 a year. Indeed, to assist families with cost-of-living pressures, that is why we have also been pleased and proud to provide tax cuts for three years in a row to assist families with those pressures. As I said to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, and I am happy to repeat it today, we want to make sure we are working with families for their long-term security. Doing that does require us to work through the difficult question of carbon pricing to give certainty to the electricity generation sector to facilitate long-term investments.
2055
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
0
Mr ABBOTT
—Mr Speaker, I have listened carefully to the Prime Minister’s answer. I do wish to ask a supplementary question and I ask her to explain how it is possible to reduce the price of electricity by increasing the tax on it.
2055
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—Can I say to the Leader of the Opposition that, once again, in his search for a cheap line against profound reform he is distorting the nature of this argument and debate to the Australian community.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I listened to your admonition of the argument in the Leader of the Opposition’s first question and I simply ask you: if the questions have to be devoid of argument, how can the Prime Minister’s answer be relevant when she starts by a slag and bag on the Leader of the Opposition?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—First of all, I will make the observation and add comment that, regrettably, the standing order with regard to answers was not changed in that manner. I hope that at some stage it will be. I have tried to apply to answers similar standards that are in the standing order relating to questions. I will listen carefully to the response of the Prime Minister. I have to admit that I was distracted by other things, which I will make a comment about later. I will listen carefully to the Prime Minister.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—Of course, what the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to distort is the nature of this debate. The reason that you put a price on carbon is to create incentives to engage in economic activity and, when engaging in that economic activity, to not produce the same level of carbon emissions—that is, you want to create an incentive structure so that people reduce emissions. Let me adopt the words of Marius Kloppers to explain this to the Leader of the Opposition, because I think he put it elegantly:
… carbon emissions need to have a cost impact in order to cause the consumer to change behaviour and favour low-carbon alternatives.
Marius Kloppers, the head of BHP, goes on:
We also believe that such a global initiative will eventually come, and when it does Australia will need to have acted ahead of it to maintain its competitiveness.
On the question of electricity and carbon pricing and industry calling out for certainty, I would refer the Leader of the Opposition to the words of Richard McIndoe, Managing Director of TRUenergy, who said:
We all would like a price on carbon.
… … …
If it’s not done in this government and if this uncertainty continues, not for two to three years, but four to five years, and nobody is building, then you will have power shortages and insufficient capacity.
Words that I would recommend the Leader of the Opposition think about. If the Leader of the Opposition has not found that persuasive then I would refer him to the editorial of the Australian Financial Review where it says:
If the Coalition wants to play in this game, it will have to abandon its opposition to “a great big new tax”, acknowledge that a carbon price is inevitable and desirable, and lend its weight to the effort to find the best formula. There is opposition and there is opposition for opposition’s sake, but this is a necessary reform that the Coalition should support.
Across this week the debate in this parliament has been focused on those who support economic reform and strengthening our nation for the future. To those that believe in opposition for opposition’s sake and simply wrecking reform, and clearly the Leader of the Opposition does, I would say it comes at the ultimate cost of the strength of this nation and the future of Australian families.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Before giving the call to the member for Cunningham and without being a killjoy, I wish to note that the gesture the member Denison, the member for O’Connor and the member for Lyne are making is in support of National Bandanna Day tomorrow. I note that the member for Chisholm seems to have got away, as she is able to, because of something that is not quite equal in the chamber and I probably could not say that her dress is out of order. I note that the member for Dunkley has been rather innovative and flamboyant in the way that he is wearing his bandanna as a kerchief in his suit pocket. I note that other people are resplendent in red ties and special scarves. I also note that others have ribbons. The scarves are for the Daniel Morcombe Foundation and the ribbons are for Brain Tumour Day. Having made their support and solidarity for the National Bandanna Day known, I ask the three members to remove their bandannas to better conform to the standards of dress.
Economy
2057
2057
14:11:00
Bird, Sharon, MP
DZP
Cunningham
ALP
1
Ms BIRD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain to the House the importance of economic reform and the threat posed to the bipartisan consensus for reform?
2057
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for Cunningham for her question. She represents in this place a region that has gone through a fundamental economic transformation and she knows that, as hard as it is, economic reform needs to be dealt with if people are going to have a prosperous future. As I have already said to the parliament during this question time, the debate of the last week has been a debate about who has the courage and conviction to deliver economic reform and who will shirk that task even though it is so important for the nation’s future. It is apparent that the government’s economic reform agenda will be resisted at all costs by the opposition, and that is to be deeply regretted because our nation needs to keep reforming if it is to be prosperous for the future. We need to keep reforming if we are going to give Australians the benefit of opportunity. We need to keep reforming if we are going to ensure that our nation can hold its competitive place in the world.
Central to that reform is ensuring that we have the infrastructure of the future—roads, rail and ports, as well as the National Broadband Network. Central to that reform is our human capital agenda to make sure that Australians have the skills and capacities they need to compete in the world. Central to that reform are participation reforms to ensure that we have Australians of working age with the capacity to be in the labour market and assisting us, particularly as our society is ageing and we will see an increase in the dependency ratio. Stumping up to reform in health care is also pivotal to the future of Australians and making sure that they will have the healthcare system they need there sustainably for the long term. Of course, for our environment and our economic future we need to address the difficult reforms of pricing carbon and dealing with water.
I am not someone who has over the course of my political life much agreed with John Howard, but I did agree with him yesterday when he told an anecdote that stood out for me. He said:
… in 1995 when the last Budget of the Keating Government was brought down on the afternoon of Budget day, Kim Beazley rang me, he was Finance Minister. He rang me and said “John, you still in favour of the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank?” Because that had been our policy for years I said “Yes”. “We’re going to propose it in the Budget” and I said “We’ll vote for it”. We’d have been total hypocrites to have voted against that …
Those words are, I think, wise words, because in the parliament this week it has become apparent that the Leader of the Opposition is shaping up to vote against healthcare reform that when he was health minister he would have advocated. So I would refer him to the words of John Howard and to, most particularly, that last sentence referring to ‘total hypocrites’.
But there does seem to be a bit of a fightback on in the opposition against things like the shadow Treasurer’s plan to reregulate interest rates. I note that the members for Wentworth and Goldstein, amongst others, are being painted as the ones responsible for the leak, part of their fightback presumably against this economic Hansonism. I also note today’s newspapers say the shadow cabinet has concluded, as has also been suggested, that policy approaches be fully thought out next time before they are flagged. We can have bipartisanship on that.
Climate Change
2058
2058
14:15:00
Andrews, Kevin, MP
HK5
Menzies
LP
0
Mr ANDREWS
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to reported analysis by Grant King, the head of Origin Energy, that putting a price on carbon will triple electricity bills by 2020. Why is the Prime Minister intent on slugging struggling Australian families with higher electricity prices? When will she start taking the concerns of real Australian people seriously?
2058
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for his question. I can absolutely assure him I take the concerns of Australians seriously, I take the concerns of Australians who want to leave a decent environment for their children and their grandchildren seriously and I take seriously the concerns of Australians who look at the household bills and then look at their pay packets and wonder how it is all going to add up. Because we take these things seriously, we have done a series of things to assist those families. I know it can still be tough, but let us imagine how much tougher it would be for those families if the laws in workplace relations that the member asking the question supports were still the laws of this country and next week’s pay packet was cut from the one of the week before. Of course, we have stepped up to assist working families with the cost of education, with child care, with tax cuts and we have promises to implement—
00AMM
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
Mr Hartsuyker
—A point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker: this is not directly relevant to the question. The question asked about increased electricity prices, which this Prime Minister is not concerned about.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I could say that the member for Mackellar is well placed to give advice on that, but I will not. But I am driven to do these things when I just have this continual chatter. The member for Cowper could have assisted if he had read the last part of the question which said, ‘When will the Prime Minister take the concerns of real Australians seriously?’ The construct of the question makes it difficult for the chair to indicate that the Prime Minister is not being directly relevant.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—As I was saying in answering the question that was put to me, we do take the concerns of Australians seriously and that is why we have moved and will continue to move to implement measures to assist families with costs. That is why we will deliver things like the increase in the family tax benefit to assist families with the cost of teenagers. I would say to the member who asked the question that I understand that families are concerned about electricity prices. I would refer him to experts in the industry and I would refer him particularly to the quote that I took the Leader of the Opposition to before. I think it makes a real point. The TRUenergy managing director said:
We all would like a price on carbon.
… … …
If it’s not done … then you will have power shortages and insufficient capacity.
This joins a chorus of other voices and analyses from the sector about the consequences of underinvestment, underinvestment which will not be rectified, and generating the kind of long-term baseload power we need until we have got the certainty of a price on carbon. I am also a little bit amazed that the member comes into the parliament apparently so in high dudgeon and het up about these questions, because I would refer him to another important quote:
I also think that if you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax? Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price of carbon, raise the price of carbon, without increasing in any way the overall tax burden.
There we have it. Whose words are they? They are the Leader of the Opposition’s words. So we have seen this Leader of the Opposition and the members behind him looking for seams of political advantage here. We will continue looking at the national interest and be driven by that.
Infrastructure
2059
2059
14:20:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
1
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the contents of the Access Economics Investment Monitor and the importance of ongoing investment in infrastructure?
2059
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the member for Wills for his question because overnight we have seen the release of the Access Economics Investment Monitor, which puts the total project pipeline underway or in planning at around $770 billion. That is an increase of over $85 billion on the previous year and there is something like $270 billion in projects already underway or committed. There is something like $100 billion of mining projects either under construction or committed and a further $200 billion in mining projects under consideration. By any measure by any country in the world, this is a very substantial pipeline of investment.
And it is not just in mining; the good news is that it is broader than that. There are upgrades in manufacturing, transport and other industries. So we have strong fundamentals in our economy and they are underpinned by a remarkable pipeline in investment. So the economy is making that transition from stimulus, which was necessary during the global financial crisis and the global recession, and moving over to private investment which is producing and supporting very substantial job creation in our economy.
Of course, it also brings with it the challenges of mining boom mark 2, ones which the government is preparing the country for. We know we need to invest in infrastructure, particularly in our mining regions. We know we have to build the capacity of our economy. We know that over 25 years important reforms have been put in place, starting with the Hawke and Keating governments. We know that we have put in place fundamental pillars of reform from the floating of the dollar, to the bringing down of the tariff wall, to the introduction of national superannuation policy, competition policy and the reform of our financial sector. All of these things have been very important in making our economy so strong.
We know that it is the reform of today that builds the prosperity of tomorrow. We know that over the past week those fundamental pillars have been questioned by those opposite. We have had the shadow finance minister threatening to intervene, saying the country needs to intervene in the float of the dollar. We have had the shadow Treasurer who wants to undermine decades of consensus about the independence of the Reserve Bank and somehow intervene there. We have had the shadow communications minister—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I simply make the point yet again that the Treasurer cannot be directly relevant to the question when he is commenting on the opposition’s policies and slagging and bagging the opposition when he should simply be answering the question.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Treasurer knows the requirement for him to be directly relevant to the question. I will listen to the conclusion of his answer very carefully.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—We have had the shadow communications minister wanting to undermine the shadow finance minister and the shadow Treasurer because they have been undermining these essential pillars of our future prosperity. We have had that. For our part, we will go on with building a stronger economy with the essential reform which is required to create jobs.
Electricity Prices
2060
2060
14:25:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
Mr HUNT
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the following statement regarding the impact of a carbon price on electricity prices over and above any other electricity price rises which says:
Treasury advice to the government is that prices will rise by seven per cent in 2011-12 and 12 per cent in 2012-13.
Does the Prime Minister agree or disagree with the statement by the member for Griffith in this House in February this year?
2060
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for his question and presume he is referring to some documents associated with modelling the effects of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Can I say to the member who has asked the question: in this parliament we are working in good faith through a Multi-Party Climate Change Committee to look at the question of pricing carbon. I know that the member who asked the question has devoted a considerable portion of his life to studying and analysing these questions and writing a thesis on them, so I presume he is someone who probably believes that you need to price carbon and he probably has a view about the mechanisms for doing it. Of course, the purpose of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee is to bring together people of goodwill who are—
HW9
Champion, Nick, MP
Mr Champion interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The member for Wakefield is now warned.
848
Secker, Patrick, MP
Mr Secker interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Barker is warned, having now used his brownie point. The member for Flinders on a point of order.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on a question of relevance. The Prime Minister was asked whether or not she agreed with the member for Griffith and his quoting of Treasury figures.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Flinders will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding. The Prime Minister will be directly relevant to the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I indicated that obviously modelling associated with the CPRS was being quoted, of course. Then for the future—and I presume the opposition has some passing interest in the future, though by their conduct that is hard to pick—the question of carbon pricing will be dealt with by the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee that will work through it, in good faith, to look at various options. Obviously, the government will then make decisions in relation to the question.
I say to the member who asked the question—who I believe knows that we do as a nation have to face up to the question of pricing carbon—that we do as a nation have to work through the best ways of doing that. I think the member probably does believe that. It is a pity that he is hostage to an anti-reform opposition that would prefer to come into this parliament and play politics rather than make a positive and constructive contribution to a major debate in this nation.
I say to the member who has asked the question: we will continue to build the nation; we will continue to work through the economic reform questions the nation needs addressed. It will not be easy. There will be some difficult moments along the way, but we will do it because that is in the best interests of the Australian people. Those opposite are indicating by their conduct, day by day, that they would prefer to look for political advantage, they would prefer to be known as the wreckers of reform and, if that leaves us a poorer nation, then they are prepared to make Australian families pay that price. It is a despicable way of approaching politics.
Afghanistan
2061
2061
14:29:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
1
Mr DANBY
—My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on the force protection measures being implemented for our troops in Afghanistan?
2061
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
Minister for Defence
1
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—I thank the member for his question. It is one of the government’s highest priorities to ensure that we do everything possible to protect our troops in the field in Afghanistan. This is also one of the highest priorities of the Chief of the Defence Force and the service chiefs generally.
The member asked me about measures which are being implemented. Members might recall that in the May budget of this year the government announced, after a review requested by my predecessor, Minister Faulkner, the adoption of a $1.1 billion program to implement enhanced new force protection measures for our troops in Afghanistan. This added to about half a billion dollars of existing measures. In the budget this year, we saw over the financial period 2009-10 to 2012-13 $1.6 billion of enhanced measures for force protection. Of the 48 measures announced or effected in the budget, the department and the CDF implemented a very tight timetable, a rigorous schedule and a rigorous system of monitoring to ensure that these measures were introduced as soon as practically possible.
There is some interest in the implementation today because, yesterday, as a result of a number of media outlets requesting the incoming government brief from the Department of Defence, a redacted version—in other words, with national security and sensitive matter eliminated—was supplied to media outlets which contains a schedule of the implementation of these measures. Of course, some time has elapsed since the presentation of the incoming government brief. The advice I have from Defence yesterday and today is that, of the 48 measures that were announced effectively in that budget, 36 of the 48 have either been completed or are on track. There are 12 about which our monitoring program has issues of concern, a couple of which go to timing. So far as timing is concerned, there are concerns about the delayed implementation for additional protection measures for buildings that our troops occupy or live in and some highly technical measures for the electronic triggering of improvised devices.
Mr Speaker, as you would expect, it would not be appropriate to deal with some areas of these matters in public. That is also reflected in the redacted nature of the decision made by the freedom of information decision-maker. All of these matters particularly go to enhanced anti-improvised explosive device measures—the roadside bombs that our troops and patrols encounter, overhead surveillance, mine clearance, improved helmets and armour, and the like.
As I said at the outset, the government and the service have no higher priority than ensuring that every practical measure we can reasonably take is in place for the protection of our troops. The Chief of the Defence Force has consistently made it clear, most recently at estimates, and the government has made it clear, that these matters are under continual review because circumstances always change. The threat is ever there; the threat is ever present. We continue to experience both difficult and dangerous circumstances in Afghanistan, and the techniques used by the Taliban change. So these matters continue to be under constant review.
Emissions Trading Scheme
2062
2062
14:33:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
0
Mr ABBOTT
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Given her previous answer that a carbon price is necessary for reform, why then did she pressure the former Prime Minister into dropping the emissions trading scheme?
2062
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I genuinely thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question because what it obviously enables me to advise the House and to remind the Leader of the Opposition—I am surprised he has forgotten—is that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme did not become the law of this country because, despite a bipartisan commitment to it, negotiated when the member for Wentworth was the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Groom was conducting the negotiations—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat until the House comes to order.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme did not become the law of this country because, despite negotiating its provisions to ensure bipartisan support, when the member for Warringah became Leader of the Opposition he crashed the deal, a hand had been shaken, an agreement—
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr Randall
—You don’t like it when you are cornered, do you?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Canning is warned!
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to the interpretation under the old rules of what is relevant. I note that the House of Representatives Practice says that even if the standing orders were changed, it would really need a change of opinion and attitude as to the nature of answers to bring about real change. The Prime Minister was asked why she heavied the former Prime Minister into dropping a policy. The answer she gave had nothing to do with the question at all and under the new rules, if they are to mean anything at all—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have the point of order. The standing orders were changed to add that answers be directly relevant. She is correct, the House of Representatives Practice has indicated, as many people have indicated, that it will not only take a change of standing orders but a change of culture in the whole House to bring about the type of question time and proceedings in this place that many outside would like to see. I will be listening carefully to the Prime Minister’s response. I believe that so far she has been directly relevant, if not giving a direct answer, which the standing orders do not say that I have to ask for because I am not in a position to—and that is something that is also in the House of Representatives Practice. I will listen carefully to the Prime Minister’s response.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I am answering the question. The Leader of the Opposition appears to be interested in the history of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and I would refer him to the words that I think are the best summation of the history of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and what happened to it. They are to be found in the blog of the member for Wentworth. The words say—it references ‘Tony’ but of course he is referring to the Leader of the Opposition—the Leader of the Opposition—
… himself has, in just four or five months, publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and, if the amendments were satisfactory, passing—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey interjecting—
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton
—How is this relevant, Mr Speaker?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. If people like the member for Dickson and the member for North Sydney want me to do the job as they expect, they could assist by not interjecting and allowing me to hear the answer. The Prime Minister will relate directly the comments that she is reading from this blog or not use them.
Opposition members—Hear, hear!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I am happy to be heard in silence, whether it is supportive or not. The Prime Minister has the call.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I am asked about the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and its history, and the words I am reading are the most accurate rendition of the history of this matter. The member for Wentworth goes on, after recording these five positions of the Leader of the Opposition:
His—
the Leader of the Opposition’s—
only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with “Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weather vane on this …”
For those interested in the history of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, that is it.
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister will temporarily resume her seat. I am trying to avoid using the word ‘paradigm’, but in the old paradigm this type of indirect relevance would have been allowed. But, as I said earlier, I have an expectation that the intention of the agreement was that there be less debate in answers. Whilst I was quite happy to allow the first part of this answer, because it could be seen to relate to changing circumstances of a point of policy, to go wider is fraught with danger. The Prime Minister has one minute, 53 seconds that she can choose to use. The Prime Minister will be directly relevant to the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I only need a few more seconds to say thank you for your summation of what the question was about—the changing circumstances of this policy. The words I have read from the member for Wentworth are the most accurate summation of those changing circumstances and they go to the remarkable lack of conviction of the Leader of the Opposition.
Climate Change
2063
2063
14:40:00
Husic, Ed, MP
91219
Chifley
ALP
1
Mr HUSIC
—My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister outline the benefits of a market mechanism for pricing carbon over other mechanisms? Why is consistent policymaking important for business certainty, and are there any threats to that certainty?
2063
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
1
Mr COMBET
—I thank the member for Chifley and would like to congratulate him on his first speech, which he delivered earlier today. I extend to him, certainly, my warm welcome. We were colleagues in our former working lives and I am very pleased that he is a colleague in the parliament with us now.
The issue of climate change presents very serious public policy questions, and they are not going to be answered by the sort of opportunistic rubbish we have been hearing again from the opposition in question time. A carbon price is a significant and necessary economic reform. It is a reform that will create an incentive to cut pollution; it is a reform that will drive investment in low-emissions technologies and clean energy and create new jobs; and it is a reform that will ensure our long-term economic competitiveness. A market mechanism is the most efficient and cost-effective way of establishing a carbon price, and that is a very widely held view.
It was a point that was made again yesterday by former Prime Minister John Howard in the Press Club—that is, that a market mechanism is the most efficient way of reducing carbon pollution and introducing a price on carbon into our economy. Of course, Mr Howard made the point that he continued to support an emissions trading scheme as the best policy response to climate change. We also know that that is the advice the former Prime Minister gave to the shadow Treasurer during the time of the leadership upheaval in the Liberal Party towards the end of last year.
In contrast, the so-called direct action policy now championed by the opposition, using taxpayers’ funds to try to pick winners, is more akin to a Soviet style command—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order again referring to House of Representatives Practice, at page 553. Under the old rules of answers being relevant, it was held that irrelevancies such as contrasting government and opposition policies should be directed by the Speaker to be out of order. Surely under the new paradigm, for want of a better word, the word ‘directly’ must have some meaning and must pertain to the answer being given. The answer, I put to you, Mr Speaker, is out of order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The question, which I said was in order, described ‘threats’. The minister will be directly relevant to the question. The minister has the call.
YW6
Combet, Greg, MP
Mr COMBET
—I was being relevant to the question in that I was asked about market mechanisms and, of course, this is something that under the opposition leader has been abandoned as a policy position. In fact, the opposition is losing its way on economic policy.
Earlier in question time, reference was made to Mr Grant King, the head of Origin Energy, and to some comments he made several months ago—in April this year—remarking upon the potentiality for a threefold increase in electricity prices by the end of this decade. It was represented, I think by the member for Menzies, that that threefold increase was somehow related to the introduction of a carbon price. Over the ensuing six months there has been considerable opportunity to discuss with Mr King exactly the intent of his comments. Far from reflecting upon the impact of a market mechanism for a carbon price, he was making the point that the transmission network costs were going to increase and that in the absence of a carbon price we would face increases of that nature. Mr King knows well, as the head of Origin Energy, how important it is to have a carbon price mechanism in our economy. The type of policy opportunism that we hear from the opposition, the inconsistency in policy positions, generates further uncertainty for the business community.
The House could consider for a moment the circumstances for the business community should the opposition adopt an economically responsible and coherent position. It would be in the national interest for there to be a community of view about the appropriateness and necessity for a market mechanism, a carbon price to be introduced into the economy. (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
2064
Distinguished Visitors
2064
14:46:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from Argentina led by Senator Sonia Escudero. I take this opportunity to offer condolences on behalf of the House following the passing of the former President of Argentina Nestor Kirchner, who died yesterday in his home town of El Calafate. Nestor Kirchner was husband of the current present, Her Excellency Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. He was a leading figure in Argentine politics for two decades. He was President from 2003 to 2007 and is remembered for his strong leadership of the country in the aftermath of the economic crisis of 2001-02. He was recently elected Secretary-General of the Union of South American Nations and had a life-long commitment to human rights. I would ask that the condolences of the House be sent back to Argentina.
To the delegation, I extend a very warm welcome.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
2065
Questions Without Notice
Electricity Prices
2065
2065
14:48:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
0
Mr TRUSS
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the following statement by Professor Garnaut regarding the impact of the carbon price on electricity prices:
A major part, if not all, of the costs faced by electricity generators will be passed down the chain from electricity generators, distributors and retailers and finally to households through higher prices for electricity.
Does the Prime Minister agree or disagree with Professor Garnaut?
2065
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for his question. What I would say to the member is that Professor Garnaut is very expert in questions of carbon pricing, which is why he is one of the experts who will advise the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. I would also say to the member, who obviously wants to engage in the fear campaign of the opposition, that it is not appropriate for the member to try to create in the minds of the Australian community that there is somehow a mechanism to deal with carbon pricing to deal with reducing carbon emissions which means no change and no costs. Indeed, the member went to the election advocating a policy which would have had costs. If the member who asked the question had become the Deputy Prime Minister after this election—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Mackellar is now warned!
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—he would have received the Treasury incoming brief, or would have been advised of it—I doubt he would have been Treasurer—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Sturt is warned!
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—and he would have been told:
Direct Action measures—
that is, the direct action measures that the member asking the question went to the election with—
alone cannot do the job without imposing significant economic and budget costs … Moreover, many of the direct action measures cannot be scaled up to achieve significant levels of abatement—
GT4
Truss, Warren, MP
Mr Truss
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister’s answer is not directly responding to the question of whether she agrees with Professor Garnaut or whether she does not. Is the price of electricity going up or is it not?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister understands her need to directly be relevant to the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I ask the member to accept one simple proposition which is, if we are to tackle climate change, if we are to meet the targets we have set ourselves on a bipartisan basis as a nation, if we are to transform our economy in the way we need to then, yes, there will be some costs and, yes, there is a question of how you work through costs—absolutely. What the member simply cannot do is come into this place and pretend that he stands for a policy that somehow has no costs.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister should be very careful—she is entering into debate.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—If he is of the view that his policy has no costs, he would have been quickly corrected by the incoming brief to the government which would have pointed out the considerable costs arising from his policy.
On the question of electricity pricing, about which I was asked, I refer the member—
Mr PYNE
(Sturt)
14:45:00
—I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Our Argentinian friends would know, coming from an agriculturally based country, that this is akin to the head count of livestock—I should add prime livestock.
14:55:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
70
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Alexander, J.
Andrews, K.
Andrews, K.J.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Buchholz, S.
Chester, D.
Christensen, G.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Coulton, M. *
Dutton, P.C.
Entsch, W.
Fletcher, P.
Forrest, J.A.
Frydenberg, J.
Gambaro, T.
Gash, J.
Griggs, N.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hockey, J.B.
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Jones, E.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, C.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
Matheson, R.
McCormack, M.
Mirabella, S.
Morrison, S.J.
Neville, P.C.
O’Dowd, K.
O’Dwyer, K
Prentice, J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robb, A.
Robert, S.R.
Roy, Wyatt
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D. *
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Tehan, D.
Truss, W.E.
Tudge, A.
Turnbull, M.
Van Manen, B.
Vasta, R.
Washer, M.J.
Wyatt, K.
75
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bandt, A.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Brodtmann, G.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
Crook, T.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Husic, E.
Jones, S.
Katter, R.C.
Kelly, M.J.
King, C.F.
Leigh, A.
Livermore, K.F.
Lyons, G.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
Melham, D.
Mitchell, R.
Murphy, J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Neill, D.
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Rowland, M.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Smyth, L.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, A.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Zappia, A.
2
PAIRS
Broadbent, R.
Plibersek, T.
Moylan, J.E.
Bradbury, D.J.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I conclude by saying that serious people understand that to address climate change, you have to price carbon. Serious people understand pricing carbon will change our economy. Serious people understand that not pricing carbon is causing uncertainty for the electricity generation sector and is going to, in the future, constrict supply. Serious people work through these issues in a serious way. People who do not care about the future of the nation play cheap politics and are anti reform.
Parliamentary Practice
2067
2067
15:00:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
1
Mr FITZGIBBON
—My question is to the Leader of the House. How have the new parliamentary procedures been put into practice? How, Minister, have these reforms been received and what is the government’s response?
2067
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
Mr ALBANESE
—I thank the Chief Government Whip for his question and acknowledge the fact that his predecessor, the former member for Chifley, was here in the House today. When we took our places in the 43rd Parliament, there was some concern about how well the new parliament would function. It has certainly exceeded expectations in terms of its effectiveness and in terms of appropriate debates on legislation before this House. Indeed, in just this fortnight 29 pieces of legislation have passed this House and today we saw a historic event. Today we saw the first morning of votes on private members’ business before this parliament.
The first item of private members’ business that was voted upon was the private member’s bill by the member for Denison, the Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010. I congratulate the member for Denison for putting forward that piece of legislation and for securing the support of everyone in the House. The bill passed this parliament at 9.15 and 41 seconds this morning. As a new member, the member for Denison might not be aware that his bill was the first piece of private members’ legislation to pass the House this century. For that I think he should be congratulated.
Then we went to the second bill before the House, the Commission of Inquiry into the Building the Education Revolution Program Bill 2010. We have heard a lot of squawking from the member for Sturt about the BER bill and the need for a royal commission into the BER, but when it came to the crunch he could not even come into this parliament and call for a division on it.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the House should not overly argue or debate this question.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—We provide opportunities for private members to move bills before this House. We do that in the expectation they will actually follow them through, but the member for Sturt could not get through to have a vote. But we will offer recommittal. We support recommittal of votes, as we did in the debate on the standing orders, but the member for Sturt moved a change making it more difficult. But I indicate on behalf of the government that we would be prepared to support a suspension of standing orders in order for him to vote on that legislation, because he has pretended after the event that he never actually wanted a vote on the legislation. You would not compare him with Rocky Balboa, but it is a bit like a heavyweight championship fight where you challenge your opponent; you go on about it day after day, week after week, month after month; and then you do not turn up when the fight is on.
It was an unbelievable performance, backed up by the member for Sturt’s attempt to move that the Prime Minister be no longer heard. That was never done to former Prime Minister Howard—never. We would not even think of treating the parliament like that. But the member for Sturt has not even got the ticker to own up, to fess up to it. He should fess up. He should take Mr Costello’s advice. Mr Costello has been out there again saying that his parents always told him, ‘If you have done nothing wrong; you have nothing to fear by telling the truth.’ The member for Sturt should tell the truth, say he stuffed up this morning, say he was not fair dinkum about the BER and say that it was all a stunt. (Time expired)
Interest Rates
2068
2068
15:05:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the reported statement yesterday by the National Australia Bank CEO, Cameron Clyne, that the country’s major banks will not be backing off on their arguments for higher interest rates regardless of the movements in the Reserve Bank’s cash rate. Given that the banks have ignored the Treasurer’s first 31 warnings, why will they take the 32nd warning seriously and not increase interest rates outside of the RBA’s movements?
2068
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr SWAN
—I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. I certainly do welcome an informed discussion about our financial system and about the relative strength of the various components of our financial system. I welcome a discussion about the need for greater competitive forces in our financial system and the need for there to be greater competition against our four major banks. Those four major banks are large, well capitalised and of course very profitable.
This involves a couple of essential elements of policy that need to be understood very clearly. Our four major banks have done well because in this country we have regulated our financial system much better than many other countries, but our major banks have done better because of the bank guarantees put in place at the height of the financial crisis by this government and opposed by those opposite.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: it was not a general question. I asked the question: why will the banks take seriously the Treasurer’s 32nd warning about increasing interest rates outside of what the RBA does? Why?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Treasurer will relate his response directly to the question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—We would not have profitable banks if it had not been for the action of this side of the House in putting in place a bank guarantee opposed by those opposite every inch of the way.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Treasurer will return to the question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Because we have come through the global financial crisis in such good shape, we do need greater competitive forces in our banking system. That is why the government has been putting in place some very substantial reforms in our banking system. They are substantial reforms which have policy credibility. They are not the fudges which have been put forward by those opposite. What are those reforms. The fudges put forward by the shadow Treasurer. We are having a crackdown on unfair mortgage exit fees. The member opposite was the financial services minister in this House for three years. He could not find the wit at any time in those three years to put in place a reform like that.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will relate his comments to the question.
2V5
Swan, Wayne, MP
Mr SWAN
—Mr Speaker, I am relating them to the question. The question was about competition, keeping the big banks honest, putting in place the competitive forces that are required but were never attended to by those opposite when they were in power. We propose putting in place a single national consumer law, something that could not be done by those opposite in 12 years. We talk about investing in AAA rated residential mortgage backed securities to get greater competitive forces in our system. But we know what the answer is not. We know the answer is not to abolish the independence of the Reserve Bank, as has been put forward by those opposite. That is not the answer to this challenge. I say there is no justification whatsoever for the major banks moving interest rates over and above any movement by the Reserve Bank. This government, as always, will put in place the proper competitive policies to keep the banks honest
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Treasurer will conclude his answer
HWE
Simpkins, Luke, MP
Mr Simpkins interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Cowan is warned.
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr Randall interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Canning, who has been warned, should be careful.
Moreton Bay Rail Link
2069
2069
15:10:00
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
HVN
Petrie
ALP
1
Mrs D’ATH
—My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Can the minister advise the House how work is progressing on the Moreton Bay rail link—
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Dickson has been warned. Or if he hasn’t, he is now! I apologise to the member for Petrie; she can recommence her question.
HVN
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
Mrs D’ATH
—Can the minister advise how work is progressing on the Moreton Bay rail link, and how has this project been received by local stakeholders? Will the minister also clarify which levels of government are delivering the Moreton Bay rail link?
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney is now warned.
2069
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
1
Mr ALBANESE
—I thank the member for Petrie for her question and her outstanding advocacy over a long time to make sure that the Moreton Bay rail link becomes a reality. This is a great project that will open up public transport travel for the people of the Redcliffe Peninsula. It will also benefit those communities further up the Bruce Highway, because it will alleviate urban congestion. It will make a difference to climate change. We need to transfer more people out of private cars and onto public transport as part of dealing with climate change.
The rail link will cut travel time from Kippa-Ring to the Brisbane CBD to just 45 minutes, so it is not surprising that this project has a great deal of support in the local community. That is why, on 26 August, the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland, with the Mayor of Moreton Shire and the local member, announced support for the rail link—that a Gillard Labor government would turn this into a reality. The planning and preconstruction work will be done now, with construction to commence in 2012 and be completed in 2016.
I am asked how the project has been received, and of course there has been a great deal of support for it, with one exception—the LNP candidate for Petrie, Dean Teasdale. He said on the day, ‘Now is not the time’ to build this rail link. This is a project that has been talked about since 1895—but now is not the time, according to the LNP, to move ahead with it. That opposition lasted about as long as one of the member for Sturt’s excuses—not very long at all. By the afternoon the Leader of the Opposition undermined the local candidate by saying he would support it and he would match the commitment. So first they are against it, then they are for it.
I am asked which levels of government are responsible for delivering the project. There is the Gillard Labor government, there is the Bligh Labor government and there is the local council. But there is some confusion out there. Election ads have started in Petrie already, and in this week’s local paper there is an ad by Dean Teasdale referring to ‘supporting regional action in Petrie; delivering the Moreton Bay rail link’. The LNP are paying for it! Not the government—the LNP! They are doing so well out of their tobacco donations that they are able to build rail lines. It is an unbelievable performance. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say now is not the time to build the rail link and then try to claim credit for it.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I simply wish to appeal to the spirit of the reform agreement that was entered into by both sides of this House and ask you, Mr Speaker—
Government members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat until the House comes to order.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Mr Speaker, I am simply reminding, if I may, all members of the House that there is an agreement which talks about a new paradigm, which talks about a parliament which does not sink to the levels that, sadly, we all too often sank to in the last parliament. Mr Speaker, I ask you: how is this answer consistent with that paradigm?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The reference to donations was outside of the standing orders, and that was unnecessary. The other aspects are within the question and within the standing orders. But to add extraneous matter should be avoided.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—Federal investment in public transport infrastructure has gone from zero dollars to $7 billion. We now have major rail infrastructure projects in urban public transport in every capital city on the mainland including this Moreton Bay rail link, including the Parramatta to Epping rail link project, including the Northbridge rail project, including the regional rail link in Victoria, including the Noarlunga to Seaford rail line in South Australia, where we signed the contracts last week, and including also the Gold Coast light rail project.
Banking
2070
2070
15:17:00
Alexander, John, MP
M3M
Bennelong
LP
0
Mr ALEXANDER
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statement this morning by the member for Deakin, who said, ‘What it really comes down to is getting more banks into our system and customers knowing where they have an alternative to go to.’ Prime Minister, when will the government come on board with the coalition and stand up to the banks on price signalling?
2070
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for his question. I think it is his first question, so I congratulate him on that. Unfortunately, what I am going to have to say to the member is that I am not in a position to endorse the shadow Treasurer’s four-point plan. I know the shadow Treasurer has made a series of statements since, but the original statements of the shadow Treasurer which defined this debate were in four points. Point 1 was that he was going to reregulate interest rates. I am not able to agree with that. In point 2 he somewhat bizarrely suggested we should remove our $16 billion investment in AAA rated residential mortgage backed securities. We were not in a position to agree with that. Thirdly, he somewhat oddly suggested we remove the deposit guarantee. No, we were not in a position to deal with that. And, finally, he said we should effectively go to the G20 and get a worse deal for Australia through global reform.
I know since the original four-point plan the shadow Treasurer has been in full backflip, retreat, backdown mode and he keeps snatching other people’s ideas, like those of Graeme Samuel from the ACCC, to try to cover his embarrassment—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a very simple question on price signalling, which she has yet to mention. I would ask you to make her give an answer that is directly relevant to the question about price signalling.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Manager of Opposition Business can continue to cherry pick parts of questions; I have to take the questions in totality.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I was asked about the opposition’s banking plan. Its foundation stone as originally articulated by the shadow Treasurer was reregulating interest rates. No, I regret to say to the new member for Bennelong, we will not be doing that, because to do that would mean we were turning our backs on 30 years of economic reform. To do that would mean we would be accepting a situation where young couples and small businesses could not get loans. That was the legacy of regulated interest rates, which is why this nation took a step into the modern world and started building the modern economy that we have today—a modern economy that can be secured in the future only by further economic reform. I regret to say to the new member for Bennelong that, unfortunately, the shadow Treasurer is going back 30 years in time. We will not be joining him in a strategy destined to impoverish this nation.
Infrastructure
2071
2071
15:20:00
Owens, Julie, MP
E09
Parramatta
ALP
1
Ms OWENS
—My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the minister advise the House on why the Epping to Parramatta rail link is important and how it has been received?
2071
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
1
Mr ALBANESE
—I thank the member for Parramatta for her question and congratulate her on being a local member who stands up for her electorate. Of course the Parramatta to Epping rail link is an important project. It now ensures that this government is committed to an urban rail project in every capital city on the mainland. It is an important project that will open up opportunities for people in Western Sydney to get access to Macquarie University and to get access to the high-tech jobs that are located around the North Ryde sector. It will also help build Parramatta as Sydney’s second CBD. If we are serious about tackling issues such as urban congestion and the quality of life in our cities, we have to make sure that we back up that commitment with real dollars—and we have done that through our announcement during the election campaign.
I must also mention how this has been received. The people of Western Sydney know that people on this link directly benefit from this project and that it facilitates the Western Express line—meaning, whether you live in the Blue Mountains in Western Sydney or whether you live—
8K6
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I can predict the point of order by the Chief Government Whip. The member for Barker was standing and doing whatever he was doing for a very long time. I have indicated that I would give lenience to the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House. Regrettably, the Manager of Opposition Business was in conference, standing or kneeling on the bench, at the same time. The member for Barker should be very careful about the way he goes about his duties, because it is obvious by the reaction of the House that it was distracting and, therefore, disorderly. I hope that is what the member for Hunter, as the Chief Government Whip, was attempting to bring to my attention.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Kennedy can sit down and practise for 45 seconds while he listens to the end of the answer by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a project—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister has the call. Member for Mayo, this is not the time. We need to take our places as the standing order says, because it has been distracting.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—You’d really want to observe their tactics meetings, wouldn’t you.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will go to the question.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—I certainly will. This is a project, like the Moreton Bay regional rail project, that has been a long time in the making. Indeed, it was announced by Bruce Baird, the former member for Cook, when he was transport minister in the New South Wales Liberal government. But we are making sure that it becomes a reality. Since then, there has been a big fight to make it happen.
During the election campaign, on a pamphlet ‘I’m fighting to get things done’, the current member for Bennelong said that he was fighting for the Parramatta to Epping rail line. Indeed, he said that to everyone in the electorate, and the pamphlet arrived the day we announced it—a great piece of timing. But when we announced it he then said that he was against it. So he was for it and then he was against it—until it was happening. So he was for the theory, for the ghost train, but not for the people’s train. But, of course, it has changed again, because this week we have someone saying, ‘The construction of the Epping-Parramatta rail link is set to proceed, which is welcome news for the people of Bennelong.’ Yes, indeed it is. I hope that you vote consistently, as the member for Bennelong, and look after your electorate, unlike what occurred in the campaign when you walked away from that commitment, because there is a consistency here in that inconsistency when it comes to infrastructure—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The opposition will put up with a great deal but these slag and bag answers cannot be directly relevant to the question.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The point of order is?
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Direct relevance. Slag and bag answers cannot be directly relevant.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The point of order has been received. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The question relates to the Epping to Parramatta railway line and how it has been received. The minister will directly relate his remarks to that question. The minister has the call.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—It has indeed been received well. The member for Parramatta knows that her electorate wants this vital project to proceed. It will be proceeding because this is a government that is prepared to lead on nation-building infrastructure. We will continue to do it, particularly when it comes to urban public transport.
Economy
2073
2073
15:26:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
Mr KATTER
—I have a question without notice to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister aware of the study from the Australian Food and Grocery Council and KPMG which shows that Australia is a net food importer? Without the nonedibles, grain, live cattle and wine, even the government’s own ABS figures show that in five years Australia will be a net importer. In light of this, can the House be assured that senior ministers are open to considering, with government and Independent members representing food-growing areas, the rising dollar and it being a high interest rate driver, the unlevel playing field of the OECD’s 39 per cent tariff subsidy, Third World imports produced by workers paid $4 a day and, finally, the Woolworths-Coles 85 per cent problem, where, for example, banana farmers get paid $1 dollar a kilogram while Mrs Housewife pays $3 a kilogram?
2073
Burke, Tony, MP
DYW
Watson
ALP
Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
1
Mr BURKE
—I thank the member for Kennedy for the question in my role of representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in the other place. The member for Kennedy has for a long time been raising concerns about the import versus the export of food. I have a copy of the media release that he refers to from the Australian Food and Grocery Council, which came from Kate Carnell, the chief executive. I should raise, notwithstanding the genuine concerns of the member for Kennedy, some of the issues with that media release. First of all, it refers to all groceries, not just food. So it actually includes toothpaste and nappies; it includes in its figures a whole lot of other items as well as food. As the member for Kennedy acknowledged in his question, it does not include bulk exports such as wheat exports, meat exports or live exports. When you take those issues out and deal with food going in each direction, you have a $14 billion trade surplus.
We export $24 billion worth of food products; we import $10 billion dollars worth of food products. That does not change the importance of the issues raised by the member for Kennedy. That does not change the fact that there are major issues that exporters and all export dependent industries are facing right now because of the strength of the dollar and also because, where there has been for many decades in Australia a high focus on what happens inside the farm gate, there probably has not been the same level of focus on what happens in food manufacturing.
With all that in mind, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is doing work across government at the moment on the development of the food strategy that was announced during the election campaign. Similarly, the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, also from the other place, is working on the research and development and industry issues in food manufacturing. As is always the case, I am sure each of those ministers is readily available to talk through those issues as requested.
I would also add that I am in very strong agreement with what the member for Kennedy said about how unfair many of the tariff barriers are when it comes to the competition that we face from other nations. The role that Australia has held for a long time, now held by the new Minister for Trade, as chair of the Cairns Group, is a very important role in taking us through the various international negotiations and making sure that our farmers are in fact on a more level playing field when it comes to trade.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
2074
Questions to the Speaker
Taxation
2074
2074
15:30:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—I refer you, Mr Speaker, to order of the day No. 1 today, which was my private member’s motion in relation to Australia’s Future Tax System Review. I refer you to an interview on the AM program between the member for Lyne and the interviewer, Alexandra Kirk, where the member for Lyne says:
In regards to Henry, we had a meeting last night and that is the cross-benchers with the Treasury secretary and Government officials.
There is legal advice now that has been given to the Treasurer from the Australian Government solicitor that indicates there are some legal issues in regards to the wordings of that motion,
I refer you to the legal advice provided to Dr Henry which states:
In our view clause 2 is arguably beyond power. It could be interpreted as within power and clauses 3 and 4 are beyond power.
Given that the clerks agree with us that the motion was actually in order, I ask you to investigate this matter and to determine whether in fact an individual piece of legal advice in relation to this motion is correct or whether in fact parts of the motion were out of order, and whether it is inappropriate for this House to pass motions and to have the Secretary of the Department of Treasury seek legal advice and determine that the House is acting ultra vires.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on the issue raised by the shadow Treasurer. We actually had a vote and the House determined its position on that this morning.
2074
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. First of all, I remind members that at this point in time it is my practice only to take questions on administrative matters but, on this occasion, because there is no other way that this could be raised procedurally with me, I will attempt to answer, if not directly then as close to directly as possible, the points raised by the member for North Sydney. He has referred me to certain things, one of which he did give me a copy of—which had been passed to him—which was the copy of a letter from the Australian Government Solicitor, I think, to the Secretary of the Treasury. It is true, as the Leader of the House indicates, that this is a matter that has been decided by the House, so any of the comments that I make do not go specifically to that decision as it is a matter that has been decided. I will just place some comments on the record about the way in which this motion was handled procedurally in the run-up to the vote by the House.
Firstly, as I understand it, the notice was accepted in accordance with the standing orders. Secondly, it was considered by the Selection Committee and given priority by it, and then eventually given time in government business for the vote. The final comment that I would make is that I believe members would feel that agreement by the House to a procedurally valid motion would be seen as a serious expression of the views of the House.
DANIEL MORCOMBE FOUNDATION
2074
Miscellaneous
2074
15:35:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
0
0
Mr SLIPPER
—On behalf of Bruce and Denise Morcombe and the Daniel Morcombe Foundation, I would like to thank the Prime Minister, you, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the House, the Manager of Opposition Business and so many other members—many of the women are resplendent in red—for wearing ties, scarves, or other red items of clothing to signify their support for the principle of child safety in our community. I think it is a wonderful exhibition of us as a parliament that we are able to display a sense of solidarity as we join with the Morcombe foundation in support of the very important principle that in a civilised society children have the right to be safe.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
2075
Personal Explanations
2075
15:35:00
Briggs, Jamie, MP
IYU
Mayo
LP
0
0
Mr BRIGGS
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
IYU
Briggs, Jamie, MP
Mr BRIGGS
—Outrageously, Mr Speaker.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
IYU
Briggs, Jamie, MP
Mr BRIGGS
—Yesterday in this House and on ABC Online the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship directly implied that I had not sought a briefing from him on the ambush decision to establish a detention facility at Inverbrackie in the Adelaide Hills. I seek leave to table the two occasions on which the shadow minister and I have sought briefings in the last two weeks. We are yet to get an answer.
Leave not granted.
2075
15:36:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
McMahon
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
0
Mr BOWEN
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—I do. The member for Mayo has alleged that I implied, or said, that he had not sought a briefing. I have made no such statement. In fact, I have agreed to a briefing and it is being arranged.
2075
15:36:00
Alexander, John, MP
M3M
Bennelong
LP
0
0
Mr ALEXANDER
—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
M3M
Alexander, John, MP
Mr ALEXANDER
—Yes. I have been misrepresented by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. I think that the link from Epping to Parramatta will be beneficial to the people of Bennelong; I welcome that. I have made the point, however, that the New South Wales government—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Bennelong has just indicated that in fact he was not misrepresented. He cannot debate the issue.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I will listen carefully to the member for Bennelong. He cannot debate the issue.
M3M
Alexander, John, MP
Mr ALEXANDER
—I have made the point that the link from Epping to Parramatta was not in the New South Wales state government’s 10-year plan.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I think the member for Bennelong has explained where he was misrepresented and he did make that point in his first speech.
2075
15:38:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
0
Mr HOCKEY
—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—It is hard to believe, but I do. First, the Prime Minister today claimed that I have a four-point plan. In fact we do not; we have a nine-point plan. Second, the Prime Minister claimed the first point of the plan is that the coalition wants to reregulate interest rates. In fact, that is totally false and inaccurate. Third, the Prime Minister claimed that we want to roll back $16 billion of funding support for the residential mortgage backed security market. In fact, we were the ones that called for that support in the first place and that claim by the Prime Minister is totally false. Fourth, the Prime Minister claimed that we are opposed to greater banking competition. That claim is absolutely false. We want more banking competition. I am afraid the Prime Minister did not have a fifth point, but whatever it is I am sure I disagree with it.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member does not assist in the orderly conduct of the House.
COMMITTEES
2076
Committees
Selection Committee
2076
Report
2076
2076
15:39:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I present the Selection Committee’s report No. 5 relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of bills introduced 25 October—28 October 2010
-
The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 and Thursday, 28 October 2010.
-
The committee determined that the following bills not be referred to committees:
-
Criminal Code Amendment (Cluster Munitions Prohibition) Bill 2010
-
Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health and Hospitals Network) Bill 2010
-
International Financial Institutions Legislation Amendment Bill 2010
-
National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010
-
National Measurement Amendment Bill 2010
-
Service and Execution of Process Amendment (Interstate Fine Enforcement) Bill 2010
-
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment Bill 2010.
AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS
2076
Auditor-General's Reports
Report Nos 13 and 14 of 2010-11
2076
2076
15:39:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 13 of 2010-11 entitled Performance audit-implementation and administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s safety management system approach for aircraft operators and Audit report No. 14 of 2010-11 entitled: Performance audit—capitalisation of software.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
DOCUMENTS
2076
Documents
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
15:40:00
—Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)—Report for 2009-10.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner—Report for 2009-10.
Australian Carbon Trust Limited—Report for 2009-10.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Report for 2009-10, incorporating report of the Australian Energy Regulator.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service—Report for 2009-10.
Australian Learning and Teaching Council—Report for 2009-10.
Australian Research Council—Report for 2009-10.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission—Report for 2009-10.
Australian Trade Commission (AUSTRADE)—Report for 2009-10.
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—Report for 2009-10.
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Report for 2009-10.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—Report for 2009-10.
Fair Work Ombudsman—Report for 2009-10.
Financial Reporting Council—Report on auditor independence for 2009-10.
Health Workforce Australia—Report for 2009-10.
Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia—Report for 2009-10.
National Competition Council—Report for 2009-10.
Private Health Insurance Ombudsman—Report for 2009-10.
Productivity Commission—Report for 2009-10.
Remuneration Tribunal—Report for 2009-10.
Repatriation Commission, Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, Department of Veterans’ Affairs—Report for 2009-10.
Reserve Bank of Australia—Reports—2009-10.
Payments System Board—Report for 2009-10.
Skills Australia—Report for 2009-10.
Takeovers Panel—Report for 2009-10.
Workplace Authority—Report for 2009-10.
Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
2077
Matters of Public Importance
Economy
2077
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Warringah proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The government’s failure to deliver real economic reform.
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—
2077
15:41:00
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr ABBOTT
—Today in question time the Prime Minister noted that when Mr Beazley called Mr Howard to ask him about the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank Mr Howard congratulated Mr Beazley. Well may he congratulate Mr Beazley because Mr Beazley was proposing a real reform. Mr Beazley was a Labor leader of some courage. Mr Beazley was a Labor leader who understood that privatisation was reform in a way that nationalisation is not. I congratulate Kim Beazley for his understanding of what good economic policy was and I congratulate the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, for his understanding of what good economic policy was. I think it is a bit rich of this Prime Minister to talk about the former Prime Minister as some kind of compatriot. Well may she congratulate the former Prime Minister. I wish she could emulate the former Prime Minister because that would be the best thing that she could do if she wanted to seriously fill the big shoes of the former Prime Minister.
We have seen today an extraordinarily shabby and tawdry performance from members of this government. We have seen today from this Prime Minister behaviour of a carping, nasty, unbecoming nature which we would never have seen from the former Prime Minister. It ill behoves this new parliament in which there has been an agreement for better behaviour to see the Prime Minister leading standards down as she has done today to her lasting discredit.
This debate is about reform. It is about effective reform. I say to the Prime Minister and to the government that building a nationalised broadband network is not reform. Privatisation is reform; nationalisation is not. Nationalisation that puts at risk $43 billion worth of taxpayers funds is not reform. I say to the Prime Minister: imposing a carbon price is not reform. Raising taxes is not reform. Lowering taxes is reform. Raising the government’s share of GDP by a permanent one per cent is not reform. Lowering the government’s share of GDP is real reform.
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan as it currently stands is not economic reform. In its current shape, it is a direct assault on the economic welfare of regional Australia. I say to the Prime Minister that abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission is not economic reform; it is economic vandalism, and that is precisely what this government has in mind. I say to the Prime Minister that blowing the surplus is not economic reform. Blowing the surplus is more akin to the work of the Whitlam government than it is to the far better work of her immediate Labor prime ministerial predecessors, Messrs Hawke and Keating. I say to the Prime Minister that if she is a serious economic reformer why was she complicit in the pink batts program, a program which is probably the most monumentally incompetent in modern Australian history, a program which tragically has been linked not only to 200 house fires but to four deaths. I say to the Prime Minister that blowing the best part of $16 billion on overpriced school halls is not economic reform; it is an absolute paradigm of how not to run a government program—and yet it is so typical of this government. I say to the Prime Minister that moving from a 40-60 federal-state share of public hospital funding to a 60-40 federal-state share of public hospital funding is not economic reform either; that is simply a bureaucratic reshuffle which is almost certain to make a bad situation in our public hospitals worse.
I am happy to try to be fair to this Prime Minister, who is not fair to us and she is certainly not fair to this parliament. But let me extend to her the courtesy and the decency that she does not extend to members on this side of the House. Let me say that, yes, the MySchool website is a reform. But it is only possible because of the good work of the former government in introducing standardised national testing across the schools of Australia. Let me further concede that, yes, the compulsory quarantining of unemployment beneficiaries who have been on a benefit for 12 months in the Northern Territory is a real reform. But, again, that is only possible because of the legislation that was introduced into this chamber by the former Howard government. It is only possible because of the work of the former Howard government in establishing welfare quarantining in the remote Indigenous communities of the Northern Territory.
Let me draw this together by saying this is a government that after three years of incessant talk of reform has this to its credit: one website and one change in one territory of this Commonwealth. So the result of three years of so-called reform is one website and one welfare change in one territory of this Commonwealth. Compared to the truly inspirational reforms of both former Labor governments, the Hawke and Keating governments, and of the Howard-Costello government, the work of this current government, and so the work of this Prime Minister, is a joke. It is not reform worthy of the name and I am waiting for the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, to come out and say just that, because I am sure he will.
What we have from this government in this House is a Prime Minister who has the effrontery to demand bipartisanship from this opposition on reforms that are not worthy of the name. I say to this Prime Minister: we will not save her from her own bad policies. It is not the opposition’s job to rescue a drowning government. We will not help her to break her pre-election promises—and she should not ask. We as an opposition will not join in a false consensus with a bad government to back bad policy which will be damaging to the long-term welfare of this country. That is not our job.
I am happy to support good reform. The last thing this opposition would do is stand in the way of good reform. We stand for lower, simpler, fairer taxes, not great big new taxes that damage Australia’s economy, not great big new taxes that are yet another hit on the cost of living of struggling Australian families. We stand for real welfare reform, not this government’s changes which have watered down the highly successful Work for the Dole program. We stand for genuine community control of public hospitals and public schools. We do not stand for this government’s policy which will simply substitute one lot of bureaucrats for another.
This is a government which has demonstrated time and time again that it is chronically unable to deliver real economic reform. Let me go into some of the reasons for that. First of all, this is a government which is chronically incapable of consulting with the Australian people, the very people who are affected by the government’s changes. There was no consultation with the people of Northam before the detention centre was announced there. There was no consultation with the people of Inverbrackie before the detention centre was announced there. There was not any consultation with even the government of East Timor when the detention centre was announced there. There certainly has not been any consultation with the people of the Murray-Darling Basin about the guide to the draft plan which poses such a deadly threat to their economic welfare. Not only was there no consultation before the guide to the draft plan was announced but the minister was too cowardly to front up himself and actually explain what the government has in mind for those people.
This is a government that cannot deliver economic reform because it is led by a Prime Minister who cannot be trusted to keep her commitments. There was the carbon tax that she ruled out before an election and ruled in after an election. There was the East Timor detention centre that was going to happen before an election but is not going to happen after an election. There was the domestic detention centres that were not going to happen before an election but are going to happen after an election. This is a Prime Minister who has chronically poor judgment. The East Timor detention centre was a joke. The Parramatta to Epping railway line will never be built. If it was not on the New South Wales 10-year infrastructure plan, it certainly is not going to be built by this government. The citizens assembly was another example of the Prime Minister’s bad judgment. Even the execution of the former Prime Minister, the member for Griffith, was an example of this Prime Minister’s bad judgment.
I used to say that the longer the Rudd government lasts the better the Howard government looks. I now say that the longer the Gillard government lasts the better the Rudd government looks, although I have to say the member for Griffith was not looking very pleased about the Gillard government today in question time. This is a government which cannot deliver economic reform because it is hopelessly divided between the old pragmatic Right and the new green Left. It is torn by the promises it made, on the one hand, to the Greens to enter government and, on the other hand, to the rural Independents to enter government. It is torn between the Left, represented by Senator Doug Cameron, and the Right, presumably the lobotomised zombies, a representative of whom is about to speak in this matter of public importance debate. The truth about the current situation is that Labor is in government but the Greens are in power. That is why this government is incapable of delivering real economic reform.
This government cannot deliver real economic reform because it has lost the two ministers in the government who were actually capable of it. This government has lost the former Minister for Finance, Lindsay Tanner, and Senator Faulkner, the former Minister for Defence, who were clearly the two most economically literate ministers in this government. The former member for Melbourne, Lindsay Tanner, said at the start of the current government’s tenure that not one single major project would go ahead without a full cost-benefit analysis, a cost-benefit analysis that would be published. How many cost-benefit analyses has this government done? How many cost-benefit analyses has this government published? We know what they did to Kevin, but not a single project has had a cost-benefit analysis done. It is no wonder that Mr Tanner has left this government which has so abandoned the economic principles which he tried to champion.
Then there is Senator Faulkner, who said that the Labor Party—meaning this particular government—was long on cutting and short on courage. That is the essential reason why we will never see economic reform from this government. The truth about this government is that it is arrogant, it is incompetent, it is untrustworthy and it is cowardly. Mr Tanner knew that, Senator Faulkner knows that, we on this side of the parliament know that, and the people increasingly know that.
2080
15:56:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
Minister for Trade
1
0
Dr EMERSON
—The coalition has had a bad week, a shocking day, and it just got worse. What an appalling effort from a Leader of the Opposition who would not be able to spell the words ‘economic reform’. I noticed that he did early on congratulate former opposition leader Kim Beazley, confirming that while in opposition Labor in fact did support economic reform; we did support those elements of the Howard government’s program that constituted genuine economic reform. Of course, we did not support Work Choices and we are proud of not supporting Work Choices. There are other measures that we did not support but, of course, as a general presumption, Labor supported economic reform.
I know that former Prime Minister Howard has been very prominent in the media this week. On a number of occasions going back a long time, I have taken the opportunity to pay tribute to the fact that, when he was the opposition leader during the Hawke and Keating period, John Howard did lend bipartisan support to the essential elements of the great modernising economic reform program of the Hawke and Keating governments—an economic reform program that locked in 19 years of recession-free, robust economic growth. Now that is under threat because, for the first time in living memory, we have a Leader of the Opposition who is against reform, who is anti-reform, who is still sulking and sooking because he was not able to be Prime Minister after the election. He now has declared and is carrying through his threats to be a wrecker, to be a spoiler, to be anti-reform. It will be the Australian people who lose out of that because the Australian people need the benefits of ongoing economic reform to lock in high-skill, high-wage jobs and future prosperity.
I want to go a number of the points that the Leader of the Opposition just made in his contribution. He said that lowering taxes is economic reform, raising taxes is not. So why on earth did he go to the election campaign with a proposal to raise income tax to pay for his great big new tax—that is, the increase in the income tax rate to pay for paid parental leave? He said that the coalition is for lower taxation. Who holds the record as the highest taxing government in Australian history? It is the coalition—2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, the highest ratio of tax revenue to GDP in Australia’s history.
The Leader of the Opposition went on to the say that blowing the surplus is not economic reform. This is the first time, since the formation of the Labor government, I have heard the opposition saying that the government should not have put the budget into deficit. The impact of the global financial crisis initially was to strip $200 billion of taxation revenue out of the books. What the opposition leader said today flatly contradicts the position taken by Mr Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, when he was opposition leader, who said, ‘Of course the budget needed to go into deficit in those circumstances.’ We now have a glimpse of what the current Leader of the Opposition would do if there is an economic downturn in the future and it strips away revenue: he would keep the budget in surplus—so he says.
But what happened when he was brought to account during the last federal election campaign—or, more particularly, after it? Following the forensic efforts of the Independents, it was revealed he had presided over a black hole in the coalition’s costings in the order of $7 billion to $10.7 billion. Yet we heard the opposition leader saying: ‘I’m a reformer. I would have cut government spending.’ There was a black hole in their costings in the order of $7 billion to $10.7 billion and that was revealed as a result of the activities of the Independents and their insistence at looking at the costings. We could not get the opposition to fess up during the election campaign. They said they had a favoured accounting firm that had audited the costings.
The shadow Treasurer is in the chamber at the moment. He revealed today that he only saw the figures five minutes before the shadow finance minister, the member for Goldstein, produced them. We know that they are at war, but you would think they could have had peace for just a couple of hours so that the shadow finance minister could have familiarised the shadow Treasurer with the costings, and the fact that there was a black hole in those costings of up to $10.7 billion.
This has been a shocking week for the coalition. This debate this week was kicked off at a doorstop interview with the shadow Treasurer, where he talked about the banking and financial system in this country and said: ‘Obviously legislation is part of it.’ The shadow Treasurer was talking about re-regulating the financial sector of this country, undoing a quarter of a century of economic reform. Why? For cheap, populist reasons. The coalition, led by the opposition leader and joined by the shadow Treasurer, are only in this for votes for themselves, for populism, and not in the national interest. That is what got the shadow Treasurer into all of this trouble.
The most cutting commentary on it was provided not by one of us, though it was not as if we were not trying; the gold medal went to the member for Canning, who said:
This is just another one of their … lunatic fringe-type ideas.
The member for Canning was actually saying that the shadow Treasurer has come up with a lunatic fringe type idea. I know the various policy prescriptions of the member for Canning. If he reckons it is a lunatic idea, it certainly must be, because the member for Canning has a few wacko ones of his own. Even he was able to identify that the proposition put by the shadow Treasurer is lunacy—and that came from the coalition not Labor. For the first time in living memory, I agree with the member for Canning. The shadow Treasurer said today: ‘I need a personal explanation. I have been verballed.’ Why is it that we have senior Liberals, including a frontbencher, telling the Australian:
This is certainly not coalition policy. I think this was just Joe being Joe.
If it is such a sensible, rational policy and the poor shadow Treasurer has been misrepresented, why does a coalition frontbencher feel the necessity to declare anonymously that it is not coalition policy; it was just Joe being Joe? It goes further. We know, again, from the Australian that he was strongly criticised by colleagues at shadow cabinet on Monday for proposing that a coalition government would use levers to have an influence on bank interest rates.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Curtin, warned Mr Hockey not to trash the coalition’s economic credentials. If the shadow Treasurer was misrepresented, and he has said that he never said it—that he was never there, that it was not him—why did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition feel compelled to warn the shadow Treasurer not to trash the coalition’s reputation as a free market party? Because she was very concerned about what he was up to. Reportedly she said:
We shouldn’t forget who we are as a party—
when running a populist line on rate rises. The Leader of the Opposition was asked three times to support the shadow Treasurer’s nine-point plan. Three times he denied answering—the cock crowed. The shadow Treasurer’s policies are so wacko. But we have now found out the truth: the opposition leader had not read it. This is an extraordinary development. The shadow Treasurer put out a nine-point plan, which included the re-regulation of the financial sector—he is allowed to do that—and the opposition leader did not read it. That helps explain a statement that the opposition leader made some time ago, when he said:
I have never been as excited about economics as some of my colleagues …
Ain’t that the truth! The opposition leader said that he has never been excited about economics. He told other people that he is bored with economics. The shadow Treasurer produces a nine-point plan and it is so boring to the Leader of the Opposition that he does not bother reading it before it is put out. Then when it is drawn to his attention by the media three times, he thinks, ‘I’d better have a look at Joe’s plan.’ He goes to look at Joe’s plan, but thinks: ‘It’s out there now. I’ll have to endorse it.’ In so doing, he has endorsed the re-regulation of the financial sector of this country, a return to the bad old days before the Hawke and Keating governments.
There is plenty of further evidence. During the election campaign the coalition was developing a policy to reinstate wholesale funding guarantees for banks that engaged in small business lending. I know this for a fact. I know that the shadow Treasurer was involved in that and that when he was told that it would go over like a lead balloon—I will not use the other possible analogy or description as to how it would go over very badly—they withdrew it. You know what? That was going to be the centrepiece of the opposition leader’s policy launch. What a shocking message that would have sent to the rest of the world, to international financiers: that an Abbott led government would require the reinstatement of wholesale funding guarantees for lending.
We go further. The shadow minister for small business proposed, in front of me and subsequently in the media, the re-establishment of a state bank—that is, a Commonwealth bank—to lend to small business. It is everywhere you look. There were no lessons learnt from the state bank collapses of the early 1990s. No, it is: ‘We want to give it another go because we’re smarter than the average bear. We’ll get in there and do some small business financing and re-establish a state bank’—in this case a bank run by the Commonwealth of Australia.
One reason that this whole debate was kicked off is the coalition’s opportunistic position on the reform known as putting a price on carbon. Every major business CEO to whom I have spoken has said, ‘We need to get the uncertainty removed; we accept that there is a need to put a price on carbon.’ What do we hear every day in this chamber? A set of questions, one after another, from frontbenchers on the other side of the parliament saying, ‘This is going to increase electricity bills by $10,000.’ They just make it up as they go along.
But we remember that this is the same opposition leader, when he knocked over the member for Wentworth in a ballot, who had told the member for Wentworth beforehand, through the pages of the Australian, that it was essential the coalition back Labor’s emissions trading scheme. Of course, this was the weathervane going round and round and round because he saw some political benefit in reneging on that commitment and then using it to skewer the member for Wentworth—and that is exactly what he did.
The shadow Treasurer did not know what he was going to do, so he said, ‘We’ll have a conscience vote on it—a free vote.’ So we had one ‘for’, one ‘against’ and the other one ‘I don’t know’. All the two of them—I will not include the member for Wentworth in this—were trying to do was harvest votes within the coalition party room and harvest votes more broadly because if they can see any opportunity they will take it. The fact is—
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr Billson
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Craig Emerson has just told a blatant lie in this parliament and I would invite you to invite him to withdraw what he said about the government owned bank. Craig, you know that is not right, mate. That is a blatant lie.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Would the minister resume his seat. Would the member for Dunkley explain what he considers is the blatant lie uttered by the minister.
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr Billson
—The minister accused me of proposing a government owned bank, and that is a blatant lie. He knows it to be a blatant lie and he should withdraw it if he has any decency whatsoever.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The honourable member for Dunkley will resume his seat. There are procedures of the House which would permit him to correct any perceived misrepresentation.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I will come back on that but I indicate that the next speaker will get points of order to gobble up time and the sort of behaviour that we have seen in this parliament all week from the coalition. If you want disruption, you will get disruption. You will get plenty points of order.
The opposition leader is the godson of BA Santamaria. He is an interventionist. He is an anti-reformer. He has actually said that he worshipped the water that BA Santamaria walked on; that he is a lifelong admirer. BA Santamaria was an interventionist. Whatever you might say about his religious views, he actually believed that capitalism is intrinsically more evil than communism. That says it all. That is the position of the opposition leader. He is an interventionist and he has demoted each and every member who believes in markets. (Time expired)
2083
16:11:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
0
Mr HOCKEY
—In Greek mythology I think it was Homer who, in The Odyssey, about the journey of Ulysses, referred to the sirens. From memory—and it is only from memory—in that case there were two sirens, but in Greek mythology they usually talk about three sirens. The sirens are the ‘bird women’ who, using a seductive voice and seductive entreaties, encourage sailors to hit the rocks so that their ship comes aground.
So when the now Prime Minister says, ‘Come and join us on a journey; come and join us in supporting our proposals for a carbon tax, our proposals for budget changes,’ I say to myself—
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—That is a siren call.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—that is a siren call that has been around for literally thousands of years and we should avoid that call.
And when the Treasurer says, ‘Come on board with consensus economic reform; join with us on this great united journey, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party working together to deliver ongoing economic reform, as we have in this beautiful partnership for the last 25 years,’ I say to myself: that does not seem quite right. It is another siren call.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would say to you that, just as the sailors many years ago avoided the seductive temptation to come into the bay and end up hitting the rocks, we too will not join with a government that is going to lead our nation onto the rocks. We will not go on that journey. We will not sail into that shore. I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is the Labor Party—writ large in the last three years—that has not had the fundamental ingredient so necessary to delivering real economic reform, and that is courage. Courage is the main ingredient. It is the flour and wheat in the bread.
It is a fact that you cannot deliver economic reform if you do not have ticker. This is a government with no ticker. They had no ticker when they had a 12-seat majority, so why would you expect them to have ticker when they are three seats short of a majority, when they have cobbled together an unholy coalition of the ideological Left and the ideological Right? As someone said to me—and I will not attribute this quote—‘Before the election the Labor Party was all right wing and after the electorate it is all left wing.’ Why? Because it has not only confused ideology; it has confused goals. Before the election no carbon tax; after the election, ‘Let’s have a carbon tax.’ Before the election, fiscal conservatives; after the election a $2½ billion hole in the budget. Before the election, the Labor Party were all about doing the hard yards of tax reform; after the election they will not even release the Henry documents! Even after the election they said they were going to ‘let the sunshine come in’. That is what they said. They were going to open the doors and have a new, clean breeze pass through this parliament, so that everyone can see the true inner workings of the public sector.
At the first hurdle today, when a motion was before this House to release all of the documentation in relation to the review of tax, which was paid for by Australian taxpayers, this mob went to water—disappointingly the Independents went to water too. There was, out of all of this, a lack of commitment. If they do not have the guts to release the documentation on a review that delivered 138 recommendations of which they accepted only 1½, how can you expect them to have courage for real reform, which from time to time will be unpopular? I would have thought that, if they believed in reform, there would be no more compelling case than the flow of capital and the flow of finance and the challenges that involves at this very moment.
The coalition stands by our plan to have more competition in the delivery of financial services. And after the Labor Party criticised that proposal, we now hear that they are accepting it. They are now saying that they are on board. The Labor Party now say that they want to join with us and hold hands in taking an approach to deliver more competition.
The difference between the Labor Party and the coalition is that the coalition has a proposal. The difference between the Labor Party and the coalition is that the coalition has done it before and will do it again. Previously we have facilitated economic reform. Economic reform improves trade. It increases trade. It liberates the individual. It empowers individuals to create more wealth. Reform is not about increasing the cost of business; reform is about decreasing the cost of business. Reform is about freeing up and liberating business to get on with the job of wealth creation. That is what microeconomic reform is about.
When this government was in opposition, it sought to derail the creation of the Productivity Commission. Now the Labor Party in government will not even heed the words of the Chairman of the Productivity Commission, Gary Banks, and put in place a system that ensures that there is a cost-benefit analysis on all major projects so that taxpayers get the best value for money.
The purpose of economic reform is to facilitate greater productivity. ‘Productivity’ is a word which has not passed the lips of the Labor Party since Kevin Rudd, as opposition leader in this place, was asked, ‘What is productivity?’ and he could not explain it, having talked about it for days in advance. My colleagues who were around at the time would remember that.
Productivity is about improving the output for workers. It is about improving output in the economy. The Labor Party does not talk about productivity. Why? Because their biggest investment in infrastructure, the $43 billion NBN, is in fact a detractor from productivity for the next eight years. The Labor Party does not talk about productivity because the most significant productivity contribution that can be made at this very moment is to increase work force participation.
The Leader of the Opposition is the only person to have laid down policies in the last three years that improve workforce participation. By targeting people under the age of 30 on welfare, by helping people over the age of 30 on welfare, by putting in place a genuine paid parental leave scheme, this man laid down the foundations for greater work force participation and therefore greater productivity. But it goes further. The coalition was the only party that had real courage to put in place a $50 billion fiscal consolidation plan, which is the only way you can take upward pressure off interest rates.
Let it be known by the Australian people that over the last three years interest rates on average under Labor have been higher than they were for the 11 years of the coalition. For home buyers and for small businesses interest rates on average have been higher under Labor in three years—even when the cash rate of the Reserve Bank got down to just three per cent. The Labor Party are overseeing a period of higher interest rates. That means there is less accessible credit. That means the wheels of enterprise suffer and are unable to run on a fair road. And this proves that the Labor Party are not serious about economic reform. The Labor Party are all bluff and bluster and words of ill advice. (Time expired)
2085
16:21:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
Minister for Trade
1
0
Dr EMERSON
—I seek to make a personal explanation.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Does the minister claim to be misrepresented?
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Deputy Speaker, my understanding is that this can only take place in a break in proceedings. The MPI is still continuing.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—You saw what he did during—called me a liar and I’m going to clear that up.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Would the member for North Sydney resume his seat. Would the minister resume his seat. I will give the call to the member for Dobell and the minister, under the forms of the House, does have the ability, if necessary, to extend the adjournment if he wants to make a point.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I remind you that during my MPI this shadow minister misused the standing orders in order to call me a liar.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—There is no point of order. The Minister for Trade will resume his seat.
2086
16:23:00
Thomson, Craig, MP
HVZ
Dobell
ALP
1
0
Mr CRAIG THOMSON
—What we have been hearing in this matter of public importance debate is from an opposition that is full of wreckers and blockers with no positive program at all for this country. You know you are having a bad day when the member for Canning describes your policies as ‘lunatic’. From what the member for North Sydney was saying, and his analogies with sirens, I can hear sirens as well, but they are the sirens of the ambulance service coming to pick them up for the funny farm because we have so many lunatic economic ideas coming from the other side that they certainly need that sort of medication to make sure that they get back on track. The opposition members are what KFC is to fine food: they are cheap and populist but, once you have had quite a bit of it, it makes you feel rather ill. That is what the general public is starting to find with the opposition in relation to its economic policy.
Let us have a look at some of the things that have been proposed in recent times. We start with the election—let us go back there—when we had an $11 billion hole in the promises of the opposition. It came out and misled the Australian people about their promises. It said they had been audited, looked at carefully, made sure that they had been audited to a ‘t’ so that we could rely on them. We found out afterwards that they were not audited and when we did look at the numbers there was an $11 billion hole. We have a Leader of the Opposition who is not interested in economics at all. The former Treasurer Peter Costello made that clear. We did not need Peter Costello to tell us, because the performance of the Leader of the Opposition time after time on any economic matter has proved absolutely that he has no interest in economics and no understanding of it.
But you have to feel a little bit sorry for the Leader of the Opposition, because look at his two lieutenants who are advising him on economics: the member for North Sydney, Joe Hockey, and the shadow minister for finance. Have we ever had a weaker pair in the history of this parliament in putting forward solid economic policy from an opposition? The shadow finance minister is proposing that we should be intervening directly in the floating of the dollar, that we should be there regulating that. I do not think that we have had a finance minister or a shadow finance minister raise that sort of crazy talk for 30 or 40 years, certainly not since the dollar was floated. It flies in the face of modern orthodoxy in terms of economics.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—‘Black Jack’ McEwen might have done that.
HVZ
Thomson, Craig, MP
Mr CRAIG THOMSON
—The suggestion comes from the Minister for Trade that ‘Black Jack’ McEwen may have, but I think even ‘Black Jack’ McEwen would be embarrassed at that nowadays. Then we have the shadow Treasurer with his proposal that we reregulate the banks. Where does this come from? Are we going to start calling him ‘Chairman Joe’ from now on? Have they got the ‘little red book’ that they quote from for their economic policy these days? The sort of garbage that is coming out from the other side is unbelievable in terms of their economic policy. I do not think there has been an idea—not even one idea—that we could say is a sensible modern proposal that we could work with on economic reform.
So we ask the opposition to put aside their stupid ideas, put aside—to quote the member for Canning—these ‘lunatic’ ideas and get on board with the reform program that this government is involved in. This government—and the Labor Party—is the government of economic reform. It was us who oversaw the modernisation of the Australian economy. We floated the dollar. We did not say after a few years of floating the dollar that we should reregulate it. We floated the dollar, and that was applauded internationally. We brought down the tariff walls. We introduced a modern superannuation system. One of the reforms that this government is determined to get through is improving superannuation for working people. Again, I am sure that that is something that those on the other side will oppose.
It is worth remembering that before compulsory superannuation came in only 15 per cent of female workers were covered by superannuation. The change happened because of Labor reforms, and this government, in the tradition of the great reforming governments, wants to continue with that.
What are the things that we are proposing to do? We are going to cut company tax. The Leader of the Opposition said, ‘If you are about reforming, you will cut tax.’ That is what we are doing. We are cutting company tax. What are the opposition doing? They will put up taxes. They are going to put a great big tax on absolutely everything whereas we are cutting taxes. We are a reforming government. We have an agenda, whether it is in education, health or the economy. We are reforming and making Australia a better place.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—I apologise to the Minister for Trade. I should have given him the opportunity to make his personal explanation.
2087
16:28:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
Minister for Trade
1
0
Dr EMERSON
—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Does the minister claim to have been misrepresented?
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—I do.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—The shadow minister for small business accused me of lying over his support for a government owned bank. The Australian newspaper of 22 May 2010 begins:
Two decades after the collapse of state banks in Victoria and South Australia, the Coalition is considering setting up a government-backed bank to lend money to small and medium businesses.
It said:
The Coalition’s small business spokesman, Bruce Billson, told The Weekend Australian the idea … had merit …
He went on to say in the article:
“There’s a range of possibilities, including governments offering wholesale lending guarantees like the government did for the big banks after the global financial crisis.
I rest my case.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! The discussion is now concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
2087
Adjournment
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! It being almost 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Barker Electorate: Keith Hospital
2088
2088
16:29:00
Secker, Patrick, MP
848
Barker
LP
0
0
Mr SECKER
—I continue to raise an issue which is red-hot in my electorate of Barker. It relates to the area I come from, Keith, and it is the issue of the Keith hospital. If nothing is done about the Labor state government’s threat to cut funding by $360,000, the Keith hospital will close. It will close within nine months if the funding is not at least kept at parity. If it does close, there will not be a hospital for 200 kilometres between Bordertown and Murray Bridge—basically from the Victorian border to not far from Adelaide. I think the locals are talking about erecting signs just where you leave Bordertown and Murray Bridge that say ‘Please do not get sick because there won’t be another hospital for 200 kilometres.’ Not only will you have to not get sick, but road crash victims will have to be transferred much further to be treated if their accident occurs near Keith, because there will no longer be an accident emergency facility between Tailem Bend and Bordertown or between Tailem Bend and Naracoorte. This would an absolute disgrace if it were allowed to occur.
Some 30 per cent of South Australian road fatalities occur on this stretch of highway, known as the Dukes Highway, which is another reason that the government should be making sure we have a hospital. They should also be funding a dual carriageway for the Dukes Highway. During the election campaign they resisted that idea, but I am very committed to getting a dual carriageway between Tailem Bend and the Victorian border. The Keith hospital is also the most distant hospital from which a rescue helicopter can retrieve patients without having to refuel on the way back to the Royal Adelaide Hospital. With the Dukes Highway running right by Keith, this is very worrying.
I have listed many of the concerns about the possible closure of the Keith hospital and I am not alone in being concerned. The township of Keith has given a remarkable display of what I love about rural towns and togetherness. There were 1,200 people present at the community meeting held last week in Keith. For a township with a population not much more than that, you can well imagine that literally the whole town turned up. I really think this is testament to what the closure of this hospital would mean to the town.
There was a rally in Adelaide yesterday at which a lot of people from Keith joined with the people trying to save the Moonta and Ardrossan hospitals. In addition, some Keith boys are doing their bit to raise awareness. Six youths cycled and jogged for the cause—Ryan Bartlett, Tom Geyer, Lewis Hender and Andrew Cousins are completing the 237-kilometre journey on foot with two younger friends riding beside them. This is the sort of commitment and community spirit that comes from country towns—they all get together and support each other. A Facebook group has been created in a very short time. Its name is Save the Keith hospital and it currently has 1,548 members and that number is growing daily. A petition has also been created with many signatures being added all the time.
If the hospital closes its doors the aged-care beds will also be lost. Currently that would mean that 18 aged-care patients would be homeless. The hospital currently provides an important aged-care service to the community which means that aged-care patients can stay in their local community with their family close by. Once the hospital closes, aged-care patients will have to be moved to areas up to 140 kilometres away, far from their family and the community they were involved in. This will mean additional stress on families, often farming families that plan their lives around the farm and find it near impossible to leave due to their commitments.
Labor went to the 2007 with promises of health reform but produced nothing. They went to the 2010 election promising health reform and Australia believed them. Well, Australia is sadly mistaken. Here we are now and they are making more empty promises that will amount to nothing. Labor cannot be allowed to fool people with their legislation or to lead people to believe it will reduce the time they wait at the doctor’s office or that it will help their community expand its health services. We need to save Keith hospital. (Time expired)
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
2089
Personal Explanations
2089
16:34:00
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
0
0
Mr BILLSON
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr BILLSON
—Yes.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr BILLSON
—The Minister for Trade has again misled the parliament by suggesting that I and the coalition were proposing a government owned bank. This is not true—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Dunkley will resume his seat.
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr Billson interjecting—
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—No, nothing is now on the record. The member for Dunkley can go to where he has been misrepresented.
1K6
Billson, Bruce, MP
Mr BILLSON
—The Minister for Trade has just repeated a statement that I was proposing a government owned bank and sought to introduce backgrounding of a journalist as evidence. It is a false accusation, he is misleading the parliament and he knows the other 20 people—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member will resume his seat.
2089
16:35:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
Minister for Trade
1
0
Dr EMERSON
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—Just now.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—I was quoting directly from the Australian newspaper—quotes given to them by the shadow small business minister. If he believes that he has been misrepresented by the Australian, he—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will resume his seat and we will not have any further revisiting of the MPI.
ADJOURNMENT
2089
Adjournment
Calwell Electorate: Employment
2089
2089
16:36:00
Vamvakinou, Maria, MP
00AMT
Calwell
ALP
1
0
Ms VAMVAKINOU
—I would like to talk about unemployment and some very worthwhile initiatives being undertaken to combat unemployment, youth unemployment in particular, in my electorate of Calwell. Calwell, as you would know, Mr Speaker, because you are my neighbour, has a highly diverse cultural and socioeconomic population. Many initiatives in the electorate are geared at promoting community networking and understanding, which in turn help to improve the employment prospects of our people, in particular our young people.
The 2006 Census shows that 70.9 per cent of people living in Australia were born here and 22.2 per cent were born overseas. In general terms, in Australia about a quarter of people were born overseas, while in Calwell it is about one-third of the population. As with many other parts of Australia, unemployment affects local people from all cultural backgrounds and it is the local groups and networks which play a significant role in trying to address the unemployment situation.
This is where the ongoing efforts of the Hume Interfaith Leaders Network, established in 2001, play a crucial role in developing understanding and harmony across the many faiths and cultures in my electorate. Members of this network include the Christian, Muslim and Sikh communities—communities that are represented very highly amongst the unemployed. The Multicultural Issues Forum is another vehicle aimed at providing a voice for Calwell’s culturally diverse communities. Each forum has a distinct focus, tackling subjects as varied as transport, arts and cultural activities and problem gambling.
My residents of Calwell have also recognised that in order to address the issue of unemployment a combined response from all three levels of government, businesses and the community sector is needed. As a result, earlier this year, the Employment and Learning Committee 3047 was formed to strengthen youth employment opportunities across the Broadmeadows postcode 3047 precinct.
When I launched the 3047 committee in June, most local Job Services Australia agencies, together with Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and Centrelink representatives, Hume council’s neighbourhood renewal officers and the Spectrum Education and Training Centre, had signed up and become members. In partnership with other support agencies, the 3047 committee has recently instigated three local employment projects, with a call to arms challenge, as they put it, to local businesses to support and employ our young people. These three projects are Youth Jobs Front 30 in 47, Jobs on the Go and Change Ur Reflection.
The 3047 committee has been very proactive with the launch of the Youth Jobs Front 30 in 47 jobs campaign. Recently they opened a campaign shop at the Broadmeadows train station and bus interchange to encourage passers by and residents to participate. The campaign will run until 7 December with the target of placing 30 local people aged between 16 and 24 years into jobs within 47 days, hence the ‘30 47’ postcode figure used in the title. I am told by the chair of the project, Maria Langwell, that several jobs have already been found. Ms Langwell is confident that this is just the beginning and that these projects will be successful and set the example of local alliances making a difference to our young people.
The Jobs on the Go and Change Ur Reflection campaigns are youth focused initiatives instigated by the Hume City Council. Jobs on the Go will involve the council actively door knocking employers to create jobs, while the Change Ur Reflections project is focused on a new ‘step-reversal’ approach to employment. The idea is to encourage local fast food outlets to employ young people without the need for a formal interview. While employed the young person will have a mentor to support them and after three months a pathway plan will be discussed. Big name franchises such as Hungry Jacks, Subway and JB Hi-Fi are already on board.
This momentum enhanced the Federal government’s move last year to appoint a Local Employment Coordinator, Mr Ian Barker, to help communities in Melbourne’s north west respond to unemployment. The role works on practical projects such as job drives and creating partnerships that bring players together. (Time expired)
Daniel Morcombe Foundation
2090
2090
16:41:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
0
0
Mr SLIPPER
—I rise to speak about an issue that is dear to all our hearts and that is the protection and safety of our children. 29 October—tomorrow—is a significant and pertinent day for this matter and also the reason I am wearing a red tie. Tomorrow I will also be wearing a red item of clothing. As I mentioned on indulgence just after question time, I was really appreciative of the way the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the House, the Manager of Opposition Business, you, Mr Speaker, the former Prime Minister and so many other members wore an item of red to indicate their solidarity with the aims and goals of the Daniel Morcombe Foundation, which seeks to promote protection, safety and opportunity for our children. As a father of two children, I am acutely aware that the protection of young people in a civilised society is particularly important.
This issue of child safety has been promoted with great commitment by Denise and Bruce Morcombe, who lost their son Daniel on 7 December 2003. Daniel was waiting at a bus stop to go Christmas shopping and get his hair cut. He never made it to the shops and he never returned home. His disappearance and suspected abduction and murder are the subject of a coronial inquest that started recently, on 11 October, and resumed this week. Denise and Bruce have sat through all testimony so far—which must be a challenge—and it is expected that some key persons of interest will give their testimony throughout the hearings. Denise and Bruce are determined to sit through everything, no matter how sensitive and emotional.
Tomorrow, Friday 29 October, is ‘Day for Daniel’, a commemorative day that aims to highlight the child safety message, the work of the foundation in spreading that message and also the ongoing quest for answers to the disappearance of Daniel Morcombe. The idea of Day for Daniel is for us to wear an item of red clothing to draw attention to this matter, because that is the colour of the T-shirt Daniel was wearing the day he disappeared. I have contacted all senators and members and all Queensland state members of parliament to inform them of this day and to encourage them to get involved, become aware of the issue and wear something red to add our collective political voices to this important commemoration. In 2010 in a society like Australia, which is a prosperous country, we really do have an obligation to make sure children are safe and secure. It is important that young people are able to go shopping, are able to catch a bus, without being subjected to the horrendous fate apparently suffered by Daniel Morcombe.
I really admire the Morcombe family because they have set aside their grief to make sure that other children do not suffer the fate of their son Daniel. They are people who have made it their life’s work to highlight this important issue right throughout Australia. It is vital that we get behind the Morcombe family, and the fact that so many people right around Australia celebrate the Day for Daniel is an indication that as a community we say ‘enough is enough’. Bruce and Denise are champions of the cause of child safety, and their relentless energy has ensured that the child safety message and the need to safeguard our children is being heard loudly, clearly and frequently.
The disappearance of Daniel Morcombe shocked the Sunshine Coast, the state and the nation. Bruce and Denise are true heroes of our community, and I want to commend them for their ongoing good work. On behalf of the foundation, on behalf of the Morcombes and on my own behalf I want to thank members for their very strong support. I was enormously humbled when I saw a sea of red when I entered the chamber. It made me proud to be a member of the parliament. It made me proud to be Australian.
Newcastle Electorate: Youth Achievements
2092
2092
16:46:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
1
0
Ms GRIERSON
—I acknowledge the member for Fisher’s comments. It is a day for Daniel and for children everywhere in Australia, and I applaud the courage of his parents.
I rise also to acknowledge the spirit and dedication of the youth of Newcastle, in particular five young Novocastrians who have excelled in their chosen fields: the captain of the under-19 Young Socceroos, Ben Kantarovski; Jessica Legge, from Lambton High School; Marni Jackson, from Renew Newcastle: and the X Factor brothers, Luke and Joel O’Dea. Each of these individuals has proven themselves to be a strong role model in our local community and beyond.
Our Young Socceroos went down 3-2 in the final of the Asian Football Confederation under-19 championships in China earlier this month, and I would like to congratulate them for their achievement. Although the Socceroos were unlucky not to come home with the trophy, the winning side from North Korea had conceded just one goal prior to the final, and the final score is a testament to our team’s tenacity. While I commend the hard work of the entire team, I want to pay particular tribute to the captain, Ben Kantarovski, from my electorate in Newcastle. In The Roar it was written:
… captain Ben Kantarovski was a colossus throughout the entire tournament …
But Ben has been a colossus, both on the field and off, since he was signed to the Newcastle Jets A-League squad at the age of 15. His commitment to both his studies and his sporting achievements is highly commendable, and he is a role model for the young people of Newcastle. Ben completed the HSC last year, sitting a number of exams just before taking the field in A-League matches against the Brisbane Roar and the Central Coast Mariners. Ben will lead the Young Socceroos in Columbia next year, and I wish him and the team the very best of luck. I also would like to wish the new owner of the Newcastle Jets, Nathan Tinkler, well, and I thank him for supporting the Jets and creating opportunities for the people of Newcastle, now and into the future.
Jessica Legge is an example of what can be achieved through hard work and dedication. Last year Jessica was the NSW swimming team captain at the School Sport Australia championships, where she placed 1st in the under-19 categories of the 400 metres individual medley, the 200 metres individual medley, the 200 metres butterfly, the 200 metres breaststroke, the 100 metres breaststroke, and the 50 metres breaststroke—a very flexible and successful swimmer. She also placed 4th in the under-19 50 metres and 100 metres butterfly and she was subsequently awarded the School Sport Australia championship award in swimming. I was pleased last year to present Jessica with one of my Commonwealth sport achievement awards after she won a gold medal in the 200 metres individual medley at the Australian Youth Olympic Festival. This year she was the 17 years age champion for Lambton High, City Zone, the Hunter School Sports Association and the New South Wales Combined High Schools Sports Association. At school this year Jessica was a mentor and activity organiser as part of the Premier’s Sporting Challenge girls in sport program. Jessica is not only achieving herself; she is helping others to be active and creating an environment in which they also can achieve. But it has not been easy for her, and Jessica has been training for around 18 hours each week for many years. Well done.
But it is not just in the sporting arena that Novocastrians are kicking goals. Renew Newcastle has recently been awarded the best organisation award as part of the 2010 Newcastle Business Club awards. Marni Jackson accepted the award on their behalf, and I would like to put on the record my congratulations to Renew Newcastle and, particularly, to her. As the Renew Newcastle website has said:
Marni Jackson has wielded the safety pins, the spreadsheets, the gaffa tape and the handkerchiefs for a number of Newcastle-based creative projects.
For many years she has worked hard to instil a sense of culture in the heart of Newcastle, activating over 40 empty shops and spaces with creative industries and arts related activities. Thank you, Marni.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the achievement of the songwriter and musician duo, brothers Luke and Joel O’Dea, who have made it into the top 12 of the X Factor. Joel has said:
We bring our own thing to the table, we have an identity and we have songs.
I am very proud to represent the people of Newcastle who, like Joel and Luke, continue to bring something different, something real, to the table. My electorate has a distinct identity, a distinct culture of egalitarianism and opportunity, and I place on the record my congratulations and pride at the achievements of all Novocastrians.
In the last few seconds I have I would also like to congratulate The Junction Public School on its 150 years of education, serving children and serving excellence. I want to thank them for all the work they put into the celebration last week.
Bennelong Electorate: Housing
2093
2093
16:50:00
Alexander, John, MP
M3M
Bennelong
LP
0
0
Mr ALEXANDER
—Over the past few years my electorate of Bennelong has been detrimentally impacted by social housing and other federal policies, leading to overdevelopment without proper approval processes and overwhelming the existing infrastructure. In particular this has led to overcrowding in multioccupancy developments in zones established for single residences, leading to an overuse and overload of water, sewerage, public transport, roads and other essential amenities.
The government’s stimulus package funding has been the direct catalyst for the badly developed social housing projects throughout Bennelong. This policy has empowered the state government to bypass the local council’s zoning design control plan and the normal DA processes that should advise residents of what is to be built and give them a chance to lodge an objection. This fundamental democratic right has been stripped from my constituents. There were many losers in this outrageous disregard of our community. Those occupying social housing were advised that they would have to move, sometimes given as little as 30-days notice. Those who would move into the new projects, which were distinct from the surrounding housing, would be identified as the beneficiaries of social housing and stigmatised by that label.
The social housing projects that have been built often contain over 20 apartments, with fewer than five car parking spaces. This will no doubt result in danger, especially for children, because of the decreased space for parking in the surrounding area and even more congestion on the roads. The home values of adjoining properties have, at times, been devastated to the point where young couples have lost all equity and, at other times, long established families have had their only asset decimated in value. Bennelong is a diverse community in every way, and nothing that I have said should be interpreted as people not wanting to provide appropriate social housing for those in need. As one of my constituents eloquently put it: ‘It’s not the people; it’s the projects!’
Some people who are in need of social housing may be suffering a lack of self esteem, a loss of confidence. It is at this time that it is most critical that they do not suffer any indignation by being identified as in need. Most of these good people simply want a hand-up, not a hand-out. They want to integrate, just like any other member of the community, with an eventual aspiration to purchase their own home in the community. Building a new class of social housing that is substandard in construction makes it immediately distinguishable from the surrounding housing and fails at this important goal. As a result, organisations like RAID, MARS and CAPO have been formed and quickly pushed to the margins by our state and federal Labor governments. Here, in this parliament, their voice is heard.
While these issues mentioned are of a serious nature they are insignificant compared to the destruction of our community’s democratic rights to have their elected officials protect their community and their homes. Big government in Canberra can not have the facility to know, or to be intimately sensitive to, the issues that surround a development in Catherine Street in Ryde, for example. These rights belong in the hands of the local community and administered by their locally elected officials.
Compounding this problem is the reckless way the federal government has recently interfered with the rail infrastructure plans for New South Wales, offering $2.1 billion to complete the Epping to Parramatta Rail Link. This is in direct conflict with their state government counterparts, who have spent millions of dollars on infrastructure analysis to determine the needs of Sydney. This gave far greater priority to the construction of the north-west link, which would better alleviate the pressures on Bennelong, followed by the south-west link. The only motivation that could be reasonably deduced from this reckless and cynical offer was that the Epping to Parramatta Rail Link would impact on five marginal seats. The people of Bennelong will not be bought. They demand proper planning before this link is constructed. The Australian people expect better from our government.
Health
2094
2094
16:55:00
D’Ath, Yvette, MP
HVN
Petrie
ALP
1
0
Mrs D’ATH
—I rise to talk about the importance of health reform to members in this place and the other place. We know that prior to this parliament being dissolved in July of this year that the Rudd government had already many health initiatives underway. The government had already commenced GP training places and had provided funding for over 1,000 new university places for nurses every year. We were already upgrading the emergency departments of 37 hospitals around the country and delivering new elective surgery equipment and operating theatres for 125 hospitals. We had already delivered more than 62,000 extra elective surgery procedures. We had commenced rolling out our GP superclinics across this country—36 new superclinics. We were providing incentives for doctors to work in rural and remote communities and we had increased aged care places by nearly 10,000. We introduced a health check-up for every four year old and the Medicare Teen Dental Plan.
Since the election in August this year, the Gillard government has not stood still. We have continued to move forward on health reform in this country, with such initiatives as further funding for clinical training days for local medical nursing and allied health professionals. This initiative provides more support for our local health and medical professionals in our own communities; it will provide funding for up to 27,099 more clinical training days in the electorate of Petrie. In total, this amounts to 1.2 million additional training days annually—an increase of 23.4 per cent compared to the 2009 baseline. There are 448 projects across 41 universities and over 700 clinical training providers. The training will occur across a variety of locations and professional settings—for instance, 60 per cent of the providers will be from the non-government private sector and 41 per cent will be placement days in a priority setting such as aged care, dental care, mental care, primary health care and community based services, and 37 per cent of the additional days will be in rural and remote areas.
We have announced an $800 million boost for remote and regional health services. This has resulted in 42 organisations around Australia receiving funding of more than $8.3 million for health infrastructure projects under the fourth round of the government’s National Rural and Remote Health Infrastructure Program. In addition, we have opened consultation on the Alcohol-Free Community Sponsorship Fund to see what we can do about dealing with the national binge drinking problem that we have in this country. This is in line with a commitment of $103.5 million for the National Binge Drinking strategy. Today, the Minister for Health and Ageing has announced the commencement of the process for delivering another 28 new GP superclinics to local communities around Australia, with an extra $233 million investment in primary health care. I particularly praise this announcement because my community—as one of the areas in which a superclinic is being built; it is due to be completed by June 2011—knows the benefits that will come from it, with primary health care and specialist services but, most importantly, training of GPs and medical professionals in the area. That is not currently occurring. Of course, we have other important initiatives in e-health where we have specialists coming from around the country to a conference in November to talk about the importance of introducing e-health across our health system.
Just this week, we saw two important bills introduced into this House—landmark reforms for the funding of the health system under the health reform agenda. We saw, unfortunately, the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2010. I spoke on this bill back in October 2009. I was proud to get up in this House and speak in support of this bill. I was very disappointed to see this bill back before this House and being debated again this week. I say to the members on the other side and to the senators who are still to consider these important pieces of legislation, these important reforms in health, that they need to support them.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted.
2095
17:00:00
House adjourned at 5.00 pm
NOTICES
2095
Notices
The following notices were given:
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr Katter
to move:
That this House:
-
resolves that it will oppose any sale of the Australian Securities Exchange that would provide majority foreign ownership; and
-
notes that such a sale would not merely involve the ASX as an asset, but may hand over to a foreign corporation the regulatory function inherent in a stock exchange.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
to move
That this House:
-
expresses its concern that the Government’s deadline to have the national curriculum available for implementation from January 2011 will result in a substandard curriculum; and
-
requires the Government to delay the implementation of the national curriculum until January 2012 for K‑10 in the areas of English, maths, science and history.
2010-10-28
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 9.43 am.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
2096
Constituency Statements
Aston Electorate: Rail Infrastructure
2096
2096
09:44:00
Tudge, Alan, MP
M2Y
Aston
LP
0
0
Mr TUDGE
—Yesterday a public transport forum was held at the City of Knox in Wantirna South in my electorate. Unfortunately I was unable to attend that forum because of parliamentary sittings. One of the issues that were discussed was the issue of the Rowville rail link. Had I been at that forum I would have expressed my very strong support for the plans. The plan for the Rowville rail link is for it to go from Huntingdale via Monash University to Stud Park in Rowville—about 12.3 kilometres.
In 2004 the Knox City Council commissioned a prefeasibility study into it, and what they concluded was that, if such a rail link were put in place, it would take the equivalent of a lane of traffic off the Monash Freeway. It would offer residents in Rowville a 30-minute commute to the CBD. They also found there would be very little provision required for the acquisition, because most of the alignment would be on the median strip of North and Wellington roads, and of course property acquisition is often one of the very large costs associated with rail extensions. They suggested there would be considerable economic benefits, including employment generation and the development of Rowville’s potential as an activity centre linked to Monash and to the jobs, educational and leisure opportunities of inner Melbourne. They suggested at the time it would cost up to about $420 million, bearing in mind that that is a few years old now.
This rail link has been on the agenda since 1969, when it was part of the Melbourne transport plan. But the key next step to make this happen is to do a full economic and engineering feasibility study. This is estimated to cost about $2 million. The state Labor government promised such a study back in 1999 but broke that promise. But I am very pleased that the state opposition have announced that, if they are to be elected in a few weeks time, they will institute that feasibility study and conduct it within the first 100 days of being in government, which is terrific news. The Greens have also supported it. The only party that has ruled it out is the state Labor Party.
We do need this feasibility study, and if it is conducted I am confident that it would come up positive. If it does, then I will be advocating very strongly for the rail link to be fully funded. And if the federal government is going to put federal dollars into urban rail projects then I will be advocating for some of that money to put into the Rowville rail link. It is a necessary part of our outer eastern infrastructure. It will take cars off our roads and ease congestion and it would be a very good asset for outer eastern Melbourne. (Time expired)
Griffith Electorate: Daniel Morcombe Foundation
2096
09:47:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
0
Mr RUDD
—Tomorrow, 29 October, is the Day for Daniel, which remembers Daniel Morcombe. Daniel, as anyone familiar with these tragic events would know, was a wonderful teenager full of life who went missing in December 2003. For the Sunshine Coast community, the shock of such a horrific and yet unresolved event is still evident today. For all of us who are parents, all of us who are members of families, these are the tragedies that we hope will never strike us or any family, because all children deserve protection in every way possible. They deserve to be protected not just by their families but by their communities. They deserve to be educated also on how to protect their personal safety.
The Daniel Morcombe Foundation works to educate children about personal safety and to continue the search for Daniel. The foundation is run by Daniel’s parents, Bruce and Denise Morcombe, and a board of very dedicated committee members. In 2009 it is believed that 500,000 schoolchildren participated in education activities around personal safety as a result of the foundation’s efforts. I am sure that this year the important work of the foundation will be just as successful. The foundation is a proud reflection of the close community that is the Sunshine Coast in Queensland—a community that, having grown up in that part of the world myself, I still call home. I also wish to acknowledge the Sunshine Coast Daily, a strong supporter of the Sunshine Coast community and a strong supporter of the foundation. The Sunshine Coast Daily has helped not only to raise awareness of Daniel’s disappearance but also to support the ongoing activities of the Daniel Morcombe Foundation.
On Friday we wear red as part of the Day for Daniel activities. Today, as the last sitting day of the week, many of us are also wearing red. My sincere thanks go to the Deputy Speaker, the member for Fisher, for his ongoing support of Daniel’s family and of the work of the foundation and for bringing this matter to the proper attention of the Australian parliament. Today and tomorrow, as they have been throughout every year since 2003, my thoughts will be with Daniel, his parents, Denise and Bruce, and his brothers, Dean and Brad. This is an event which should not fall on any family in our country and our thoughts and prayers continue to be with them.
Cowper Electorate: Riverside Drive Upgrade
2097
2097
09:50:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
0
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—I rise to draw the attention of the parliament to a vital road project in my electorate which urgently requires funding assistance. The project is the upgrade of Riverside Drive in Nambucca Heads. This is a high-priority project for the Nambucca shire to address safety concerns about the security of the road. The safety concerns relate to the destabilisation of a section of road which is now the main entrance into Nambucca Heads and is a high-profile area for residents and visitors alike. The section of road between the tourist information centre and the northern entrance to Woodville Street has shown signs of instability for many years, and in 2009 council engaged a company to undertake a geotechnical assessment of the road itself. Most of the sections of the road were given a hazard rating of ‘possible failure’, with large sections rated as ‘likely to fail’ and one section rated as ‘almost certain to fail’. The road carries traffic in excess of 6,000 vehicles per day.
The upslope embankments are also unstable and lined with local residents’ homes. Sections slip on a regular basis in reasonably heavy rainfall events. Stabilising solutions are quite limited because of the presence of privately owned residences and involve rock nailing, gabion walls and shotcreting. Fixing this section of road is urgent because of motorists’ safety and the potential for damage to private property. But the Nambucca shire council does not have the financial resources to address this problem as a single works project. The council has a relatively small rate base but a large geographical area. The council’s only option will be to address small sections in order of risk over many, many years. Resuming private property is simply too expensive. This creates a lot of frustration for local residents and the business community.
The council has advised me that $5 million is required to fix this 250-metre section of road. Such assistance would enable council to restore both the road and the upslope. After discussions with Mayor Rhonda Hoban, I have taken the opportunity to write to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Having secured a commitment from the coalition during the recent federal election campaign, it would be very welcome if this roads project could receive bipartisan support. The last thing we want to see is a major accident as a result of government inaction. This road project is a worthy priority because it is a safety issue. Motorists, residents and visitors to Nambucca Heads will be at risk until Riverside Drive is fixed. I would therefore welcome the support of the members opposite and commend the project to the parliament.
Cunningham Electorate: Big Heart Enterprise
2098
2098
09:52:00
Bird, Sharon, MP
DZP
Cunningham
ALP
1
0
Ms BIRD
—I want to report to the House a visit that I made to an excellent new initiative in my electorate. It was very sad for the whole community when Pacific Brands announced that they were closing their operation at Bellambi in my electorate, which was a King Gee site. It was a significant employment focus for that particular suburb and there are a range of suburbs around there that have particular issues around unemployment and disadvantage. Overall, it was a very disheartening outcome and a disheartening message.
Very happily, under the federal government’s Get Communities Working stream of the Jobs Fund initiative, Mission Australia have been funded to provide one of their Big Heart enterprises at that site. I went out to visit and meet with them only a few weeks ago and it is a tremendous initiative. What they do at this particular site is recycle mattresses. I met 14 trainees who were there and who were the target of the employment component of the funding stream. Five of them were Indigenous trainees, there was a trainee with a disability—he was quite profoundly deaf—and there were some mature age people being retrained. All of them were just thrilled to have the opportunity that they had at this facility. I want to acknowledge the manager there, who I met, Andrew Douglas, who is very committed to a broad range of recycling. They do recycling of computers and provide very cheap and reliable computers for struggling families through the shop there. There is also the mattress-recycling facility, and they are looking at expanding into other options. So it is a good environmental message, it is a good employment message and it is a good social enterprise. It was a real thrill to join them for the day.
They are being led in this particular project at the site by Lyn Watkins, who has been known to me for a long time as a tremendous and enthusiastic champion for the long-term unemployed. She introduced me to the trainees and the trainers and showed me around the site, and it was very, very encouraging. They use the foam and sell that to Dunlop, who produce carpet underlay with it. The material wadding in it is used to stuff punching bags, so that becomes a useful side product, and the steel heads go to a local steel fabrication company that uses them. So they are taking what can be a cumbersome, problematic piece of waste—the mattresses—and making some tremendously useful products, giving great training and employment opportunities to some of our most disadvantaged job seekers, getting them into the job market and doing it, as these organisations always do, with great professionalism and enthusiasm. I wish them a long and prosperous corporate life in that area. (Time expired)
Solomon Electorate: Housing
2099
2099
09:55:00
Griggs, Natasha, MP
220370
Solomon
CLP
0
0
Mrs GRIGGS
—I rise today to discuss the future of the suburb of Eaton in Darwin—or, as locals call it, RAAF Base Winnellie. Darwin, and indeed the Northern Territory, is currently experiencing the worst housing crisis in its history, courtesy of an incompetent Henderson Labor government, yet here we have 395 perfectly good houses owned by the Department of Defence and identified as excess, around 125 of which are currently sitting vacant. It is absolutely ridiculous that this could be allowed to happen.
The suburb of Eaton, its residents and its economic life have always been integral to Darwin. The local retailers are feeling the pinch, and Ludmilla Primary School is losing students. This will only get worse as more families are relocated to the more modern houses further away in the new suburb of Muirhead, where the Gillard Labor government, through its member for Lingiari, said that the average house price of $750,000—if the neighbouring suburb of Lyons is anything to go by—is perfectly affordable. Well, it is not. The excuses of property age and land use are simply not sustainable given the bizarre decision that has been taken to relocate some of these houses which need to be recertified and upgraded, when these same houses could be upgraded on site and then made available to employed people who have to sleep in their cars because they cannot afford a house in my electorate.
The local residents are now coming together in a display of community spirit that will demonstrate how important this issue is. The Save Eaton campaign has now been formally created. It has a new website, located at www.saveeaton.com, and a community committee that includes community members like Northern Territory Shelter, the Ludmilla school council, the local newsagent and the local supermarket owner. More importantly, it has the impassioned support of the defence families who themselves do not wish to be moved out of their homes, as well as other defence families who have advised me that they would rather have the opportunity to live closer to the RAAF base and also the city. This group is planning to hold a public meeting in the first week of December, and I am sure the defence department would be well advised to listen carefully to what the residents have to say. Mr Speaker—Mr Deputy Speaker; I am sorry—you are going to hear a lot about this issue from me.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Thank you for the promotion!
220370
Griggs, Natasha, MP
Mrs GRIGGS
—You are going to hear a lot about this issue from me, as I am committed to supporting my community and holding this government to account.
Bass Electorate: Hospitals
2099
2099
09:58:00
Lyons, Geoff, MP
M38
Bass
ALP
1
0
Mr LYONS
—Three local health and hospital networks are the only acceptable model for service delivery in Tasmania. I spoke on the National Health and Hospitals Network Bill earlier this week in the chamber, but I feel it is important to make it very clear just how important it is that Tasmania have three local networks. Tasmania has three very distinct regions, and it is imperative that each region manage the budget and service delivery of its own health and hospital network, one of which would fall in my electorate of Bass.
There has been much discussion in Tasmania about the best model. Well, it is simple. The best model is three localised networks. Anything else would be unacceptable to the people of Tasmania. We cannot allow a group of bureaucrats in Hobart to deliver their own power base by creating a single-network system in our state. This is not what the community wants, it is not what allied health professionals want, it is not what nurses want, it is not what doctors want and it is not what works best.
The Tasmanian state government needs to start listening carefully to the people of Tasmania and to the professionals working in the area. Tasmania requires the implementation of three health and hospital networks that are funded nationally and run locally, managed at the lowest possible level where they have full information and where the needs of the community are best known. No other model is acceptable.
I worked as a manager in a small country hospital until the Liberals in Tasmania sacked the boards. I then worked in a regional structure and, again, the Liberals sacked those boards. Then I worked under a state model, which disempowered local providers, divided service delivery and created silos of power which increased costs and created queues. The statewide plan isolated services, which led governments in their ignorance to split services between different ministers. It is possible for some primary and community services to close their books when they run out of budget; it is impossible for emergency departments to close their doors. So it makes sense to regionalise all services so that the best care is the priority.
I call on the Tasmanian state government to implement three health and hospital networks. The Tasmanian government should engage in consultation with all stakeholders so that the best outcome is achieved. Allied health professionals want regional management, nurses want regional management, doctors want regional management and the public will insist on regional management. Having worked in all three areas I can tell you that the only way to deliver effective services in health is through regional management and power at the local level and that the only way to save money in health is to deliver services locally.
Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program
2100
2100
10:01:00
Ley, Sussan, MP
00AMN
Farrer
LP
0
0
Ms LEY
—I would like to bring to the attention of the House that this week the Australian parliament plays host to 15 members of the Australian Defence Force participating in the second part of this year’s ADF Parliamentary Program. Since its inception in 2001 the ADF Parliamentary Program has provided parliamentarians with an opportunity to undertake attachments to the ADF in order to gain firsthand experience of life in the armed services of this country. In August this year I spent time in the Solomon Islands with RAMSI, the Regional Assistance Mission Solomon Islands, and I learnt a lot. In 2003 the program was expanded to undertake an exchange element, offering selected ADF members of all ranks the opportunity to experience one week in the parliament, observing the work of government and participating in the daily work schedule of parliamentarians. This week, 15 ADF members from the Army, Navy and Air Force are being hosted by senators and members of parliament. Participating ADF members represent a diverse range of specialist skills, expertise and experience and come from all corners of the country. This year the program also includes one member—and let us all make her welcome—Major Anastasia Roberts, who is an exchange legal officer from the British army currently serving with the Australian Army’s Headquarters Forces Command at Victoria Barracks in Sydney. This week my office is playing host to Major Micah Batt, who is currently employed as a staff officer at the Headquarters Joint Operations Command at Bungendore. Major Batt has indicated that the opportunity to exchange information in such a unique fashion provides ADF members with the chance to develop a deeper appreciation of the functioning of government as well as the interrelationship between Defence and the parliament. ADF personnel in the parliament this week are working with senators and members from across the parliament and are well placed to build on the knowledge learnt through the program to better advise, serve and support government intent now and into the future.
The first member for Farrer, David Fairbairn, elected in 1949, was one of the many ex-servicemen who came to this place post World War II, bringing with them a wealth of experience and knowledge about the defence forces—knowledge which was no doubt brought to bear in parliamentary debates, decisions and policies. We have lost much of that influence and expertise over the years and that is why this program is so important.
Finally, on the evidence of this week, Major Batt did suggest to me that, if the Speaker were looking for any assistance in managing the House during question time on a daily basis, he would be happy to provide the name of a reliable regimental sergeant major, to undertake extra drill sessions with unruly members of the House.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—I welcome members of the Defence Force to our Main Committee gallery.
Wills Electorate: Schools
2101
2101
10:04:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
1
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—Coburg, which is situated in the heart of the Wills electorate, needs a year 7 to year 12 open entry government high school. During the 1990s, the City of Moreland had a large number of schools shut by the Kennett Liberal government. Following the announcement by the Edmund Rice Educational Foundation that it would close the St Joseph Secondary School campus in Pascoe Vale by 2010, I arranged a Wills education forum. Since the forum, I have announced the allocation of more than $100 million for local primary and secondary schools to undertake both minor and major infrastructure and refurbishment works. But I acknowledge that improving local education access must also include constructing new facilities in new locations where there is demand. There is demand in Coburg for a new high school and that demand should be met.
Earlier this year, to its credit, the Victorian government established a task force to investigate local demographics in Coburg and surrounding suburbs and the demand for the establishment of a new secondary school. The task force’s report, handed down last week, clearly shows that demand generated from record local population growth will exceed the supply of places at local secondary schools by 2021. The report shows indeed that by 2016 more than 200 students will miss out on a place in years 7 to 9, with the predicted shortfall in places in 2021 forecast to increase to 146 at Brunswick Secondary School, 125 at Coburg Senior High School, 51 at Glenroy Secondary School, 354 at Pascoe Vale Girls Secondary School and 53 at Strathmore Secondary School.
Local families want a local high school in Coburg. The forecast 13½ per cent increase in the local population by 2031, the forecast increase in the number of young people, the numerous short-sighted school closures in Moreland over the years and the incredible persistence of the ‘High School for Coburg’ parents underscores the legitimacy of their claim. The ‘High School for Coburg’ parents have recommended, first, that an implementation task force be set up in February next year to plan for the establishment of at minimum a year 7 intake at Coburg Senior High School in 2012 and that the minister for education commences initial discussions on the task force makeup immediately after being sworn in; and, second, that the Victorian government and the department build on the really good work being done at the Coburg Senior High School by making financial provision for the establishment of, at minimum, a year 7 intake in 2012 at the Coburg Senior High School with the aim of having full open access secondary provision in 2014, thereby creating more education opportunity for the greater Coburg community.
I support those recommendations. Students going to the Coburg West Primary School, Coburg Primary School, Coburg North Primary School, Pascoe Vale Primary School, Pascoe Vale North Primary School and other local schools need to have a clear secondary school to go to. (Time expired)
McPherson Electorate: Palm Beach Post Office
2102
2102
10:07:00
Andrews, Karen, MP
230886
McPherson
LP
0
0
Mrs ANDREWS
—I have been advised that Australia Post intends to close the Palm Beach Post Office as soon as 26 November this year. This will be a great loss to the residents and businesses of Palm Beach. My office and I have been inundated with comments from local residents and businesses on this issue in the four days since the announcement was made. These comments range from disappointment to absolute outrage. The people of Palm Beach are passionate about ensuring that their community’s current infrastructure is maintained and local businesses rely upon the services offered by the post office to conduct their business.
A closure of the Palm Beach Post Office will impact particularly on the senior residents of Palm Beach, those without personal transport and the local business community. And this is at a time when none can afford that to happen. I will be meeting with the area manager and regional manager of retail sales and services for Queensland from Australia Post tomorrow morning. I will be putting forward the argument that Palm Beach needs its post office to remain open. I will also be taking that opportunity to ask for further detail. That detail will include when the decision was made to close the post office, what alternatives to closing the post office were considered before the decision was made and what community consultation occurred prior to the decision being made. I note that I was not advised until Friday, 22 October of the impending closure. I understand that the reason put forward by Australia Post for the closure of the post office is that there has been a decline in customer numbers. However, my constituents advise that the Palm Beach Post Office is always busy and the facility is certainly not sitting idle. This has been my own experience.
I will also be joining with my state colleague the member for Currumbin, Jann Stuckey, and the Creek to Creek Chamber of Commerce on Monday morning in Palm Beach, along with local residents and businesses, to rally against the closure. I encourage any local residents and businesses who feel strongly about this issue to do the same. The public rally will occur on Monday, 1 November starting at 10.30 am at 1045 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach. Once again, I urge all people who are interested in maintaining the Palm Beach Post Office and keeping it open to please attend the rally.
Millennium Development Goals: Child Mortality
2102
2102
10:10:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—I rise to share with the House a birthday party that I attended on 1 August. It was at the Lakes Baptist Church in Gorokan, and it was a Survive Past Five birthday party. The whole of the church community was at that birthday party. It was a celebration of the fact that, in this country, our children do survive past five, but in many developing countries very few children do. It raised the issue of the Millennium Development Goals, particularly goal 4, but at the same time acknowledged the importance of millennium development goal 5 to achieving this outcome.
On this birthday card—and I have over 200 birthday cards that I will seek to table at the conclusion of my contribution to the debate—it highlights that every child around the world should be able to enjoy its fifth birthday and points out that 9.2 million children under five die each year, 22 per cent of these children from diarrhoea and 21 per cent from pneumonia—diseases that are preventable. Millennium development goal 4 aims to reduce child mortality by two-thirds from 1990 levels by 2015. In the card, it says: ‘It saddens me that 18 of the 29 developing countries in our region are not on target to achieve that.’ I must say that it saddens me also. With only five years to go, globally we are less than halfway to achieving this target. Evidence suggests that proven and cost-effective interventions can reduce child death by 60 per cent. The card thanks the government for increasing aid to health to one dollar in every four, but it points out that eventually the signatory would like to see that become one dollar in every two.
Last year I went with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing to PNG. I saw firsthand how Australian aid money was being used to improve the health of children living in the treaty villages there and throughout that area in PNG. I support the sentiments expressed in these cards I have before me today. I thank the Baptist Church in Gorokan for being so concerned about children not only in their local church area but throughout the world, and I seek to table these birthday cards and have them included in the proceedings of the House.
Leave granted.
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ constituency statements has expired.
AUSTRALIAN CIVILIAN CORPS BILL 2010
2103
Bills
R4418
Second Reading
2103
Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by Mr Rudd:
That this bill be now read a second time.
2103
10:13:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—Fifty years ago, on 14 October, US presidential candidate John Fitzgerald Kennedy, campaigning for the 1960 election, stopped by the University of Michigan. History records that it was at 2 am or thereabouts, so obviously candidates for high office have been known to campaign through the night. Kennedy is said to have spoken to about 5,000 students. It was said to be an impromptu speech of just a few minutes duration, but those few minutes launched an inspiring initiative for the United States and ultimately the wider world.
The students were challenged by Kennedy to contribute to an international effort ‘far greater than we have ever made in the past’. This was a call that was transformed into the Peace Corps. According to a report I read last week on the 50th anniversary of that event, within days of Kennedy’s speech a thousand students from the University of Michigan signed up to serve as volunteers. Since the Peace Corps was formally established by the Kennedy administration in 1961, more than 200,000 Americans have served in the Peace Corps in 139 countries. According to the President of the University of Michigan, in an article dated 21 October 2010:
The Peace Corps was a grand experiment that continues to capture the imagination of Americans, with nearly 9,000 volunteers serving in 77 countries around the world. It is rooted in an idealism that for 50 years has transformed both Americans and the global communities they serve …
Many nations around the world have been inspired by the concept of the Peace Corps and it is seems that this grand experiment continues to inspire 50 years on.
The Australian Civilian Corps Bill 2010 establishes the Australian Civilian Corps, which will be used to assist countries in need that are experiencing or emerging from disaster or conflict. The coalition supports this measure with enthusiasm, subject to two reservations being scrutinised by a brief Senate inquiry. The proposed Australian Civilian Corps differs from the Peace Corps in that it has a primary focus on support in the wake of disaster or conflict. Tragically, in recent times, there have been many instances where the work of another civilian corps would have been greatly valued had it existed. Relief efforts following the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami, which claimed the lives of an estimated 230,000 people, principally in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India and Thailand, would have been enhanced by the work of an organised Australian civilian corps, although the scale of that tragedy brought unthinkable challenges. More recently the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile and a spate of natural disasters including tsunamis, earthquakes, floods and storms in various nations could potentially have attracted members of an Australian civilian corps. As we have seen in Pakistan with its floods, large-scale disasters in developing countries can quickly overwhelm the capacity of local authorities. During the crucial aftermath and rebuilding phase, the support of experts can greatly reduce the time it takes for people to repair the damage and start the arduous process of rebuilding communities and infrastructure in their lives.
Importantly, there is also the potential for members of a civilian corps to effect long-term change for the better. For example, agricultural experts may be able to support the development of more efficient farming practices that could lead to greater productivity and economic prosperity in the longer term. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted in his speech, it is not the intention of the Civilian Corps to replace the work of emergency response teams but to supplement and build on their initial work. There is bipartisan commitment to increase Australia’s foreign aid budget to 0.5 per cent of gross national income, in support of the Millennium Development Goals, which will mean an effective doubling of the aid budget. A specialist corps of 500 people which would be in place by 2014 has the potential to play an important role, particularly in nations of our region situated along the so-called ‘ring of fire’.
While the coalition is strongly supportive of the Australian Civilian Corps, I do have a couple of concerns. The explanatory memorandum states that there are no direct financial impacts from the bill. However, AusAID’s Focus Online, under the heading ‘New Australian Civilian Corps to assist in disaster and conflict zones’, states that:
The Australian government will provide $52 million to enable the rapid deployment of Australian civilians into overseas disaster or conflict affected countries.
So this figure needs clarification with regard to the training of corps members as well.
I also seek reassurance from the government regarding the costs of supporting and protecting members of the corps who may be deployed to potentially hostile or dangerous environments. For example, how will security be ensured for civilians operating in post-conflict environments? This is a longstanding issue, but there has been no specific information provided either in the explanatory memorandum or in the speech on this issue by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I think that is a concern for people thinking about volunteering for the Australian Civilian Corps.
My second concern relates to the potential for a conflict of interest involving government employees. The minister’s second reading speech stated that the Director-General of AusAID will be responsible for managing the Australian Civilian Corps and will have the power to engage people to the corps, including the authority to determine remuneration and other terms and conditions. The minister also said that members:
… will be drawn from a register of civilian specialists selected for their technical skills and ability to work in challenging environments overseas.
Given that many of the eligible public sector employees could well be existing staff of AusAID, I believe that this could create potential for a conflict of interest. The Director-General and, through him or her, the staff of AusAID will be responsible for establishing the register of civilian specialists, some of whom may be AusAID employees themselves. Additionally, if AusAID staff were on the register, who would determine whether they were deployed as AusAID staff or as Australian Civilian Corps and what are the implications for AusAID of such an arrangement?
I believe this raises a number of questions that should be addressed prior to the passage of the legislation, so prior to supporting the bill the coalition will seek to refer the bill to a brief Senate inquiry to establish that safeguards will be in place to avoid such conflicts of interest or the potential for them and, obviously, to scrutinise the funding arrangements not only in relation to the $52 million that has been mentioned in AusAID’s online piece but also given that the explanatory memorandum states that there is no financial impact. Therefore, the coalition reserves the right to make amendments to this bill in the Senate, subject to the outcomes of the Senate inquiry. I otherwise applaud the government for this initiative to establish an Australian Civilian Corps in the manner and spirit of the Peace Corps, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary.
2105
10:23:00
Owens, Julie, MP
E09
Parramatta
ALP
1
0
Ms OWENS
—I thank the shadow minister for her contribution to this debate. I have been looking forward to speaking on this bill, the Australian Civilian Corps Bill 2010, since the Australian Civilian Corps initiative was announced back in October 2009 because I know that there are many people in my community who have a very real interest in contributing to help the poor and people in appalling circumstances around the world. I know that many of them will welcome this initiative.
The Australian Civilian Corps will enable the rapid deployment of civilian specialists to countries affected by natural disasters or conflict. It will comprise a register of up to 500 civilian specialists. It will be a register of highly qualified professionals who can use their skills in challenging overseas environments. Such people will be sought from all levels of government and the broader Australian community and they will bring expertise in a range of areas, which will include security, justice, reconciliation, machinery of government, essential services, economic stability, community and social capacity building, and operational management. While the register will be built up over a period of about four years, it is expected that the initiative will be fully operational in 2011. This is very good news for the many people in this country who would seek to contribute through such a mechanism as this one.
The concept within Australia emerged from the Australian government’s 2020 Summit in April 2008, where the summit came up with an idea of a deployable public service and the government agreed to develop a framework to enable the rapid deployment of civilians. This bill very much deals with the framework for employing those people in an overseas environment and how the initiative interacts with their regular employment. It was announced by the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, at the East Asia Summit in Thailand in October 2009 against a backdrop of some terrible disasters around the world, in Samoa, Tonga, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines, in the weeks leading up to the summit, and of course the ongoing challenges and insecurity in Afghanistan. The Australian Civilian Corps will lay the foundations for recovery and future prosperity in countries affected by natural disaster and by conflict and it will advance our reputation and our influence in the international community.
The goal of the Australian Civilian Corps is to enable the Australian government to rapidly deploy civilian specialists to contribute to the stabilisation and recovery efforts in natural disaster or conflict affected areas. The Civilian Corps specialists will be drawn from a range of levels within the community and the public sector but they remain in their regular employment until offered deployment. So there is a similarity in the way it works with the reserves in the Armed Forces, people with civilian skills highly trained in working overseas who remain in their employment until needed and then spent periods of time overseas.
As the shadow minister said, we are not by any means the first country to do this. In fact, there is a long history in countries around the world of having one form or another of a civilian capacity to respond to disaster. Australia joins other members of the international community, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, in establishing the capability for deploying civilian specialists. The shadow minister has already talked at some length about the Peace Corps in the United States, which stimulated and inspired so many young Americans to contribute in lands far from home to people who were in great need. Deployable civilian capabilities have been used to good effect in a range of post-crisis situations around the world, including Rwanda, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bosnia, Iraq, Haiti, Chad, East Timor and the Solomon Islands.
The Australian Civilian Corps will not just work alone; it will engage with international partners who also have deployable civilian capabilities to improve the cooperation and coordination in affected areas. The corps will form strategic partnerships with key international partners and provide better coordination and immediate outcomes on the ground. Again it is a great opportunity for Australia and Australians to cooperate with some of our international partners in this greater participation of civilians in areas of conflict and natural disaster.
The register will comprise about 500 civilian specialists, again personnel sought from all levels of development chosen for their skills in areas such as public administration and finance, law and justice, infrastructure, health administration and community development. We will build the register over four years but the range of expertise on the register will be based on emerging demand, so we can expect over time, as our sense of where we might need to place people changes, that the mix of people on that register will change. It will be flexible to meet demands and it will be regularly updated to reflect current and future needs.
I would expect, again given the number of people I know in my area who would have a great interest in contributing in this way, that it will be quite a competitive recruitment process. It would be a rigorous process anyway, but I suspect it will also be highly competitive. The process will underpin a selection of high-calibre and experienced individuals for the register. It will be based on technical knowledge, qualifications and demonstrated experience, but the participants will also be expected to demonstrate personal attributes appropriate for deployment into difficult environments, such as cross-cultural sensitivity, flexibility, self-reliance and resilience. They will also obviously be expected to meet medical and security checks.
In a recent visit of mine to Afghanistan I spoke at quite some length to our military and aid leaders about the difficulties of working in areas which have great cultural differences. I was aware at that stage that Australia has large numbers of people who have the on-the-ground knowledge of the culture and the language skills necessary to participate and a willingness to go there, as is the case for so many places of conflict or natural disaster around the world. You can see in recent history the number of Australian Pakistanis and Australian Sri Lankans, and Australians from various other places in Asia, who return home during times of conflict to lend their capacity to rebuild. We have great people who are, I know, well and truly looking forward to an opportunity to contribute within such a framework.
This is quite timely for us. It is probably something we could have done some time ago, but again I know that there are many who will be waiting to participate. In many ways this is a nice piece of legislation because it provides a framework for good people to do what good people want to do. So much of our legislation provides frameworks to stop people from doing bad things they want to do or to punish them for doing it. It is always a pleasure to see a piece of legislation that simply provides a mechanism for people to respond to their most noble elements and work with others in need.
In my community I find young people in particular are more and more aware of the circumstances in which people find themselves around the world and more and more aware of how lucky we are here, and they are spending more and more of their own time visiting places where people need great assistance and giving their time for weeks, months or even years. In fact for many young people in my community a period of time working with those in sometimes devastating circumstances in other places of the world very much forms part of their early world experiences. It no doubt contributes to their sense of gratitude for the many things we have in this country which were given to us by people who came before, but it also highlights for many of us just how much need there is. In a place like Australia, where we can be so separated from the world and where our news services do not cover world events to the same extent that many other news services around the world do, it is important that people within our community get a very real understanding of what is happening around the world.
The Civilian Corps will be managed from within AusAID. That was particularly well received in the only submission, which was from World Vision, to the Senate inquiry, which commenced in the last parliament and stopped again with the calling of the election. The general response has been quite positive. It is very important that this initiative works well with other agencies and that there is very good coordination between this initiative and those of other countries. AusAID will be responsible for recruiting the civilian specialists; ensuring that the registered personnel are prepared for deployment; strategic planning for deployments; managing deployments, including logistics, human services and security matters; implementing public communication strategies; and providing support for whole-of-government input and advice. There will be a high-level strategic guidance committee that has oversight of the corps, and representatives from national security, foreign policy and finance departments will play a role on that committee.
This is a wonderful initiative and, as I said, one that I have been looking forward to since 2009 and one that I am going to take great pleasure in announcing to my constituency. I actually announced it last year and made sure that people knew, if they were interested in this, that they could register their interest with AusAID, and they can do that on the AusAID website: ausaid.gov.au. One of the first things to do if you think this might be of interest to you is to go to the AusAID website and register your interest. I am looking forward to making sure that all of my community groups, and many groups in my electorate which have led the charge in ensuring that we keep our eyes on those in great need around the world, know how to get involved. There are many groups in my electorate—some churches, some associations of young people—that have come together particularly around issues such as global poverty. I am going to make sure that they absolutely know that they now have another mechanism by which they can contribute, because I know that the will is there in the community.
So I commend the bill to the House. I am incredibly pleased to have been able to speak on it and I am looking forward to seeing the growth of our Civilian Corps and its capacity to improve the lives of people who need our help perhaps more than anyone else. It is one of the great ironies in the world, I think, that the time when we most need the capacity to improve our own lives is quite often the time when that capacity has been ripped from us by disaster, by grief, by ill health, by poverty or by the grinding lives that people lead.
We in Australia are very generous with our money. We are generous with our things. We are generous with the provision of blankets, tents, rice, seed and wheelbarrows, but we are also generous with our capacity to make a difference. In a country like Australia, our belief in our capacity to make a different is heightened by the kinds of lives we have led—safe lives, well supported. It is absolutely appropriate that we loan to the most desperate people in the world not just our money and our things but our capacity to make a difference. This bill will allow many good people to do just that.
2108
10:38:00
Brodtmann, Gai, MP
30540
Canberra
ALP
1
0
Ms BRODTMANN
—It is a great pleasure to speak today in support of the Australian Civilian Corps Bill 2010. It is particularly timely, too, to reflect on the need for this legislation as we again witness the devastation wrought by natural disaster in our region, with the most recent tsunami in Indonesia. My thoughts are with the families and the poor people there who have experienced such tragedy and the loss of lives. Those tsunamis can be devastating. I remember the PNG tsunami when I was working in Foreign Affairs, and I was greatly affected by the suffering of innocent people—a tremendous tragedy, an unexpected tragedy brought on by nature. It was just dreadful, so I feel for those people. My sympathies are with them.
I have no doubt that Australia will once again take the lead role in ensuring the recovery of this region and we will respond accordingly to the tragedy of the tsunami. I also have no doubt because Australians have a long and proud history of helping those in our region, and indeed around the globe, through tough times like these. We are recognised not only for our short-term emergency relief efforts but also for our ongoing commitment to the sustainable development of these nations.
This bill seeks to carry on this proud tradition, with the establishment of a civilian corps that will provide a new Australian civilian capability and a deployable Public Service to help countries in need and countries in crisis. It is a welcome piece of legislation and will significantly enhance Australia’s assistance to countries emerging from natural disaster or conflict. Australia has a great deal of expertise in this area and many of the people with that expertise live in my electorate. Canberra is home to people with skills in governance, infrastructure development, engineering, public sector reform, financial management, health administration and law and justice. And it is home to people with experience and expertise in the Asia-Pacific region. Every time I go to a party or catch up with my DFAT or AusAID friends I am constantly amazed at the relief and aid work that they are doing throughout the region. As I mentioned in my first speech, my very dear friend Liz O’Neill, who was killed in the Yogyakarta plane crash, was involved in helping families during their grief following the Bali tragedy, helping them through their experiences of the morgues. She was also involved in peacekeeping in Bougainville. I have a number of friends who are involved in helping out the region in both a short- and long-term capacity. From my experience in Defence I know the work that they are doing there. There are many people in Canberra with the expertise, willingness and commitment to help out the region. I am sure that many people will be signing up if this bill gets through.
As I said, many people have worked in disaster recovery and post-conflict areas in Banda Aceh, Afghanistan and Iraq. Many people have also worked on capacity building in Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and East Timor. I also have a number of friends at the ANU, in the Pacific research school there, who are doing great work improving governance, improving financial management and building capacity in the region. Canberra is full of expertise, and I am very proud of the expertise and the willingness of these people to help out those in the region.
The people in my electorate are often called on at a moment’s notice to lend their expertise and skills to those in need and they go willingly. This is because people in my electorate of Canberra, like many others in Australia, want to make a difference. They want to do that at the national and global level, but specifically at the regional level. Many of them are committed to improving peace and stability in the region and working towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. This bill is the end point of an idea proposed at the Australia 2020 Summit. The corps was then announced at the East Asia Summit in Thailand in October last year.
The bill provides for the establishment and management of the Australian Civilian Corps. The corps is a select group of civilian specialists who deploy to countries experiencing or emerging from natural disaster or conflict. Members of the corps will be drawn from a register of screened and trained civilian specialists and will be selected for their technical skills and ability to work in some challenging environments overseas. We have plenty of those skills here in Canberra. Many people I know have worked in very challenging environments. Members of this corps will be selected from all levels of government and from the broader community to provide advice, assistance and capability building in public administration, finance, law and justice, agriculture, engineering and health administration. We will be getting people from consultancies. A number of aid consultancies exist in Canberra, as well as capacity-building consultancies, plus we have the ANU research school and the expertise within the Public Service. So Canberra will be drawing from a very broad base.
The Australian Civilian Corps is designed to support stabilisation, recovery and development planning, with a view towards the long-term viability of countries in need. The important point there is ‘long term’. To this end, it will not be part of the emergency relief phase of a crisis but build on the initial humanitarian efforts to set the foundation for sustainable development and self-reliance. The emphasis there is on ‘sustainable, self-reliance and long term’. It will assist these countries to restore essential services and strengthen their government institutions. It will partner with local communities and will mentor leaders and others to develop their own expertise, to build their own capability in their own country and to become less reliant on short-term aid.
An example of work that could well be done is the deployment of an Australian water and sanitation planner to assist local government officials rebuild water infrastructure following a natural disaster. Another example is an engineer called on to fix a bridge or to build a new road following a natural disaster. An Australian senior government official, with expertise in budget administration, could well be deployed to assist a country with budget control following a conflict. Following some of the recent earthquakes, government infrastructures have basically fallen in a hole, so it is important that we help people get those systems, structures and processes back in place so that the region can be governed effectively, efficiently and according to due process.
The bill seeks to do this in a way that will maximise our already strong commitment to multilateral engagement with our region and our longstanding belief in action taken through the United Nations and other similar bodies. Already, an interim capability has been established consisting of 24 screened and trained civilian specialists on the Australian Civilian Corps register. They have been drawn from multiple government agencies, including the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry just to name a few. Some members are also drawn from non-government partners, such as organisations like RedR, an NGO which provides training and expertise in disaster recovery. These 24 people already have extensive experience and have seen service in East Timor, the Solomon Islands, Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout the South Pacific.
It is planned that this small number will be built up progressively to 500 by 2014. A further round of recruitment is currently being undertaken, targeting specific Commonwealth agencies and non-government sector partners, including Action Aid. A public recruitment round will be conducted in due course. It is hoped that this new capability will be fully operational by next year.
At the moment, the arrangements for employing essentially people from the Public Service come under the Public Service Act. That can be pretty constraining. It does not allow for flexibility. It does not allow for rapid deployment. The beauty of this piece of legislation is that it will enable the Director-General of AusAID to engage civilians as a new category of Commonwealth employee in order to deploy them with the corps. The interim arrangements that we have at the moment are not ideal. They are inflexible and they do not allow for the specific and unique nature of the corps and its work environment. These people need to be readily available, need to be able to deploy quickly and need to be able to be mobilised quickly. Then they need to be able to go into an environment that is often in a pretty bad way, with little infrastructure and little technology and ICT. The current arrangements do not allow that flexibility, that ability to deploy instantly and that ability for these people to get into these difficult and often hard to reach environments quickly.
The bill gives the director-general the remit to tailor a set of terms and conditions for these personnel to match the specific environment that they will be working in. That is very important. Each natural disaster, each area of conflict and each crisis is different. This means a ‘cookie-cutter’ effect should not occur. These people going in should meet the specific requirements of the mission rather than a generic approach.
The bill also provides the opportunity to craft a specific set of values unique to the corps and its environment, as well as better enabling the people selected to be released from their current work duties. That is often difficult. Trying to get experts in the Public Service out of their current circumstances and work environment into a crisis situation can be difficult, especially in terms of managing their work loads. This allows for greater flexibility, particularly for public servants. For consultants, there is a great deal more flexibility and, I imagine, the same applies to academics as well. But it is important that public servants with expertise, particularly in financial management, budget management and law and justice, have flexible enough work circumstances that they can move. It is also worth noting that this bill establishes more flexible and appropriate conditions for the work being undertaken by the employee while still being protected by the Fair Work Act.
This bill sends a strong message to our neighbours that we as a nation are committed to playing our part as good global citizens. It also sends the clear message that Australia is interested in not only short-term humanitarian relief but longer, more sustainable action over time that builds resilience within the world around us. It would be all too easy to forget the people in these countries once an immediate crisis is over. How many people in these countries ask themselves, ‘What happens next? Who will restore water and power? Who will provide the experience to restore good governance? Who will ensure that our financial management is done effectively and efficiently? Who will ensure our budget processes are appropriate?’ It is very important that we provide that expertise and that we can basically say, ‘Australia will help you do that.’ And we will do that through the Australian Civilian Corps.
The Australian Civilian Corps plays a significant part in answering these questions, and this bill seeks to fix those long-term but no less vital issues that impact upon the lives of so many. The bill creates a mechanism for changing people’s lives around the world and I believe we should be immensely proud of it. I fully support it. I fully support it with the experience of having been in Foreign Affairs for quite a bit of my career and also having worked with AusAID, particularly during the early days of the East Timor crisis. I also at that stage filled in as media adviser for the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer. In my time in Foreign Affairs, AusAID, the minister’s office and also Bob McMullan’s office when he was Minister for Trade, I did realise the importance of the role we play in the region. Having attended what was then the South Pacific Forum in the Cook Islands, I do understand the important role we play in the region. We will continue to do that by providing not just short-term relief but long-term assistance through the Australian Civilian Corps. I fully support this bill.
2111
10:52:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
0
Mr RUDD
—in reply—I thank the member for Canberra for her contribution to the debate and her support for the Australian Civilian Corps Bill 2010 and the institution which it seeks to create. Natural disasters and conflict can undo and wind back hard-won development gains across the world and also undermine the prospects for future economic growth. The international community has recognised that more needs to be done in the aftermath of such crises to assist stabilisation, recovery and a return to development.
The idea of an Australian civilian corps came out of the 2020 Summit, held in April 2008. This was convened at the time with a view to harnessing the ideas of the Australian community about what we could do better for Australia in the future. One of the proposals which came forward from that gathering, held here in the Great Hall at Parliament House, was for an Australian civilian corps—namely, how do we do better the task of responding to crises when they occur and bringing together those committed Australian volunteers and others to produce a real effort on the ground which is of substantive benefit to the country in which a natural disaster has occurred? Participants formally proposed the development of an Australian civilian corps.
The government heeded the message and last year at the East Asia Summit in Thailand Australia formally announced the Australian Civilian Corps. The Australian Civilian Corps will be deployed to countries that have experienced or have emerged from a natural disaster or conflict and will support stabilisation, recovery, and development and planning. They will assist crisis affected countries to restore central services and strengthen their government institutions. This initiative will complement Australia’s humanitarian responses and long-term sustainable development efforts. Australia joins other members of the international community, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United States in establishing a capability to deploy civilian specialists abroad at these times of crisis.
Civilian deployments have been used to good effect in a range of post-crisis situations around the world, including Rwanda, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bosnia, Iraq, Haiti, Chad, East Timor and the Solomons. The bill provides for the establishment and management of the Australian Civilian Corps. The corps will be drawn from a register of Australian civilian specialists, selected for their technical skills and ability to work in challenging environments abroad.
I wish to address concerns regarding the selection of AusAID employees to participate in the corps. At this stage, AusAID employees have not been invited to apply for inclusion on the Australian Civilian Corps register. Should AusAID employees be given this opportunity in the future, they will need to undergo the same rigorous recruitment and screening process as other applicants. These processes will be transparent and procedurally fair to ensure that AusAID employees are not favoured in any way.
This register will be built up progressively to 500 by 2014. AusAID will administer the Australian Civilian Corps, in cooperation with other Australian government agencies. The sum of $52.3 million over five years has already been allocated to administer this initiative. This funding will enable AusAID to recruit, screen, train and maintain a register of 500 Civilian Corps personnel that are ready to deploy. It also covers the staffing, administration and corporate overhead costs incurred by AusAID as well as the costs associated with planning and evaluating deployments.
As stated in the explanatory memorandum, this bill does not in itself create any additional costs. The cost of specific deployments, including security and logistical support costs, will be funded from the official development assistance contingency reserve.
The director-general of AusAID will be responsible for managing this program. The bill enables the Director General of AusAID to engage civilian specialists as a new category of Commonwealth employee in order to deploy with the corps. The bill provides for employment arrangements that are specifically designed to suit the unique nature of the corps and its working environment. Amongst other things, the bill provides for a tailored set of terms and conditions of employment, values and a code of conduct for the corps. The bill also facilitates the transition of civilian specialists between Australian Civilian Corps employment and their regular employment, and provides for secondments of Australian Civilian Corps employees to bodies such as the United Nations.
I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Parramatta and the member for Canberra, who have just spoken in the debate, for their positive and thoughtful comments on the government’s proposal contained within the bill. I note the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s comments about the potential for the work of the corps to be broadened, and I welcome the opposition’s general support for the commencement of this initiative. I also look forward to considering the recommendations of the Senate inquiry to be held into the measures of this bill.
The Australian Civilian Corps is an important new capability that will enable Australia to more effectively respond to requests for assistance following natural disasters and conflict. Australia, in responding to natural disasters around the region in the past, has done so primarily through the agency of our official engagement often supported by the Australian Defence Forces engaging other arms of the Australian government. It has often been a matter of frustration across the Australian community that, when people have sought to volunteer and deploy their efforts where they are needed, there is no formal capacity through which that can be done. This Australian Civilian Corps Bill seeks to deal with that concern.
I believe it also reflects well on Australia that we are, through this parliament, progressing this legislation and bringing about this institution. Australia’s standing in the region and the world is often characterised by our ability and our predisposition to roll up our sleeves, get our hands dirty, and help when tragedy strikes around the world and in our own region. This gives effect to that longstanding value which is attached to Australia in the eyes of the world. I therefore commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONNECTING PEOPLE WITH JOBS) BILL 2010
2113
Bills
R4473
Second Reading
2113
Debate resumed from 21 October, on motion by Ms Kate Ellis:
That this bill be now read a second time.
2113
10:59:00
Ley, Sussan, MP
00AMN
Farrer
LP
0
0
Ms LEY
—I am pleased to speak today on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Connecting People with Jobs) Bill 2010. This bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act by increasing the unemployment non-payment period for job-seekers who have received relocation funding under the Connecting People with Jobs program. This legislation will support this pilot program, which is remarkably similar to a pilot program run by the Howard government back in 2005.
Unemployment currently stands at 5.1 per cent seasonally adjusted—ABS September. Whilst unemployment is decreasing, there are many suburbs and towns in Australia where there is still disproportionately high unemployment. There are high numbers of long-term unemployed, and often intergenerational unemployment is a real issue. Welfare dependency is a real concern and it is vital that job-seekers are assisted to take up employment where opportunities present themselves. The alternative is to see job-seekers become further detached from the labour market and more likely to stay on unemployment benefits for the long term.
This relocation pilot will enable people in these areas to move from these areas in order to take up a job. It gives people a chance to move off welfare benefits and into paid employment and ultimately gives them a chance for a better life. This funding can be used to assist in paying for flights, temporary accommodation and removalists. Too often people may be deterred from taking up employment elsewhere as they just cannot bear these re-establishment costs. This pilot aims to help cover the costs.
The coalition maintains that those in receipt of unemployment benefits must recognise that they have a subsequent responsibility to look for work and contribute back to the society that supports them. To this end, those who are supported off welfare and provided with additional funding to assist in their taking up work elsewhere have a further responsibility to do the right thing.
The coalition has long espoused the concept of mutual obligation. The Labor government has done its best to wind back mutual obligation, with job-seekers now only required to undertake an activity such as Work for the Dole after 12 months unemployment. This does nothing to assist job-seekers to gain or maintain work skills. However, it must now be said that this particular legislation is a turn-up for the books as it reminds people of their responsibility. Where job-seekers have been funded by the Commonwealth to assist in their relocation for full-time, ongoing work—in some cases up to $9,000 for this relocation—increasing their non-payment period from eight weeks to 12 weeks if they leave their job within the first six months should provide the necessary disincentive for people. This policy is in line with the coalition’s support for giving people a hand up, not a handout, and we support the bill.
2114
11:02:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
1
0
Ms LIVERMORE
—I am pleased to add my support to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Connecting People with Jobs) Bill 2010. I know that all members of the House would support measures that are about trying to assist unemployed people, particularly those who have been unemployed for a long time, to be given opportunities, given incentives and given assistance to seek work. This legislation recognises that in some cases people will need to be given encouragement and assistance to relocate, to move away from their current home and set up in another part of Australia where there are better job opportunities and more demand for labour. This is something we announced during the election just a couple of months ago. The Connecting People with Jobs initiative is a two-year relocation trial that will encourage 2,000 long-term unemployed job-seekers, I believe people who have been unemployed for 12 months or more, to move from areas of high unemployment and relocate to take up a full-time job or an apprenticeship in a place with greater opportunities.
Those people who are eligible to take part in the Connecting People with Jobs trial will be eligible for $3,000 if they move to a metropolitan area and an additional $3,000—so up to $6,000—if they move to a regional area. Members who, like me, represent regional areas, particularly those that are experiencing skills shortages in many sectors, will really welcome that. There is also recognition that job seekers who are moving with their families will need some added assistance, so there is $3,000 on top of the base rate for those job seekers who are moving with their dependent children. Employers who are participating in this trial will also be given a wage subsidy as part of the encouragement that we are trying to put in place, firstly, for long-term unemployed people to seek these opportunities and, secondly, to add to the incentive for that relocation to take place.
The bill that is before us today does not actually put in place the relocation trial. This legislation puts in place the ‘stick’ part of the ‘carrot and stick’ equation. We have also announced that under the Connecting People with Jobs trial there will be a penalty for people who take up the additional payments to relocate but who subsequently do not continue in that full-time employment. This is based on the principle that compliance is a very important element of our social security system and, where people are given benefits—particularly, in this case, quite substantial incentive payments—those must come with conditions. We are requiring cooperation from people who take up this opportunity and receive those payments. This bill will impose a 12-week non-payment period on those job seekers who leave their full-time employment within six months of starting, either voluntarily or because they are sacked for misconduct. At the moment unemployed people can be subject to an eight-week non-payment period if they leave work without a reasonable excuse, but, given the additional benefits and incentives that are being paid to the 2,000 job seekers participating in the Connecting People with Jobs trial, we are going to extend that non-payment period to 12 weeks to act as a disincentive for people to walk away from jobs after they have relocated.
It is very important to note that this penalty will not be imposed recklessly or without due consideration by Centrelink. Centrelink retain a very important discretion as to whether they reduce or do not impose this 12-week unemployment non-payment period. They will be able to take into consideration matters such as the exact reason for a person leaving a job, whether they will suffer undue financial hardship and whether a person is in a group of people classed as being particularly vulnerable. I think all members would see that this penalty cannot be placed on people as a blanket penalty. We would hope that, if given the opportunity to relocate, people would take that with a good attitude and a positive determination to make it work, but we understand that relocation to a new job and a new home comes with stresses and difficulties, so we have to keep a pretty open mind about how that penalty would be imposed.
Not only do I want to speak on this bill to give my support to something that I think is a very sensible and constructive measure; I also want to talk about it from a local point of view. This trial is about connecting people with jobs. In my own local context I want to talk about connecting people with jobs but also connecting people with communities and with their families. The place that I represent includes a lot of coalmining towns. There are fantastic job opportunities, there is great demand for people to work, but also quite a lot is asked of the people who take up those jobs and work in the coal industry.
Increasingly, the coal industry is being based on fly-in fly-out operations or drive-in drive-out operations. The coalmining towns of the Bowen Basin that have housed the mining workforce, have built strong communities and have raised families for the last 30-odd years, are now starting to stand up and say: ‘This is enough. We want to claim our communities back. We want to speak up on behalf of our coalminers to say to the companies that increasing and exclusive reliance on fly-in fly-out or drive-in drive-out operations is placing a strain on people that has to be recognised. It’s all very well for that money to go into the bank, whether it is on an individual level or a company or even state or national level, but we really can’t ignore the price that some individuals, families and communities are paying in order for the industry to continue to be structured in the way that it is.’
This has really come to a head in the community of Moranbah. People might have even seen this on the 7.30 Report. On Tuesday night there was a terrific story, and I really thank the ABC for the effort and time they have taken to come out to Moranbah to get to know the people there and put the community’s story out there for everyone to see. Moranbah is the community that has really taken the lead in this fight against exclusive fly-in fly-out operations. It is a very strong community, one of the first mining towns that were set up in the Bowen Basin, and I guess it has the critical mass to take a stand.
At issue is BMA—BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance—and their application to start a new mine called Caval Ridge, near Moranbah, and to operate that with a complete fly-in fly-out workforce. Where that is different from what has happened in the past is that all the mining towns have had work camps, donga arrangements, dotted around the Bowen Basin, but they have been primarily for contractors, and this is really the first time that a company have said that they will not make provision for accommodation and will not have anyone permanently located in Moranbah. They are going to run this new Caval Ridge operation as a total fly-in fly-out operation.
I have attended two of the community meetings now. At the first one there were about 300 people; at the second one there were 400 people. There will be another meeting next Wednesday night. I have never seen anything like this in Moranbah, where really all aspects of the community, people from right across the board, have come together. It is the small business people in town, the council, the workers themselves, their families and the union, the CFMEU, all coming together. They are being quite reasonable. They are not saying, ‘You can’t have any fly-in fly-out workers.’ BMA put in an application to the Queensland government initially for the environmental impact statement for this mine on the basis of 30 to 70. They were saying, ‘We’ll have 70 per cent fly-in fly-out and we’ll have 30 per cent located here and provide them with accommodation et cetera.’ The community are being quite reasonable and saying, ‘We accept that,’ but BMA are now going back to the state government and saying, ‘Actually, no, forget the 70-30; we’re going to go with 100 per cent fly-in fly-out.’ So, quite understandably, the small business people are saying: ‘It’s all very well for BMA to want to come and make money out of this community, but we’ve actually invested a lot of our money into our businesses. If you have a complete fly-in fly-out workforce, people are basically just driving past, the money goes out of town and you’re not putting anything back into the community from a business point of view or from a social point of view.’
Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that you are giving me some very generous latitude, and I thank you for that. Particularly when this bill refers to connecting people with jobs, I want to join with the people of my electorate in Moranbah, Collinsville, Dysart and all of the mining towns as they really start to take the fight up to the mining companies and say, ‘Yes, it’s all very well to connect people with jobs, but it can’t be at the cost of their connection with the community and their families.’ We are really starting to see what is happening at the other end with the social problems that occur in places like Mackay and to a lesser extent Rockhampton. I am sure that many people in your electorate on the Sunshine Coast, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, would be starting to participate in a lot of this fly-in fly-out activity. It really is starting to take its toll on what have been terrific, strong communities in my electorate, whether in terms of the number of car accidents, the number of road deaths or the number of broken families that are starting to become the casualties of what otherwise is a prosperous industry that is very important to our country.
So today I want to add my voice to those of the people in places like Moranbah and other communities in the Bowen Basin to say that I think that this is really just the start of this fight. Of course mining towns will continue to work with the mining companies, but they do not want to be exploited by the mining companies; they want some of these social and community dimensions to be taken into account alongside the expansion of this industry. In closing, I note that the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare is here. I commend her for this initiative announced during the election and give my support to this bill.
2117
11:16:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
1
0
Mr ADAMS
—Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, I thank you for assisting me to be here to speak. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Connecting People with Jobs) Bill 2010 puts in place the compliance component of the government’s Connecting People with Jobs proposal. This was an election commitment announced by the Prime Minister on 11 August 2010. I have talked to many training organisations that have had students finish their courses. But then they cannot place them easily, because it takes a fair bit of trust and courage by businesses to take on a youngster that has been unemployed for, maybe, a longer period of time. This is soul-destroying for the younger person who has just finished a good hands-on training program or course but then has to find a job requiring those skills. This often means they have to move away from their support base and travel to other areas. This is an emerging issue within the job market.
The Connecting People with Jobs proposal is an active regional labour market strategy establishing a trial relocation assistance package aimed at connecting job seekers with employment opportunities elsewhere in Australia. The trial is proposed to run over two years from 1 January 2011 and offers additional support to up to 2,000 job seekers who have been unemployed for more than 12 months to relocate to take up an identified ongoing full-time job or apprenticeship. It provides reimbursement of up to $6,000 for actual expenses incurred in relocating to regional areas, or $3,000 for relocation to metropolitan areas. Families with dependent children will have access to an additional $3,000.
To be eligible to participate in this trial, job seekers must come from areas with unemployment rates higher than the national unemployment rate. Job seekers who receive relocation assistance and subsequently leave that position within six months from commencement without reasonable excuse will not be paid unemployment benefits for 12 weeks—up from the current eight weeks—for leaving employment voluntarily. Amendments to social security legislation are required to implement this increased non-payment period.
Employers who employ job seekers who receive relocation assistance will receive a subsidy of up to $2,500 in recognition of the additional support and assistance individuals will receive in the early stages of their employment. This program has a lot of potential and can be of great benefit to the rural sector, which has seasonal shortages. There is an opportunity now for some of the job companies to develop teams of agricultural workers to move around and go to where the work is. Getting young workers who have been unemployed for a long period of time to be job ready is quite a task and needs special programs to equip them not only for work away from the support systems but also to work in groups and in teams.
We have many of those needs in Tasmania in the rural sector, where there is always a need to organise job seekers and working people into organised teams and organised ways, and also to have a period so that those people know where their work is. There are enormous amounts of work in this area getting the fruit off the vines and pruning, but we need to organise it so that it is much easier and better. Getting vegies up, lifting the potatoes, working in the contractors area, using the spud lifters, cutting the cauliflower, cutting the broccoli and getting the sprouts off takes a lot of people. A lot of women are involved in this casual work throughout Tasmania and those crews need to be able to move around and be better organised. We need to pull this together in a much more organised way than we do at the present time. Lots of cherries have been planted in Tasmania, maybe in anticipation that the New Zealanders are going to flood us with apples. In those areas it takes a lot of people to get the fruit off at certain times. But we need to have people who are trained that can continually come around and have a full year of work in an organised way. This can be organised if we take enough effort and put enough time and thought into it. It also means that we need to make sure that modern management practices are used on the employer’s side. I am thinking about fencing contractors and fencers as well. Of course, we have done these things in the past with the shearing industry. For 100 years itinerant workers have taken the wool off the sheep’s back by moving around and working throughout our great nation.
Having an organised structure gives dignity to working people so that they can use their skills, organise their year’s work and know when it is going to happen. Being able to work in that sort of situation is still not organised as well as it could be at this present stage. I am hopeful that programs like the one here may be able to be seen as a way of interface between the employer, the employees and the job seekers. We may need to look at those sometime in the future.
Only recently I was in my electorate in Gagebrook at a graduation of young people who had finished a course of working in environmental considerations and horticulture at a wildlife park where they had gained considerable skills. Just about all of them turned up for the graduation ceremony. But the talk there between employers, who had given them some work experience and work, was about getting that next transfer to a broader spectrum of employers. That was the issue on the table and it needs to be addressed.
I have also experienced the issues in child care in this area. Women who work in the vegetable pick-up areas need child care when the work is available, just as on the coast they need child care when the fleet comes in and when they are splitting the fish, opening scallops et cetera. Getting the right models to fit modern work is one of the challenges that confronts us, and a bill like this is endeavouring to deal with that by connecting employers to employees and job seekers.
So I think the opportunity we have here is good. I understand this program is over several years and that it will be monitored in that time. I think that is a good thing. I think there are a number of pluses and a lot of things we can gain from it. This program of course shows very much the government’s commitment to social inclusion, which is important in all regional development and regional development policy that exists in our country, ensuring that isolated communities can develop some self-help schemes to help put things in place.
So I really support this program. I hope that we can make it work and I look forward to being able to look at broader aspects of this process of connecting job seekers and employers and those that are seeking a skills base. I certainly give my full support to this bill.
2119
11:27:00
Owens, Julie, MP
E09
Parramatta
ALP
1
0
Ms OWENS
—I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly on Social Security Legislation Amendment (Connecting People with Jobs) Bill 2010. I was not expecting to but my colleague from Greenway is occupied in the House and will be up very shortly. I have to say, while the minister is here, that when I first saw this bill on the agenda I actually got excited. I am excited by this bill and I mean that genuinely. In this country of ours I know that we have regions around Australia that have everything that you need to make a good life—job opportunities, low vacancy rates, good property prices that people can afford, and good schools that have room for more kids without additional infrastructure—and are great places to live. Yet we quite often in Australia tend to settle in the city in which we were born or where we first arrived as migrants, and stay there. In spite of efforts by many people to find other options and other places to live, it is actually quite difficult in this country, when there are so many options, to look at what they are.
This particular trial introduces the capacity for people from areas of high unemployment to move to other places where there are job opportunities. It is a two-year relocation trial that will encourage job seekers in high areas of unemployment, who have been unemployed for longer than 12 months, to relocate to take up full-time jobs including apprenticeships.
They will be assisted in that—there will be a reimbursement of $3,000 for people who move to a metropolitan area, and an additional $3,000 for moving to a regional area, making that $6,000; and for those relocating with dependant children, an additional $3,000 relocation assistance. It has been found, looking at past relocation trials, that, where families decide to move, the likelihood of success is far higher—as you would expect, perhaps not because moving with children makes you more successful, but deciding to move with children perhaps shows a level of commitment which is far higher. The employer also will be given assistance of $2,500 for a wage subsidy, in recognition that there may be additional support needed in the early stages of their employment in a new location.
There are a number of elements to this trial which make it quite likely to succeed, and, again, I am really looking forward myself to observing, as I know the government is, how this works over the two-year trial. It focuses particularly on areas of high unemployment. We all know that, in areas of high unemployment, there are people with skills who would be working if they lived elsewhere. So we have a body of workers who are particularly suited to this kind of project.
In my area of Parramatta we have a particular group of highly-skilled migrants, for whom unemployment for 12 months is quite often a very short period. Skilled migrants come to Australia with all their skills but without the networks and experience in the local industry that Australian-born workers of an equivalent age have. We all know that, if you are in engineering or science or any of the skilled areas, who you know, and your networks, are quite often the basis for getting employment in your mid-career—not advertisements; in fact, many jobs are not advertised at all. So in my area I am quite shocked at times to find people with extraordinary skill levels who have been unemployed for quite some period of time. So I know for them, in a new country, the knowledge of where the opportunities are in regional areas would be very hard to come by. This really does provide an incentive. I notice, in a lot of the material that I am reading, that the $6,000—or the amount depending on where you are moving to—is talked about at an incentive, but if you have been unemployed for 12 months or more, it is more than an incentive; it actually makes it possible. For many people who have been unemployed, particularly with families, for extended periods of time, the cost of moving elsewhere is quite prohibitive, and the fear of not being able to find work, or not being able to sustain work, can cause some freezing on behalf of the unemployed person. So, in my electorate, I know there will be many people for whom this program, should it be extended at some point, would be very valuable.
I notice the member for Greenway has arrived, so I will give her the opportunity to contribute. I thank the House for the opportunity to make a brief statement. Thank you.
2120
11:32:00
Rowland, Michelle, MP
159771
Greenway
ALP
0
0
Ms ROWLAND
—I am very pleased to rise today in support of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Connecting People with Jobs) Bill 2010. I think we would all agree that there is no dignity in unemployment and there is no dignity in welfare dependency. Dignity comes from work and a sense of achievement. I think it is interesting that, when you look at wellness rankings around the world—studies that are undertaken into health—one of the central determinants of a person’s health and wellness is whether they have a job. So it is really central to our society that we have people in work and who benefit from the intangible benefits that work provides, not just a pay packet. Australia has enjoyed 20 years of economic growth; however, not everyone has been able to benefit from the prosperity that this growth brings. It is something that bothers me greatly in other areas of society—the divides that emerge in our society.
One area I am particularly concerned about is the digital divide. Now that we are in the information age, the digital divide becomes so much more relevant to everything we do, from education to work to the ability to actually have a job and have long-term employment.
It is interesting to note that, in 2007, the professor of social work at UNSW, Tony Vinson, released a study of disadvantaged communities across Australia. The report, entitled Dropping off the edge, highlighted that disadvantage had become entrenched in many communities across Australia. It revealed that an individual’s postcode still plays a major role in shaping their lot in life, and I personally believe that is something we must all address.
Everyone in this parliament must make it their own mission to destroy once and for all the cycle of poverty that exists in communities across Australia. There is no silver bullet, unfortunately, when it comes to tackling the cycle of poverty. It is a falsehood to argue that one policy measure is enough to successfully wage war on the scourge that is poverty. Nevertheless, you cannot effectively tackle poverty unless you address its fundamental causes. The Vinson report emphasised the way in which low levels of educational attainment and high levels of unemployment have a direct effect on poverty.
This government understands the importance of education in tackling poverty and ensuring Australians enjoy the best quality of life. Central to this is education. It is the great enabler. It empowers individuals to overcome intergenerational unemployment, poverty and crime. For instance, in 2006 the OECD released a report entitled Starting strong II: early childhood education and care, which found that there is a direct correlation between an individual’s level of early childhood development and their entry into employment. That is why this government is undertaking important reforms to the early childhood education sector, to provide health checks for young children and guarantee universal access to high-quality preschool. I commend the minister for that. That is why we are committed to making every school a great school through measures such as trade training centres and the computers in schools program. That is why we set a national target that, by 2020, 20 per cent of higher education enrolments at undergraduate level will be of people from low socioeconomic status backgrounds.
Tackling unemployment is also central to our fight against poverty. Fifteen per cent of Australian families with children under 15 are jobless families. In more than 128,000 of these families the parents have not worked for the past three years. The 2009 OECD Employment Outlook highlights the implications of unemployment, particularly to Australian society. The report warns that in Australia unemployment is a far greater cause of poverty than in most other countries in the OECD. According to the OECD, in 2009, 55 per cent of jobless households in Australia were relatively poor, compared with an OECD average of 37 per cent. I think those statistics alone should make us all think that our mission here should certainly be to address that. The report also highlights the importance of employment in the fight against poverty. For instance, according to the OECD only three per cent of households with at least one person working are poor, and the working poor represent 15 per cent of the poor population, compared with the OECD average of over 60 per cent.
The University of Sydney’s Workplace Research Centre has published a significant amount of research into the issue of long-term unemployment. These reports consistently concluded that the longer an individual is unemployed, the harder it is for them to secure employment. I am sure we have all seen constituents for whom that is true. It is a double-edged sword: the long-term unemployed suffer a loss of confidence that makes it harder for them to find a job, whilst employers can be reluctant to hire people who have been out of work for a long time. Again, you can see why this leads to a cycle of poor economic and social health for our society.
In the current global economic climate, long-term unemployment continues to pose a major challenge. Although Australia has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the developed world, that is no cause for complacency. The economic stimulus helped shield many Australian jobs from the worst of the recession. In fact, it saved 200,000 Australians from losing their job and their financial security. However, we must remain vigilant. We must not forget there are still many people across the country who are doing it tough—indeed, I am sure, in our own electorates.
Data published by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations revealed a growth in the number of people who have been receiving Newstart allowance payments for over 12 months. The longer an individual is unemployed, the more likely it is that they will become a discouraged job seeker who will eventually give up on finding a job and become dependent on welfare payments. That is why this bill is so important. It is about tackling unemployment, particularly the long-term kind. In doing so, this bill is an important component of the government’s commitment to destroying the cycle of poverty. The Connecting People with Jobs initiative is a two-year relocation trial that will encourage job seekers in areas of high unemployment who have been unemployed for longer than 12 months to relocate to take a full-time job, including an apprenticeship. As part of this package, job seekers who relocate to metro areas will be reimbursed $3,000, whilst job seekers who move to regional areas will receive $6,000. Job seekers who relocate with their dependent children will receive an additional $3,000. As an incentive for employers to take part in this program, a relocation wage subsidy of $2,500 will be offered.
The bill also creates an incentive for individuals to stay in their new location. This bill amends the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to extend to 12 weeks the period of nonpayment of income support should a relocating job seeker leave their job within the first six months without good cause. I note, however, that Centrelink will have the discretion to reduce or not impose this 12-week unemployment non-payment period on a case-by-case basis, as it should be, such as when it would place a vulnerable job seeker in great financial hardship. As a result of the Fair Work Act we can also be sure that individuals who find employment as a result of this scheme will enjoy a decent wage and fair working conditions.
The Connecting People with Jobs initiative will have a number of important economic benefits by increasing our labour force participation rates. As our population ages we need to increase the level of employment participation in order to remain competitive and maintain our economic growth. By assisting the long-term unemployed to find work this bill is part of the government’s plan to increase Australia’s participation rate and boost our international competitiveness. Importantly, this bill ensures that people across Australia who have not enjoyed the benefits of the past two decades of economic growth will now be in a position to do so because they have a job.
I strongly support this bill because I believe it will help transform the lives of some of the most disadvantaged members of Australian society—the long-term unemployed—and in doing so it will help to tackle the vicious cycle of poverty. It will boost our labour force participation rates and, by helping the long-term unemployed find work, we can ensure that everyone benefits from the prosperity created by Australia’s economic growth.
2122
11:41:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women
1
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—in reply—The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Connecting People with Jobs) Bill 2010 is a key component of the government’s Connecting People with Jobs trial and aims to improve labour mobility and improve support for long-term unemployed job seekers. I thank the members who have contributed to this debate: the member for Greenway—and I note her athletic abilities she displayed in order to get here from the other chamber to contribute and put her support for these measures on the record—the member for Capricornia, the member for Lyons and the member for Parramatta, who is very excited about these measures. I also note the support of the opposition and the remarks of the member for Farrer.
Whilst the member Farrer did indicate the coalition’s support, because she said this is very similar to a coalition pilot program that was in force, I want to put on the record the differences for the benefit of the House. The previous coalition government did put in place a very small pilot program but the evaluation of that pilot showed that it selected people who in many cases would have gone on to get jobs themselves anyway. In essence, it was providing a plane ticket, a train ticket and relocation costs. Whereas this is a national initiative which is targeted in particular at long-term unemployed people and people in areas of high unemployment.
Under this trial, job seekers who relocate to take up an ongoing full-time position or apprenticeship will be reimbursed up to $9,000 for relocation expenses and other needed supports. Under the trial, job seekers will be eligible for reimbursement of up to $3,000 for relocating to a metropolitan area or $6,000 for moving to fill a job in a regional area. They may be eligible for an additional $3,000 if they are relocating with their family.
We know that relocation often has high costs, especially when it involves moving interstate and across the country. These job seekers have sought employment in their current locations already for at least 12 months but they may lack the resources to take up employment further afield. It was part of Labor’s election commitment also that employers be eligible for a wage subsidy of $2,500 to create an upfront incentive for taking on these long-term unemployed job seekers. This is in recognition of the additional support and assistance that individuals will need in the early stages of their employment in a new location.
While this trial will encourage the long-term unemployed to relocate to take up a job, the bill seeks to create an incentive for individuals to stay in their new location and to keep them in sustainable employment there. Specifically, this bill seeks to strengthen the associated compliance measures for job seekers who have been assisted to relocate for a job under the trial by extending to 12 weeks the period of non-payment of income support should a relocating job seeker leave their job within the first six months as a result of a voluntary act or as a result of misconduct. Previously, a job seeker was subject to an eight-week period of nonpayment. This bill does not alter existing mechanisms for exemptions for such non-payment period penalties that are administered by Centrelink.
We know that the national unemployment rate currently sits at 5.1 per cent, down from 5.7 per cent a year ago. However, the truth is that the employment situation across Australia varies greatly. In this modern age there is a need for greater labour mobility, and relocating parts of the workforce to meet employers’ demand is an effective method of achieving this. The Connecting People with Jobs trial will enhance the flexibility of the labour market by encouraging additional relocation activity and helping to better match labour supply with demand. The funds for relocation under this trial will provide job seekers with assistance for things such as airfares, removalists, temporary accommodation and post-placement support and mentoring. It will provide employers with the workers they need to grow their businesses and will help to get people off income support and into sustainable jobs—we all know how important that is for them as individuals, for their families and for our national economy. In summary, I commend this bill to the House and look forward to seeing a successful trial with some great results for the long-term unemployed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
2123
Ministerial Statements
Afghanistan
2123
Debate resumed from 27 October, on motion by Mr Stephen Smith:
That the House take note of the document.
2124
11:47:00
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
0
0
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—I am pleased to speak in this parliamentary debate on Afghanistan. We had an important parliamentary debate following the events of 11 September 2001. We also had an important parliamentary debate on Iraq. While in the Australian system there is no requirement for legislative approval for the Australian Defence Force to be deployed overseas, it is important that the parliament have their say on this. No government should ever take lightly the deployment of Australian personnel overseas, especially in a conflict zone.
I remember the events of 11 September 2001 and the circumstances which led us initially to be in Afghanistan. My recollection is that it happened during the 2001 election campaign and that, while the caretaker conventions were operating, the commitment was made with the full agreement of the then Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley. In 2001 I supported the invocation of ANZUS treaty following the September 11 attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. I also supported the commitment to Afghanistan, as it was very clear that, under the Taliban government, Afghanistan had become a haven for international terrorists and fundamentalist Islamic terrorism.
This is a commitment which I supported then and support now. I think it is important that, as members of parliament, we support the work of the Australian Defence Force. We ask a lot of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force; we ask them to put their lives on the line to do their important work. As I said earlier, no government should ever take lightly sending our Australian troops into places where they may be in harm’s way.
I also think that in the conduct of any war, counterinsurgency operation or peacekeeping operation it is very important to get clear the different responsibilities. It is the job of government to set the goals and the overarching strategy, but it is really the job of the Australian Defence Force to be responsible for tactics and the methods of how to achieve that. I do not support micromanagement by government. I do not support micromanagement by any politician. I think history shows that that never works. What you do is give the Defence Force a job to do with very clear goals. They are the experts in getting on with it.
Like many members of parliament, I took the opportunity in 2006 to see firsthand the work service personnel were doing in the Middle East area of operations. I took up an ADF Parliamentary Program position which enabled me to spend three days with a frigate in the Persian Gulf and also three days with our Orion crews. Whilst the focus of the mission then was very much on Iraq, I was aware that these same crews did surveillance work in Afghanistan and were part of the overall Middle East area of operations. While I was there, I was aware that Canada were suffering increasing casualties, because they would return through the same base where the RAAF were. It was not an uncommon occurrence to have a ramp ceremony for a Canadian soldier who had been killed in Kandahar province. Since 2007 that has become a more common occurrence for us as well, as we have seen more Australian soldiers killed and wounded in Afghanistan.
The role in Afghanistan has changed over the nine years. Originally it was very much a role for special forces—the SAS. Then it primarily had a focus on reconstruction. Now the focus is very much on training up the Afghan National Army. It is a role which I think the Australian Army are very good at. There is a lot of corporate memory and experience to do with counterinsurgency operations. From the Malayan Emergency to the Vietnam War, this is something which is embedded in the training of the Australian Army and it is something that I think they are particularly well set up for. It is something they will do very well.
One of the features of the commitment in Afghanistan is that it has enabled a deeper engagement for Australia with NATO. I think it will be good for the professionalism of all the ADF to be operating with similar countries but also countries that we normally would not have a deep engagement with. We have been working closely with the Dutch, the United States and a lot of the NATO countries in Afghanistan.
I would like to talk about the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder. Of the 50,000 Australians who served in Vietnam, there are 20,000 who have had mental health problems and the incidence of PTSD is very high amongst them. Before I went to the Middle East I saw the predeployment unit in Randwick. While I know that the Australian Defence Force spends a lot of time on preparing people beforehand, making sure they keep diaries and monitor themselves while they are in theatre and also afterwards, I think it is very clear, because of the nature of the service in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we are going to see a much higher incidence of PTSD than we have seen since the Vietnam War. The RAND Corporation, in looking at figures from the United States, found that 20 per cent of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have symptoms of PTSD. Disturbingly, only half of them have sought treatment. The thing with PTSD is that early diagnosis and treatment provide the best chance of recovery. That is something for which Australia and the Australian government of whatever colour will have an ongoing duty of care to the service personnel who have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is very important that they are seen early.
In conclusion, it is important that we honour the memory of the 21 soldiers who have died in Afghanistan. We also remain thankful to the more than 150 soldiers who have been wounded in Afghanistan. It is a reminder of how dangerous their service is. I take this opportunity to say that I support our ongoing role. I do not see it as a mission without end, but I think our mission will wind down when the Afghan National Army is in a position to take control of the security in Oruzgan province.
2125
11:56:00
Elliot, Justine, MP
DZW
Richmond
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Trade
1
0
Mrs ELLIOT
—I would like to thank the Prime Minister for this opportunity to have a parliamentary debate on Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan. From the outset, I would like to acknowledge the bravery and dedication of our troops who have served and continue to serve in Afghanistan. I would like to especially acknowledge the 21 Australian soldiers who have died whilst on duty in Afghanistan and offer my condolences to their families and friends—in particular, Private Nathan Bewes, who was from Murwillumbah in my electorate. Nathan Bewes was serving with the First Mentoring Task Force when he tragically lost his life because of an improvised explosive device on Friday, 9 July. Whilst Nathan was from the Brisbane based 6 Battalion, RAR, he grew up in Murwillumbah and his family and many friends still live there. I extend my condolences to his parents Gary and Kay; his sister, Stephanie; and his partner, Alice. Each of these 21 soldiers have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of our nation and our national interest, and that must be recognised and remembered as we examine our past and present roles and as we consider our future role in Afghanistan. I firmly believe that it is in our national interest to have become involved in, and to remain in, Afghanistan. This recognises that Australia’s involvement extends well beyond our military involvement to include direct support to assist in rebuilding a nation.
Without a doubt, the most serious decision a government can make is to commit its citizens to an armed conflict. This is not a decision that is made easily and not one taken lightly. However, when our national security and our national interest are at stake, as I believe them to be in Afghanistan, such decisions are necessary. Australia is not immune to the actions of terrorists, with more than 100 Australians killed in terrorist attacks in recent years. These attacks were carried out by individuals with direct links to the terror training grounds of Afghanistan and the safe haven it provided before the fall of the Taliban. These were attacks upon innocent people, conducted with the express purpose of taking lives and disrupting communities. Accordingly, it is a proper response that, when Australia’s international security is threatened and when the lives of Australian citizens are being targeted for no other reason than for being Australians, the government responds. Our troops are in Afghanistan to stop the country becoming the safe haven for terrorists and terrorist groups that it once was. As a global citizen we have an important responsibility in going to Afghanistan, and we have an important responsibility in remaining there.
As the Prime Minister has said, Australia has two vital national interests in Afghanistan: one is to make sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists, a place where attacks on us and our allies begin; the other is to stand firmly by our alliance commitment to the United States, formally invoked following the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. Under the Taliban government, al-Qaeda had a safe haven in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda’s sanctuary allowed the group to concentrate its efforts on expanding its organisation, training thousands in both guerilla warfare and terrorist tactics and planning terrorist operations. The loss of this sanctuary has seriously reduced the ability of al-Qaeda to carry out terrorist activities. When we recall the September 11 attacks in the United States, we all remember the horror, the devastation and the massive loss of life and we are reminded of the reasons that we went to Afghanistan. In the 9-11 attacks, al-Qaeda murdered more than 3,000 people, including 10 Australians. After the 9-11 attacks, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1378, condemning the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. Australia joined the international mission mandated by the UN Security Council with the goal of denying terrorist networks a safe haven in Afghanistan.
Although inflicting mass casualties remains a primary goal of al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the group has been forced to alter its operational strategy because of the loss of its safe base. Our efforts in Afghanistan have denied al-Qaeda its ability to freely plan, train and execute operations of the scale of 9-11. Despite our actions curtailing its activities, al-Qaeda and the terror groups associated with it remain the prominent source of today’s global terror threat. If our military presence in Afghanistan is withdrawn and the Taliban is allowed to rise up and take over the democratically elected government in Kabul, there is a real possibility that al-Qaeda could resume using Afghanistan as a safe haven once again for training, planning and launching global terror attacks.
Australia is not alone in its involvement in Afghanistan. Our engagement is a multilateral one, mandated by the United Nations as part of international effort to stabilise Afghanistan. Australia is one of 47 nations that have formed the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, and ISAF has a clear strategy: to protect the civilian population, to train the Afghan National Security Forces and the Afghan National Police and to assist with improvement in services, governance and economic development.
Al-Qaeda has been dealt a severe blow in Afghanistan. Removing the Taliban and pursuing al-Qaeda has made a major difference in preventing terrorist attacks. However, ISAF and the Afghan government continue to face persistent insurgency, particularly in the country’s south. From 2001 to mid 2006, US and coalition forces and Afghan troops fought low levels of insurgent violence. The international force was primarily focused on a stabilisation mission, and no Australian units were deployed in Afghanistan between December 2002 and September 2005. In September 2005, Australia’s military involvement resumed in support of international efforts to target key insurgents. In 2010, ISAF launched counterinsurgency operations to reclaim Taliban held ground in the south. Our government supports the new international strategy.
Australia has increased its troop contribution over the past 18 months, and we now have around 1,550 military personnel deployed in Afghanistan. The Australian effort is focused upon Oruzgan province. In Oruzgan, Australia’s Mentoring Task Force is training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army. The capability of the 4th Brigade to conduct security operations has increased. Of course, military action alone is not enough to ensure long-term stability. Efforts to restore law and order and bring back stability are combined with addressing humanitarian needs and assisting with the long-term process of reconstruction and development assistance. Aid and capacity-building efforts are focused on helping improve the Afghan government’s capacity to deliver basic services such as education and health.
While the challenges are great, Australia’s involvement is in fact making a real difference. We can look at some of the differences that have been made over the past nine years. Firstly, millions of boys and girls are now enrolled in schools. In 2001, around one million children, none of them girls, were enrolled in school, while today there are more than six million enrolments, including around two million young girls. As the Prime Minister has said, nothing better symbolises the fall of the Taliban than these two million Afghan girls learning to read. Also, basic health services have improved. Under the Taliban, these services were only available to less than 10 per cent of the population. Now they are available to around 85 per cent of the people. And there is the management of around 39,000 community-based infrastructure projects, like wells and clinics, and the improvement of almost 10,000 kilometres of rural roads, supporting the employment of hundreds of thousands of local workers. Other advances include two elections for the lower house of parliament since 2001 and the fact that thousands of government judges have entered into legal training.
Of course, under the Taliban free speech was suppressed. Now newly established radio stations, TV channels and print media are bringing unprecedented amounts of news and information to Afghans throughout the country, and now Afghans can properly discuss issues such as human rights abuses and women’s rights. They can have a say and debate their future in a way that was previously not permitted, and they can participate directly through democratic processes. The right of women to represent their communities in parliament has been restored.
A necessary condition for the continued advance of communities and societies is a secure, safe and stable environment. Australians are lending their skills to restoring law and order, with the Australian Federal Police having trained more than 800 Afghan National Police officers. This is very important in terms of developing stability and preparing the citizens of Afghanistan to take responsibility for their own security and policing. The Australian Federal Police, together with representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, AusAID and Defence form part of the provincial reconstruction team under Combined Team Oruzgan, which coordinates all ISAF civilian activities in the province.
Of course, Afghanistan remains one of the poorest nations in the world—a nation torn apart by three decades of conflict. As a result of the international community’s engagement, progress to address this is being made. Freedoms, opportunities and services that many consider to be norms are being either restored or enjoyed for the first time. However, these steps are still only early achievements. As the Afghan people work to rebuild their social and economic infrastructure, continued support from countries such as ours is crucial. The appalling human rights record of the Taliban and their extreme form of sharia law devastated the rights of individuals, particularly women, and this record should not be forgotten.
I know there are differing views within this parliament, within the Australian community and indeed within my electorate about Australia’s role in Afghanistan. The fact that we are in a position to give voice to our differing views without the fear of personal attack is a right that did not exist in Afghanistan and one that is being restored. There is no denying that Afghanistan faces immense development challenges, but these challenges, with the support of nations like our own, are not insurmountable.
I strongly believe that we cannot neglect our responsibilities to our national security, to the international community and to the Afghan people. We should stand firm against extremist views. I do not believe that walking away is a good enough response. But we should also remember that, in the case of Afghanistan, without engaging in armed conflict it would not have been possible to start the process of restoring basic human rights, restoring opportunities for individuals to express those rights and restoring equality not only for women and girls but for every Afghani citizen.
Australia should not abandon Afghanistan, but we must be very realistic about the future. Transition will take some years and, as the Prime Minister has said, we will be engaged through this decade at least. The facts are that we are in Afghanistan to work together with locals and our international partners towards building a safe and sustainable democracy. We cannot allow this country to ever again become the safe haven for extremists and their terrorist training camps that it once was. I believe that Australia has a responsibility to remain in Afghanistan. In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge our soldiers and defence personnel, Federal Police members and DFAT and AusAID staff for their ongoing efforts on behalf of our nation in Afghanistan.
2128
12:08:00
Robb, Andrew, MP
FU4
Goldstein
LP
0
0
Mr ROBB
—On 7 October 2001, President Bush ordered strikes against al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. This followed the barbaric and cold-blooded terrorist attacks on New York’s World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and four commercial airliners. Over 5,000 people from around 80 countries were brutally murdered, including 22 Australians. The attacks were not simply an assault on America; they were attacks on all people in the world who have a commitment to freedom and liberty and all those who hold immutable the right to individual freedom, democracy, human rights, religious tolerance and the free flow of global trade and commerce. Australia joined the US-led international coalition against terrorism after invoking the mutual defence clauses of the ANZUS treaty on 14 September 2001. This was the first time the treaty’s clauses on acting to meet a common danger had been invoked since it was enacted in 1952.
Australia’s commitment became part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, with its operations and activities in Afghanistan, after ISAF was established via a unanimous resolution of the UN Security Council. Today, nine years later, a force of 120,000 troops from 47 countries remains part of the NATO-led operations in Afghanistan. Australian combat deaths have reached 21 with 152 wounded in action. The ultimate sacrifice of these young men, the grief of their families and friends and the continuing commitment of our 1,550 troops still in Afghanistan warrant not only our lasting support and gratitude but also a clear explanation by this parliament of our future involvement and our strategy.
The immediate goal of the NATO-led operations in Afghanistan was to seek out and destroy al-Qaeda and to ensure that Afghanistan can never again serve as a base from which terrorists can operate. In 2001, John Howard spelt out that, while the destruction of the al-Qaeda network was our first priority, the long-term aim of this war was to demonstrate that organised, international, state sanctioned terrorism will not be tolerated by the world community. The question before us today is to assess the extent to which our efforts in Afghanistan to date have helped to achieve these objectives and the merit and nature of any continued involvement.
Twelve months after joining the security mission in Afghanistan, Australia withdrew its combat force after the defeat of much of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the factional warlords. The focus then shifted to Iraq. Yet within three years we again deployed special forces to Afghanistan because of the re-emergence of the threat due to the regrouping of insurgent forces. In the meantime, a new face of Islamic terrorism emerged via home-grown terrorists, with bombings in London. This highlighted the global impact of the training role of terrorists in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. As well, Australia suffered a huge number of civilian casualties in two bombings, three years apart, in Bali. The world observed terrorist cells emerge in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen and al-Qaeda was very active in Iraq.
The fact is that Islamic terrorists have continued their attempts at spreading global fear and terror. In the eight years before 9/11 there were six significant attacks by the terrorist group al-Qaeda. In the nine years since 9/11 there have been more than 48 significant al-Qaeda attacks, with over half of them in the last four years. These figures of growing al-Qaeda activity in many ways mask the success at the same time of concerted international action on the intelligence, law enforcement and financial fronts. Over the past nine years it is evident that the terrorist bombings have increasingly occurred in Muslim countries, albeit often with Westerners as their intended target. No doubt many plans have been made to continue to spread terror in Europe, North America and other Western countries including Australia, but many hundreds of terrorist plots have been foiled. Clearly the responsibility and actions of free countries to first and foremost protect their citizens and interests at home and abroad have been remarkably and increasingly effective, yet radical Islam remains the greatest threat facing the world. Not only do non-Muslims face the problem but moderate Muslims need to accept that it is also their problem.
Australia is a nation blessed with peace, yet in a world of random and wanton terror there can be no peace unless we deal with the threat. This threat of terrorism includes the increasing danger of terrorists getting possession of nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons. We know that al-Qaeda and its affiliates are eager to obtain these types of destructive weapons. If these aims were to be achieved, the potential to cause enormous damage and loss of life in our cities would be overwhelming. This threat underlines the vital need for the civilised world to maintain maximum pressure on terrorist organisations wherever they may be operating around the globe.
This growing threat makes it extremely important for the effort in Afghanistan to succeed and makes it just as important to see related efforts in Pakistan succeed. Failure or premature withdrawal from Afghanistan would be very badly interpreted by these countries inhabited by terrorist cells, such as Pakistan, and would be celebrated by Islamic terrorists themselves. It would see countries lose confidence in the resolve of the developed world. In turn, these countries would themselves lose resolve. It would encourage efforts by local authorities to seek accommodations with terrorists rather than to continue resistance. Attempts to appease evil elements never succeed. It would also greatly emboldened terrorist elements.
The current objectives of the UN led forces are: to stabilise Afghanistan by military and economic means, to train the Afghan National Army and security forces to the point where they can provide the nation’s security, and to prevent the terrorists regaining any hold over the government in Kabul and at local levels. These objectives must be followed through. Real progress is being made. In January 2009 Afghan security forces numbered 156; today there are more than 230,000 Afghan security force members. Schools have been reopened for the first time in years. Enrolment has increased from fewer than one million when the Taliban fell to more than six million today, with more than two million of these being females. Some 85 per cent of the population can now access some type of healthcare facility within one hour. In 2001 there were less than one million people in the Kabul region; now there are more than five million. More than five million Afghan refugees have returned home. Today 70 per cent of Afghans believe that their children will live in a peaceful and secure Afghanistan despite more than 30 years of continuous war. That is remarkable.
While patience was always central to success in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the UN led forces should nevertheless aim to achieve these outcomes as quickly as possible. This underscores the importance of providing sufficient firepower and other resources. If our government is to rely as much as they do on our military leaders advice on the appropriate levels of resources required to achieve each strategic objective then these military advisers must be held more accountable for the achievement or nonachievement of these outcomes. Consideration should be given to a forum for our military leaders and parliamentarians similar to the congressional hearings of US generals in the United States. This would not only bring greater accountability to our military leaders but also, and perhaps more importantly, better inform parliamentarians—who must take greater and ultimate responsibility for decisions on the level of deployment.
Rather than setting a particular withdrawal date for the UN led forces, the achievement of these outcomes should determine the exit strategy. Otherwise the insurgents may simply decide to sit out the prescribed exit date. In saying as much, there must be a clear recognition that achieving a stabilised situation in Afghanistan which denies terrorists a safe haven there requires the Pakistani government to be willing and able to stabilise its own border with Afghanistan. At the moment this border region is a development zone for jihadi terrorists. History cannot be allowed to repeat itself. After the US assisted both Afghanistan and Pakistan to remove the Soviet Union in the 1980s it then left Pakistan to deal with a politically unstable Afghanistan, and an obliging Taliban willing to help Pakistan end the conflict. This Taliban and Kabul connection also provided Pakistan with a counterweight to India. An effective ongoing partnership with Pakistan is inextricably linked to success in Afghanistan. Pakistan must not be left to pick up the pieces. Australia should be prepared to help the US and other countries support Pakistan in dealing with its huge challenges, not only militarily but also with debilitating regional issues like the recent devastating floods, which will create local social and political problems for many years to come.
Pakistan must know that the West is strongly committed to Pakistan’s security and prosperity. Unfortunately many Pakistanis view the West as a threat and not as a partner. Changing this perception is a major and critical challenge in the overall campaign in Afghanistan. In due course the timing and nature of the departure of UN led forces from Afghanistan is critical. In particular it must be done in a way which maintains the military credibility of the US. In the decade ahead the security resources of the UN countries, and particularly the United States, must be progressively freed up to deal with the more global positioning of terrorist cells and other non-terror-related strategic challenges. It is particularly in Australia’s interest to see the US presence and standing in the Asia-Pacific undiminished in the coming decades as China presents increasing challenges, especially for the west Pacific region, as its military capability continues to increase very rapidly.
In conclusion, our mission in Afghanistan is now clearly defined. It is to help reconstruct and build the economic fabric of Afghanistan. It is also to train the Afghan National Army to take over security of their population and, with the Afghan national security forces, fight the battles needed to secure the population centres. Our mission is just, our mission is critical and our mission involves a transition strategy which is working. The date of our exit should be determined by the achievement of the above outcomes and not dictated by a nominated point in time. All that remains is that we maintain the courage of our convictions and the commitment of necessary resources in a timely fashion. Global terrorism will remain a fact of life for a very long time into the future. It will require ongoing management, resolve and vigilance.
2131
12:22:00
Zappia, Tony, MP
HWB
Makin
ALP
1
0
Mr ZAPPIA
—I too welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate relating to Australia’s military engagement in Afghanistan. I begin by conveying my condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of the 21 Australians killed while serving Australia in Afghanistan. I also record my appreciation and respect for Australia’s ADF personnel who are serving or who have served in Afghanistan. They quite rightly deserve the recognition given to them by all members of this House so far.
For a nation to engage in military conflict is as grave a decision as a nation can ever make, and therefore the national parliament, the democratically elected body of the Australian people, should have a right to express its views on the matter. Views expressed in the midst of a conflict, however, must be expressed with caution and with sensitivity—with caution because the debate will clearly signal the current thinking of the nation’s political leaders to our allies, our adversaries and our defence personnel serving in Afghanistan. Conflict is as much about psychology as it is about resources. We must act with sensitivity because we have serving defence personnel in Afghanistan risking their lives to serve their government and their country. We must also act with sensitivity because we have families and friends grieving over the death of those defence personnel who were killed in Afghanistan or grieving for those who have been injured and have had their lives changed for ever.
The greatest respect that we can pay to the 21 Australian Defence Force members who have been killed in Afghanistan is to remain true to the cause for which they lost their lives. Some time ago when asked by a journalist about my hopes for 2010, I listed the end of the war in Afghanistan as one of my key hopes. We have been in Afghanistan since 2001. It has been a long engagement. Accurate figures are not available, but on most accounts tens of thousands of lives have been lost and many, many more have been injured. The human toll has been immense and will continue to rise as the conflict continues.
The financial toll has equally been huge. For the people of Afghanistan, almost a decade of productivity and economic development has been lost by this war alone, not to mention the two previous decades of war. Many young Afghan people have known nothing but war for their entire lives. For Australians, so distant from Afghanistan, it is easy to become insensitive to the life of the Afghan people. But they are real people, fellow humans with families, with fears, aspirations and hopes who also feel pain and sorrow. The country has been in conflict for the past three decades, so an end to the war would bring so much good to so many people in so many countries.
The current conflict is now in its ninth year, and I have little doubt that the situation in Afghanistan today is considerably different to what it was in 2001. Our core national security mission in Afghanistan, however, has not changed. The questions today are: has it been accomplished; and has our purpose for being in Afghanistan now changed?
In the Australian newspaper on 14 October Peter Leahy, director of the National Security Institute at the University of Canberra, and Chief of Army between 2002 and 2008, described Australia’s national security interest as being:
… freedom from attack, maintenance of territorial integrity and political sovereignty, preservation of our hard-won freedoms and economic prosperity for all Australians.
Peter Leahy goes on to say:
These ends can be achieved by using diplomatic, economic, military and soft power.
It is with the changed circumstances in Afghanistan in mind, and with the options available to us in achieving our national security objectives, that I believe we should reassess the nature of our engagement there.
Our mission has not changed, but our strategy to achieve that mission should always be open to debate. My assessment is based on the ministerial statements made in this House, the reports of independent international commentators and the daily news reports of events in Afghanistan. I do not have access to the Defence or security intelligence which others obviously do. If I did have that, it may cause me to see the situation differently.
At the time that we went into Afghanistan in 2001 our mission was to target al-Qaeda operations there and the Taliban government that provided al-Qaeda with cover. I understand that al-Qaeda no longer has safe havens or training camps in Afghanistan. I also understand that al-Qaeda operations have spread to other countries. The Afghanistan war clearly began as a counterterrorism mission. Today, however, our mission is more about stabilising a country that appears to be in turmoil and ensuring that there is not a resurgence of al-Qaeda operations there.
If stability is not restored in Afghanistan, Australia will continue to be burdened by the problems of Afghanistan in more ways than by being engaged in a war and fearing the resurgence of al-Qaeda. Since the conflict began, around 8,000 Afghan people have sought refuge in Australia as boat arrivals. When they arrive here they are vilified and rejected by many of the very people who justify Australia’s engagement in Afghanistan by arguing that we are liberating the Afghan people. Their concern for Afghan people quickly evaporates when the Afghan people reach our shores.
Much has been made of the global fight against terror, and I want to comment briefly on terrorism. The terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in New York on 11 September 2001 and the Bali bombings on 12 October 2002 have been linked to terrorists trained in Afghanistan. I accept that that was the case. I know only too well the effect those attacks had on the lives of the families and loved ones of those killed.
Nineteen-year-old Angela Golotta, whom I knew and with whose family I have had a long friendship, was killed in the Bali bombings. Andrew Knox, a close political friend and colleague, was killed in the attack on the Twin Towers in New York. I attended both of their funeral services. In fact, it was a funeral service for Angela; for Andrew it was a memorial service held in Adelaide. Both services were overflowing with people; in fact, not everyone could fit into the venues. I think those two services will remain with me forever. It is difficult to describe the emotion and the feeling you have when you speak to the father of Angela Golotta about how he raced down to the hotel that was bombed and searched for his daughter. It is difficult to describe the feelings you have when you listen to the stories of Andrew trying to escape the building he was in at the time it was attacked.
10000
Livermore, Kirsten (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms K Livermore)—Order! The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
ADJOURNMENT
2133
Adjournment
Mr HAYES
(Fowler)
12:30:00
—I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
Alcohol
2133
2133
12:30:00
Chester, Darren, MP
IPZ
Gippsland
NATS
0
0
Mr CHESTER
—I rise to raise my concerns with the excessive consumption of alcohol and the harm that is being caused in our homes and on our streets. According to the Department of Health and Ageing’s National Drug Strategy, the total social cost of alcohol abuse in 2004-05 was $15.3 billion, which takes into account everything from workforce impacts, premature death, road accidents and health care to crime. It is a staggering figure.
There is no simple solution to this problem, and certainly not the government’s flawed tax on ready-to-drink products which, I warned at the time it was debated, would lead to substituting other illicit substances for alcohol. I note the recent media coverage of studies which reveal that that appears to be the case.
The House would be interested in the result of an upcoming two-year study which will investigate the link between alcohol prices and the consumption of illicit drugs such as ecstasy and marijuana. The study will be conducted by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, and I certainly look forward to the results. I do not seek to pre-empt the results, but the anecdotes I have received from parents and young people themselves are alarming.
By forcing the price of ready-to-drink products upwards, the government has done nothing to keep young people safer or to reduce binge drinking. Spirit bottles have been discounted by the major chains. Young people are often mixing their own drinks, with no knowledge of the right measure. Others are simply substituting ecstasy, which has been made more price competitive, for alcohol. The government’s policy and legislation were more spin than substance, and have not worked.
As I said, there are no simple answers to the problems of excessive consumption of alcohol, but there are some good initiatives which should be investigated and supported further. One such initiative is an invention known as the Big Bottle, which is an automatic measured-pour wine dispenser. This is an Australian invention and provides for a standard drink to be automatically poured once the wine glass has been placed on the dispenser tray. I have seen the invention in action, and I was impressed by its potential to solve the problem of overpouring in relation to wine products. Overpouring is a problem on several fronts. From a purely economic basis, clubs, pubs and bar owners do themselves out of money when staff members unknowingly serve more alcohol in a glass than customers have paid for. But, more importantly, it allows drinkers to know exactly how much they have had to drink. Each glass of wine is a standard drink—not more, not less. Right now, people are being misled, and are perhaps misleading themselves, about the number of drinks they have had. They may make the mistake of thinking they are under the legal limit to drive, or the excessive consumption of alcohol could be having negative health consequences.
This is an issue for governments at both state and federal levels. We have extensive liquor licensing laws and we have tight restrictions on responsible service of alcohol in this nation, but we have not tackled the issue of overpouring or, as it is sometimes described, ‘overdosing on alcohol’.
As I said, I have seen the autopour or Big Bottle system in operation, and recognise its potential for wider distribution. It has been patented by an Australian company and provides an opportunity for the Australian wine industry to ensure that it is our products that are sold to the world in these bottles. The owners of the patent can specify which products are used in the dispensers, and the Big Bottles are specifically required to fit the system, and all Australian wines can be used under licensing arrangements. You cannot just supply any wine into the system. It is a genuine export opportunity for our wine industry.
I understand that some of the larger hotel groups in Australia are showing an interest in this product, with close to 300 hotels currently fitting the system. It would be good to see the system also trialled here in Parliament House. There has certainly been some international interest, as governments grapple with the wide range of challenges presented by the excessive consumption of alcohol. I will be writing to the Prime Minister in relation to this issue, and inviting the government to work with the company to develop strategies which can assist in reducing the harmful effects of excessive consumption of alcohol. It is not a silver bullet, but I have no doubt that the Big Bottle autopour system can provide benefits to our community.
In closing, I would like to reiterate my concerns over community safety more generally and the need for a national approach to cleaning up our streets. Right now, we have a lot of young people about to finish their year 12 exams, and their attention no doubt will turn to celebration and schoolies week throughout the nation. I would be the last person to stand in this place and tell young people they should not be allowed to let off a bit of steam and celebrate with their mates, but I do call on them to act responsibly and to look after their friends. I also call on the entertainment venues to act responsibly and extend a duty of care to all of their patrons.
Issues surrounding violence, street crime and antisocial behaviour are not restricted to schoolies week; in fact, I believe that school leavers are often better behaved than the older people who gatecrash the celebrations. But you cannot open the newspapers in any of our major cities today without another report of a cowardly attack or a gang bashing on our streets. In Victoria, the situation has become out of control over the past decade, and I am very critical of the Bracks and Brumby governments for their failure to address the issue of street violence in a timely and efficient manner. We talk about a lot of issues in this place, and quite frankly many of them are less important than this. It is time that governments at all levels got serious about reclaiming our streets and protecting the law-abiding citizens from the minority of idiots and thugs who cannot go out at night without causing trouble.
Chisholm Electorate: Sustainable Living Fabrics
2135
2135
12:35:00
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
1
0
Ms BURKE
—I rise today to speak about a fantastic company within my electorate, Sustainable Living Fabrics, which is based in Oakleigh. Sustainable Living Fabrics manufactures furnishing fabrics for commercial interiors. It markets its fabrics to architects and interior designers who will specify SFL products when they present a design to their clients. What is unique and so different about this company is that it decided many years ago that its competitive advantage, its strength and its point of difference would be its environmental credentials. It has not just gone around saying it has environmental credentials; it has absolutely demonstrated them 100 per cent.
I have had the pleasure of meeting Kay and Bill Jones, who bought an ailing company and have created and run a fantastic company, and I can speak most highly about their terrific business model and success. In 2004 the pair decided to undertake a complete overhaul of the products of their company, and they saw that the environment was the big issue. They decided that to survive and grow as a business they needed to differentiate, and they have done so in an environmentally friendly manner. It has taken a lot of work and a lot of money, but the decision has paid off, and now business is booming and growing to great lengths.
A Sydney Morning Herald article recently was extolling the virtues of Bill and Kay Jones, and I quote from the article:
‘‘We decided we would become an environmental company—that would be our strength and our point of difference,’’ … They hired an environmental science graduate to spend six months calculating the carbon footprint of their 10-person business and its supply chain—from the initial processing of raw materials to their disposal in landfill or at a recycling plant. The assessment cost $60,000.
Incentives were introduced to encourage staff to choose cleaner forms of travel to the company’s Oakleigh warehouse, such as allowing public transport fares to be paid for through salary sacrifice and boosting the car allowance for sales staff if they opted for a fuel-efficient hybrid car.
Staff were also encouraged to cut their personal water and electricity bills through $2000 in annual prizes for those who made the biggest savings.
Sustainable Living Fabrics also encouraged its suppliers to clean up their act. James Nelson, a Tasmanian textile weaving business, was asked to run on emissions-free hydro power rather than coal-fired electricity imported from Victoria. In return, it won a larger chunk of the Joneses’ business.
Taken together, these steps added up to a 50 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions.
The other half of the company’s emissions are offset through buying international carbon credits at a cost, this year, of $33,000.
This is a company that is putting its money where its mouth is on where it thinks the environment should be going, and I think we need to applaud these businesses and look at what they are doing.
Part of the big problem of going down this environmental route was choosing the right accreditation; that was one of the largest steps. They wanted to know that the products they were using in the supply chain were green. A lot of greenwash goes on, but they wanted to know that they could verify, tick off and say to their clients and the broader community that what they were doing was genuinely green. They have made many, many starts on looking at where to go and what to do, and they found that the European Union provided the best eco-labelling standard. They have introduced that across the board, and their entire supply chain is now part of this. They looked at logos and verifications, but standards were very difficult to find, so in the end they determined that they would develop their own accreditation. They have gone with the Good Environmental Choice Australia system, which is a terrific program that more people should know about. Now everything within their supply chain has the GEC stamp of approval. The result has been that SLF has become the first business to qualify as carbon neutral under the Australian government’s new Australian Carbon Trust.
The National Carbon Offset Standard Carbon Neutral program replaced the Greenhouse Friendly program. Bill Jones was passionate about the Greenhouse Friendly program and was quite distressed when it looked as if it was going to shut down with no replacement, because the company had spent a large amount of money so that they could get the Greenhouse Friendly stamp on all their processses. So I am really pleased that we have introduced this model and that this company has been assessed with it.
The company has won numerous awards for what they are doing. More importantly, they are running a successful business, they are employing people and they are asking themselves and their staff to put their money where their mouth is. It has a commercial value and businesses are seeing it as a great product. We have 100 per cent credibility because we have third-party endorsement. It is not just them saying that they are a carbon-free company; it is the department of sustainability providing the logo and accreditation.
Many of you will have sat on their fabrics. They are recognised as the preferred supplier for the Department of Defence, with Virgin Airlines and with many other councils, local governments and state governments. They are a terrific company and I regard them highly.
Flinders Electorate: Westernport
2136
2136
12:40:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—I want to set out today a plan for the protection of Westernport. I grew up in a household for which Westernport was central. My father, Alan Hunt, was a planning minister during the course of the 1970s. He set in place a way of achieving things which was about the long-term 30- to 50-year protection program for Westernport. What we see now is that that program has been lost. The current state government are not doing the things which need to be done in order to protect Westernport.
It is time for a new Shapiro report. The Shapiro report, which was commissioned in the middle of the seventies, was a long-term program and process aimed at giving Westernport a set of standards, a pathway forward and a 30- to 50-year protection plan. That plan has now been abandoned. It has been effectively let drift by the state government and it is time, no matter who wins the election, for a new Shapiro report phase 2.
The Western Port Seagrass Partnership approached me recently and sought the recommencement of the Shapiro process, which is about imagining, envisioning and doing the work to set out the long-term plan for Westernport. I agree with them and support what they are doing and I will carry it forth as a program. If we are elected in the future at a federal level I will push with every fibre to see that we can have this long-term vision for Westernport.
The Westernport issue translates to smaller questions which have been neglected. I was approached in the last week by the Tooradin Foreshore Committee. The committee has been trying for many years to attract the state government’s attention to the severe erosion problem near the boat ramp. The erosion has caused a landslip perilously close to the pedestrian access to this busy and popular boat ramp. The committee has sought the assistance of both Parks Victoria and the DSC for at least two years and has just been rejected in its application for a grant to fix this problem. Committee members are now in despair as to what to do next. It is extraordinary that a community based committee of management has been utterly kept at arm’s length by the state environment department. It is simply an example of neglect. It is part of a larger problem—the broader neglect of Westernport.
I would also add to this the problem that the historic Lang Lang jetty was allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair that it was removed. It was removed at a time when we were told that there would be a replacement and that replacement has not appeared. So the citizens and residents of Lang Lang, the visitors to Lang Lang and the visitors to the eastern coast of Westernport have not had access. They have had their jetty taken away, they have had it in decline for many years and they have simply been ignored by the state government.
I think it is important to speak up on their behalf. This is not appropriate and it is not reasonable. It is neglect of a basic environmental and social management duty. I would say today as a federal representative but with a local focus that the state environment department in Victoria has failed utterly in its duty to maintain the foreshore of Tooradin, in its duty to maintain a pier for the people of Lang Lang and, more significantly still, in its duty to update and set forth a true, deep and powerful environmental management plan which places the port development in the context of the environmental needs of an entire bay ecosystem and community. It is time for the Shapiro report to be reconsidered, for the original concept of a phase 2 to be honoured and for the work which people such as Brian Cummings and my father started over 35 years ago to be advanced, enhanced and put in practice for the next 35 years.
Safe Work ACT Awards
2137
2137
12:45:00
Brodtmann, Gai, MP
30540
Canberra
ALP
1
0
Ms BRODTMANN
—I rise to congratulate the winners of the Safe Work ACT Awards recently announced in Canberra. Work safety is vital for the health, wellbeing and peace of mind of Canberra’s workers and their families. It is also vital for workplace and national productivity. We want our workers to return home safe and well to their families each day and we want our businesses to grow and thrive with healthy workers and productive and safe workplaces and practices. That is why I commend the Canberra businesses that took out these awards.
Congratulations to the ACT Department of Education and Training for winning the best workplace health and safety management system award for the public sector. The department identified a system for managing the risks associated with construction work on school sites to ensure children and workers are safe. Congratulations to the National Capital Private Hospital for winning the best workplace health and safety management system for the private sector. Work safety practices can only succeed if they become business as usual. The hospital has embedded safety systems into its day-to-day activities which have been enthusiastically embraced by staff. External audits have also endorsed the safety system and statistical analysis has shown that risk has been alleviated.
Congratulations to St John Ambulance Australia for winning the best solution to an identified health and safety issue. St John Ambulance developed an innovative iPhone application that gives ready access to first aid information and resuscitation. Now people can apply the right treatment wherever they are. Congratulations to Sasha Berryman and Amy Lee for winning the best individual contribution to health and safety for the non-occupational health and safety category. Sasha Berryman has developed a list of processes that have simplified safety management in ACT Health’s surgical services unit and Amy Lee implemented Multiple Sclerosis Australia’s safety management system by modelling good practice, which is really important, and mentoring other staff.
Congratulations to the Hyatt Hotel Canberra for winning the most successful promotion of occupational health and safety in workplaces award. The Hyatt’s red dot system uses visual tools to communicate to staff, many of whom are from non-English-speaking backgrounds, the risks associated with moving equipment. Congratulations to James Bodsworth from Bovis Lend Lease for winning best individual contribution to health and safety in the occupational health and safety division. James developed an innovative and simple strategy for plant operators to detect underground utilities. James also won the overall title, the SafeWork Australia Excellence Award 2010. Well done, James. Unfortunately, I do not have time to congratulate all the winners of these awards, but I commend all the entrants and their efforts to make workplaces safer in Canberra.
The Gillard government is strongly committed to workplace safety. The government’s commitment to the model occupational health and safety laws expands on Labor’s longstanding belief in fair and safe working conditions for all Australians. The harmonised approach includes: an unqualified obligation on employers to provide a safe workplace for their staff and a broad approach to the duty of care; an increase in penalties for the most serious breaches of workplace safety to a new maximum of $3 million and five years imprisonment for corporations and a $600,000 fine for individuals; and a capacity for regulators to share evidence across multiple jurisdictions that will significantly enhance the ability of regulators. It also includes providing health and safety representatives with the power to issue provisional improvement notices and direct the cessation of unsafe work, a power currently only available in three jurisdictions. It also includes ensuring uniform cease-work provisions in each jurisdiction. This harmonised approach broadens the entitlement to cease unsafe work to employees and other kinds of workers such as contractors, which is really important. Currently, the power of workers to stop unsafe work is only available to 14.5 per cent of the Australian workforce. It also includes a requirement for employers to consult employees over work related matters that affect their health and safety.
The Gillard government takes workplace safety seriously and so do many Canberra businesses, as these awards show. Congratulations to all the winners and participants of the Safe Work ACT Awards. You are creating a safer and healthier workplace for all Canberrans, and I applaud you.
Daniel Morcombe Foundation
2139
2139
12:50:00
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)
—Before I call the honourable member for Higgins, who is looking resplendent in red, I would like to celebrate Day for Daniel and the importance of child safety. I would also like to thank the member for Canberra and the member for Oxley. I see that the member for Melbourne Ports has entered the chamber and no doubt he will be donning red for question time.
Gillard Government
2139
2139
12:50:00
O’Dwyer, Kelly, MP
LKU
Higgins
LP
1
0
Ms O’DWYER
—The Gillard government made a great virtue of its commitment to transparency and a commitment to consultation before the last federal election. It was these commitments that were supposed to set the Gillard government apart from the Rudd-Gillard government. Yet everything that we have seen so far, after only 45 days since the Prime Minister was sworn in with a minority government, is more of the same. Far from greater transparency and consultation, Labor is intent on going down the same path. It has already broken faith with the Australian people by breaking faith with the promises it made before the last federal election. In fact, it would be right for Australians to ask if in fact the Gillard government ever intended to honour a number of these commitments.
There is a long and growing list of instances now where the government has displayed nothing short of arrogance in its approach to policy. It has refused to enter into discussion or even allow members of the community a right of reply. The government likes to claim that we are in a new paradigm and that, in fact, it is the coalition that is the problem; it is the coalition that is being obstructionist. This, of course, is not the case. It says that we should be working together, but we all know that this is code for wanting to avoid scrutiny and for wanting to avoid accountability for the decisions that it makes and for the promises that it has made.
The government would love the coalition to tick and flick all their proposals. But let me just say this: if the coalition had simply ticked and flicked the pink batts program we would still have it today. The safety of Australian families and workers would still be at risk and billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money would still be being spent. Let us not forget that we have had a $1 billion blow-out of this pink batts program. We are now spending over $550 million to fix it. There have been over 197 house fires that we know about that are related to this program, and over 240,000 homes have been affected. Most significantly of all, there have been four deaths.
Let us also look at another program that the government would like for us to have ticked and flicked—the BER program. Billions of dollars would continue to be spent on this program, even more than now, if we had not asked questions about the waste and mismanagement of this program, a program that has blown out by $1.7 billion. Of course, the coalition is not prepared to simply tick and flick, and we know that there has been a pattern that has been formed here. The latest instance of the government’s arrogance is its proposal to commission a new onshore detention facility in Inverbrackie in South Australia, which is completely at odds with the Prime Minister’s previously stated policy for an offshore processing centre in East Timor.
Following the breakdown of the so-called East Timor solution, the government has resorted to a secret plan to build new detention facilities in South Australia.
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr Danby
—Secret plan? Gee, it’s not secret now.
LKU
O’Dwyer, Kelly, MP
Ms O’DWYER
—The Prime Minister was in Inverbrackie the day before her announcement and refused to consult with the local community about her decision. She in fact did not even bother to consult with the Labor Premier, who said afterwards that he has made no secret of the fact that he was disappointed that the federal government did not properly consult the state government before making its announcement.
The local community has a right to be heard. It deserves an opportunity to have a say on the issue. People have raised legitimate concerns about the impact of the plan and the impact it will have on local schools, health facilities and transport in the local area. And they are right to say that they need to see the transparency of the decision and the plans that the government has put in place.
The immigration minister, Chris Bowen, refuses to meet with members of the community. He refuses to discuss the issue, preferring instead to accuse them of overreacting. As I said, this is part of a pattern. We only need to look at the recent announcement of Minister Tony Burke in relation to the draft guide to the draft plan of the Murray-Darling Basin, we only need to look at the $43 billion that is being wasted on the NBN project, we only need to look at the fact that the government is going to introduce a carbon tax, to know this is an arrogant government. (Time expired)
Asylum Seekers
2140
2140
12:55:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
1
0
Mr DANBY
—We just had in the House the faux concern for the Afghan asylum seekers expressed by the member for Cook and the opposition. I never thought I would see the day that I would have to rise, using this adjournment opportunity because I did not get it when the motion was discussed, to note that Australia’s obligations under the Refugee Convention have been cited by the opposition, to suddenly learn that the coalition are concerned about Australia contravening UN conventions after their 12 years of government, when they locked children behind barbed wire and held them in detention indefinitely. Where was Mr Morrison, the member for Cook, during the election when the coalition used fear-mongering tactics in ads with yellow arrows coming down to Australia? Where was he when they were talking about the passive invasion of boats? Where was he when, as I said, they were using the ads with the giant yellow arrows depicting hordes of people coming to our shores? And now he comes into this place and raises concerns about the Afghan people being kept in detention. Forgive me if I do not take his concern seriously. This is the party that gave us Tampa, that gave us the Pacific Solution and the inhumane detention of children.
Adding to this is the bizarre notion that the opposition leader will have a ‘boat phone’ ready to direct border security. I can just see it now. Mr Abbott gets a knock on his door from the member for Cook. ‘Holy asylum seekers, Batman. Another boat’s arrived. Get on the boat phone and turn them back!’ This clearly indicates that the member for Cook and the coalition have no understanding of the complicated nature of the asylum seeker issue.
LKU
O’Dwyer, Kelly, MP
Ms O’Dwyer
—You have got to take this issue seriously.
WF6
Danby, Michael, MP
Mr DANBY
—I do take it very seriously. I was the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and I have an insight into our system and what these people who are being held in detention have experienced. In July this year, along with colleagues, including members of the Liberal Party, I visited the Curtin detention centre. All the detainees there were Afghans of the Hazara ethnic group. Hazaras are mostly Shia Muslim, while the main ethnic group in Afghanistan, the Pashtun, are Sunni Muslim. Most of these Afghanis were in their 20s and 30s. We spoke to a group of detainees, who told us that Hazaras who join the Afghan army were put in the most dangerous missions on the front line, and were often treated extremely badly. They told us that Hazaras were openly discriminated against and attacked by Pashtuns and other ethnic groups in Afghanistan. Those who seek asylum have usually witnessed the most horrendous, gut-wrenching trauma that none of us in this parliament could imagine. Similarly, those who fled from Sudan, from Darfur, have witnessed genocide, rape and destruction of homes. Those in Afghanistan have fled war, violence and discrimination.
The overblown hysteria of the opposition in speaking of an ‘invasion’ of asylum seekers did nothing to strengthen our borders nor protect the dignity and rights of those people seeking a new home, nor indeed the dignity of Australians. The member for Cook’s solution is to reintroduce temporary protection visas under the guise of ‘safe haven visas’. How Orwellian is that: a ‘safe haven visa’? The visa lasts between six months and three years. There is nothing safe about being given a visa that leaves you in uncertainty for three years. A visa that gives the applicant false hope of a life free from fear and free from want is not a ‘safe haven’ visa; it is a visa that prolongs the emotional suffering of those seeking asylum. Furthermore, it is the only visa that makes you prove three years from being told you are a refugee that you are in fact a refugee. This approach in which you re-determine your refugee status contradicts article 1C of the UN Refugee Convention. While the opposition are paying lip service to the UN Refugee Convention in their motion, they want to bring back a visa that contravenes it. This is blatant political opportunism.
We know how ineffective temporary protection visas were when the coalition introduced them last time. As soon as they were introduced, the number of people arriving by boat increased, and increased in 2000-01. This is not the solution. Every person seriously involved in the asylum seeker issue knows that the central issue in all of this is what happens in Indonesia. The fact is that we have a government there in Indonesia which is democratic, the best friend Australia ever had, with an excellent president and an excellent foreign minister. The possible passage by the Indonesian parliament of legislation that would give sentences to people smugglers is the kind of serious policy we should all be looking at. Approximately 42 million people were forcibly displaced due to conflict during 2009. Developing countries host 80 per cent of the world’s refugees and Australia received 6,170 applications in 2009, which is 1.6 per cent of the total around the world. (Time expired)
Main committee adjourned at 1.01 pm