The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Macklin.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (09:01): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill contains three non-budget measures relating to Aboriginal land rights legislation, the Indigenous Land Corporation and the Torres Strait Regional Authority.
Scheduling of land
The bill will continue the government's important program under land rights legislation for the Northern Territory, by adding further parcels of land to Schedule 1 to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.
This will allow the land in question, which includes certain land near Borroloola, and the Port Patterson Islands, to be granted to relevant Aboriginal Land Trusts.
This measure was originally introduced in the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2010, but was withdrawn during the passage of that bill to allow one of the land area measurements to be clarified. The scheduling of these parcels of land through this bill will help to resolve two long-running and complex land claims.
Indigenous Land Corporation
The bill also amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 in relation to the Indigenous Land Corporation established under that act.
The Indigenous Land Corporation was established shortly after the Native Title Act 1993 came into effect. In recognition that native title may not be able to be established in all cases, its functions include helping Indigenous Australians to manage land, and to buy land, to provide long-term economic development and environmental, social and cultural benefits.
The amendments contained in this bill will allow ministerial guidelines to be made that the Indigenous Land Corporation must have regard to in deciding whether to perform its functions in support of a native title settlement and, if it decides to perform its functions in support of a native title settlement, in performing its functions in support of that settlement.
Given the complex context in which native title settlements are negotiated, the guidelines should help clarify the Indigenous Land Corporation's role in supporting native title settlements by providing guidance in the exercise of its functions.
In making these amendments, the government recognises that the Indigenous Land Corporation can assist with the resolution of native title settlements, particularly where connection to the land in question is at issue and native title may not be able to be established.
This measure was originally introduced in the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2010, but was withdrawn during passage to allow time for the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to inquire into the measure. The committee reported on 9 February 2011, and this bill gives effect to the committee's suggestions to clarify the measure, including by adding a definition of the term 'native title settlements'.
Torres Strait Regional Authority
Finally, the Bill also amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 in relation to the Torres Strait Regional Authority established under that act.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 provides for election of members to the Torres Strait Regional Authority. Presently, there is a connection between the election of members to the Torres Strait Regional Authority and the timing of Queensland local government elections. This bill removes this connection so that elections to the authority are conducted solely in accordance with the provisions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act.
The authority has commissioned a governance review of its structure and the method of appointment of its members. The bill also amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act to allow for a wider range of options for the composition of the authority following that review. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That Main Committee orders of the day No. 6 relating to defence houses at Eaton, NT, No. 8 relating to the 100th anniversary of the sinking of SS Yongala, and No. 10 relating to the 40th anniversary of the Ramsar Convention, private members' business, be returned to the House for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr ALBANESE: by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following items of private Members' business being called on and considered immediately in the following order:
Political donations from tobacco companies—Order of the day No. 18;
100th Anniversary of the sinking of SS Yongala—Order of the day;
40th Anniversary of the Ramsar Convention—Order of the day; and
Defence houses at Eaton, Northern Territory—Order of the day.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Political Donations from Tobacco Companies
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) there are about three million Australians who still smoke; and
(b) tobacco is a lethal product, killing around 15,000 Australians every year; and
(2) calls on all Members and political parties to immediately stop accepting political donations from tobacco companies.
Question agreed to.
100th Anniversary of the Sinking of SS Yongala
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) recognises the one-hundredth anniversary of the sinking of SS Yongala;
(2) notes that:
(a) the SS Yongala sank in a cyclone on 23 March 1911 on a voyage from Mackay to Townsville;
(b) the SS Yongala was lost 12 nautical miles off Alva in the Burdekin; and
(c) 122 passengers lost their lives as a result of the ship's sinking; and
(3) extends its thoughts and sympathies, at this time of memorial, to the living descendants of those who perished with the sinking of the SS Yongala.
Question agreed to.
40th Anniversary of the Ramsar Convention
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 2011 marks the fortieth anniversary of the Ramsar Convention and the establishment of a list of wetlands of international importance; and
(b) the existence of 64 Ramsar-listed sites in Australia covering 8.1 million hectares; and
(2) highlights the:
(a) social, economic, environmental and cultural importance of conserving wetlands through wise use and management; and
(b) need for ongoing Commonwealth funding to other agencies, including volunteer organisations, which play an important role in educational initiatives and practical environmental projects to protect and enhance Australia's wetlands.
Question agreed to.
Defence Houses at Eaton, Northern Territory
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that Darwin is currently experiencing the worst housing crisis since Cyclone Tracy, and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the Member for Lingiari, supports the plans to demolish or remove the houses in Eaton; and
(b) the significant adverse impact the demolition or removal of 396 defence houses at Eaton will have on the local community, local school and local businesses; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) excise the Darwin suburb of Eaton from RAAF Base Darwin;
(b) hand over the 396 houses managed by the Department of Defence in the Darwin suburb of Eaton, to the Defence Housing Authority (DHA); and
(c) direct DHA as a matter of priority, to develop and implement a business plan that would determine the percentage of the 396 houses in Eaton that could be made available for lease or sale to the local community in order to help address the critical housing shortage.
BUSINESS
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:11): I move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) be suspended for this sitting.
Mr Speaker, my advice at this stage is that the Senate, in their wisdom, will of course not deal with the budget this morning; they will deal with private members' business and a few other things. They have been dealing with valedictories and other matters during the week. It is their intention to begin the discussion on the budget at about quarter to four or quarter to five if they decide to have a matter of public importance debate this afternoon. So those who have friends in the Senate and who wish to get home at some reasonable hour could perhaps encourage them to deal with these issues sooner rather than later. Even though we have one more scheduled sitting week in this winter session, of course, that is after 1 July, and the budget bills do need to be carried before then. So I will inform the House, either prior to question time or immediately afterwards—as soon as I have more information—of what course we will take, but there are a number of options available: suspending tonight and coming back later tonight, coming back tomorrow or perhaps coming back on Monday, depending upon the circumstances. I will endeavour to keep the House informed.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Publications Committee
Report
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Government Whip) (09:13): I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network
Appointment
The SPEAKER: I have received messages from the Senate informing the House that: (a) the Senate transmits to the House an amendment to the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network, and requests the concurrence of the House; and (b) senators have been appointed members and participating members of that committee. Copies of the messages have been placed on the table for the information of honourable members. I do not propose to read the terms, which will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
The message concerning the amendment read as follows—
That the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network be amended as follows:
Omit paragraph (6), substitute:
(6) the committee shall elect as its chair a Government member appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Government Whip or Whips, or the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
After paragraph (6), insert:
(6A) the committee shall elect a member as its deputy chair.
The message concerning appointments read as follows—
That in accordance with the resolution agreed to by both Houses, senators had been appointed to the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network as follows:
Senators Bernardi and Cash as members; and
Senators Abetz, Adams, Back, Birmingham, Boswell, Boyce, Brandis, Bushby, Colbeck, Coonan, Cormann, Eggleston, Fierravanti-Wells, Fifield, Fisher, Heffernan, Humphries, Johnston, Joyce, Kroger, Macdonald, Mason, Nash, Parry, Payne, Ronaldson, Ryan, Scullion and Williams as participating members.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:14): I move:
That consideration of the amendment to the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Question agreed to.
Membership
The SPEAKER: I have received advice nominating Mr Bandt to be a member of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network.
Mr ALBANESE: by leave—I move:
That Mr Bandt be appointed a member of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Proceeds of Crime Orders) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (09:16): I rise this morning to continue my remarks in support of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Proceeds of Crime Orders) Bill 2011. By way of background to members who may not have been in the chamber yesterday evening, I was talking about how Western Australians want this parliament to take organised crime seriously, particularly in relation to the problems of people smuggling and clandestine laboratories. It delves down a bit into the local crime issues in my electorate concerning the receiving of benefits from the confiscation of property from organised crime.
As the member for Swan, I do believe that members of parliament have an active role to play in working with the police to reduce crime. In the past, my office has managed to work with the residents of Baillie Avenue in East Victoria Park to get a crime prevention barrier erected. As I mentioned last night, after being informed of a drug house in operation at one of my constituent's surgeries, my office reported the matter to the Minister for Police and to the local police force and the house was raided days later.
I do believe that as members of parliament we can make a difference, and it was in this spirit that last Friday I went on after-dark patrol with officers of the Western Australia Police to see for myself the progress that is being made to tackle crime in the area. I thank the police for agreeing to take me on this patrol.
Mr Laming interjecting—
Mr IRONS: I will take the interjection from the member for Bowman as support for my after-hours patrol. I was particularly keen to inspect areas in East Victoria Park where several residents had contacted me about another local spike in crime. Only last week there were a number of gunshots fired outside Nando's near the park centre, which is a busy shopping complex in the heart of my electorate and only 200 metres from my electorate office.
During the patrol we encountered what the police believe to be a major source of crime and antisocial behaviour in a rundown area of land adjacent to Franklins Tavern in Hubert Street. The unlit area next to the late-night tavern is believed by police to be a staging post for criminal activity in and around Oats Street train station. Part of this activity may be the organised crime of drug dealing. I also saw evidence of homeless people sleeping on this land. It is important that these people are protected.
I have contacted the CEO of the Town of Victoria Park about this area and he has gone down to the area to personally inspect it. I will work with both the council and the state government to try and have this issue addressed. I have done a bit of research and one of the options for getting some funding to fix this could be the state government's Criminal Property Confiscation Grants Program Round 9. Some lighting may well be an effective solution too. In the meantime, although the police are doing the best they can, I would advise residents to exercise extreme caution in this area. Whilst I do support the bill, as it will be of some help in addressing the issue of organised crime, I urge the government to treat the issue with the highest level of seriousness as organised crime and its effects are an issue for the people of my electorate in Western Australia.
As the nature of some crime is international, it is important that Australia has solid arrangements for cooperating with foreign countries in the restraint and confiscation of assets for matters that cross borders. Australia cannot be seen as a safe haven for organised crime profits. Australian courts are able to register and enforce foreign orders—compromising, restraining, confiscating and pecuniary penalty orders—over properties derived from serious criminal offences. Once such orders are registered in Australia they can be enforced as if they were an Australian order made under the Proceeds Of Crime Act. As has been mentioned by previous speakers, provisions in the International Crime Court Act 2002 and the International War Crimes Tribunals Act 1995 allow Australian courts to impose orders issued by the ICC.
The amendments in this legislation relate to the result of the decision of the recent High Court case of International Finance Trust Co. Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission, specifically raising constitutional issues in relation to chapter III of the Constitution. The bill amends section 34A of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987, section 45 of the International War Crimes Tribunal Act 1995 and section 156 of the International Criminal Court Act 1995 to address issues raised by the High Court in the case of International Finance Trust Co. Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission (2009) HCA 49 (International Finance). The amendments provide the courts with a greater discretion over the registration of foreign orders but still require the courts to register a foreign proceeds of crime order unless it is contrary to the interests of justice to do so. Essentially, these amendments should resolve any constitutional issues arising from the International Finance case and ensure that the principle of reciprocity can continue.
In conclusion, I support the broad intent of this bill. However, given the worrying trend that we are seeing in organised crime across the nation, from the people-smuggling problem to the issue of clandestine laboratories in Perth, I urge the government to do more to tackle organised crime. I also look forward to hearing the speech of the member for Cowan on this issue as well. I know that he has a deep interest in the issues of organised crime and crime prevention in his electorate as well.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (09:21): I welcome the opportunity today to speak on the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Proceeds of Crime Orders) Bill 2011. I support this bill, as I support every bill that will provide outcomes that make this nation and the people of this nation safer. When it comes to fighting crime, it is all hands on deck. It is everybody's job, not just the police. It is the job of parents to raise their children with good examples and a total observance of the law. It is our neighbours and our own responsibility to investigate that sound outside in the street, to observe those that should not be there, to report crime and suspicions and to assist the police and the justice system by being prepared to go to court and give evidence. These are the requirements of citizens and residents of Australia.
In returning to this bill, one of the great weapons in the fight against crime in recent years has been the pursuit of the proceeds of those crimes. We know that the motivation for crime is predominantly greed and money. Attacking the motivation for crime, taking away the profits, the benefits in the form of cash or property, is what can really hurt these criminals. Obviously we want to lock up the criminals, but we must also attack them where it hurts, with their property. If a criminal has bought their boat, their house and otherwise lived the good life paid for by the proceeds of crime, then all that should be liable to be forfeited under proceeds of crime legislation.
I say that if a criminal and their family loses their house, cars and other assets under proceeds of crime legislation then this was a risk that they knew about when they participated or were knowingly involved in such crimes. When we too often see those stories in the newspapers about suburban drug laboratories, I say that those houses should be subject to forfeit as proceeds of crime. I say that, where these houses may be state housing, those on the lease agreement who were involved in the crimes should no longer be allowed to access such housing. When we see the drug dealers operating from houses in our streets, the same should occur. Where those occupants also have cars, boats or other such assets acquired through the proceeds of crime, I say take it all and sell it all. Those assets should be converted into funding for crime prevention.
This bill is designed to address the possibility of constitutional issues with our current legislative framework for registering proceeds of crime orders. We are supportive of this bill because we cannot allow any problems in registering proceeds of crime orders that come from foreign countries, international tribunals or the International Criminal Court. It is in this bill that courts will be guaranteed the power to register and enforce foreign orders, and it will be done through amendments to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, the International Criminal Court Act and the International War Crimes Tribunals Act. It is designed to allow courts in Australia to give effect to foreign orders in circumstances where property related to serious foreign offences is located in Australia.
I would like to turn to the specifics of proceeds of crime, because it was due to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and in particular subsection 298(1), that the minister has been able to fund crime prevention measures, law enforcement measures, measures relating to treatment of drug addiction and diversionary measures relating to the illegal use of drugs. It was certainly the case that the Howard government recognised the value of diverting the proceeds of crime to these forms of programs and much was done to achieve better crime prevention outcomes as a result. In looking around, the value of community based crime prevention programs, coordinated and implemented by local people under the oversight of the police, is without question the right way to go. Local programs with the ability to locally inspire will always be the most effective options. I support the increased rollout of CCTV trailers and, as the minister will recall, I have asked about this option. I can assure my constituents that I will be continuing to fight for this and other community crime prevention initiatives.
Although this has been substantially covered by the shadow minister, I would also like to make mention of David Hicks. This is a classic proceeds of crime issue, either through the rules of his plea agreement or under the Proceeds of Crime Act. As we know, in 2007 David Hicks pleaded guilty to a charge of providing material support to a terrorist organisation, and although he was charged under the American Military Commissions Act 2006 it is in fact a charge closely related to the Commonwealth Criminal Code offence, section 102—providing material support for a terrorist organisation. As part of the plea agreement, Hicks committed to 'assigning to the government of Australia any profits or proceeds which I may be entitled to receive in connection with any publication or dissemination of information relating to the illegal conduct alleged in the charge sheet'. It seems like the information is all there. Without a doubt, the conditions of David Hicks's plea agreement require him to hand over the proceeds of his book. I understand that 70,000 copies of this work of fiction and obfuscation have been produced, at a recommended retail price of $49.95. Perhaps $350,000 may be the sum of royalties due to the Australian government. A lot of CCTV trailers could be provided with that sort of money.
I would ask the question: why is it that the government has not yet taken Hicks on, dealt with this issue and prosecuted the laws of this country? Perhaps it is a problem for the government in that so much political capital was committed by some of those opposite in support of Hicks. So much was done by the Left over there on the government side, and with their close allies the Greens, that perhaps a deal has been done. Perhaps the Brown Greens party made the phone call and told the Prime Minister that she should back off—if you believe the revisionist, leftist mantra that David Hicks is goodness and light incarnate. What is the short description of the book? 'David Hicks's story of endurance through injustice'—a title that is trite to the extreme. I certainly have no time for terrorists or mercenaries—those who wear a uniform or take up arms for a non-state military force of which they are not a citizen. Hanging out as a mate of terrorists? If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck, it is most definitely a duck.
I support this bill, but I think the government is lacking in its commitment to actually walk the walk. This bill will pass, but I call upon the government to take on the delusional Left's poster boy and stand up to Bob Brown for once, to take the financial proceeds of this book that exists only because of an admitted and proven crime by a convicted criminal. I find it inconceivable, so many months after the launch of the book, that there is still any doubt about this matter of whether or not he will be allowed to profit. Back in 2007, there was no doubt under the former government when the then Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock, said:
There is law in Australia which relates to proceeds of crime and it has extra territorial application.
It concerns me if people who have committed terrorist acts and been convicted of them were to profit from them, that's why we have laws on the proceeds of crime.
That is a significant contrast to the current circumstances under this government where things seem to be more equivocal. On 23 September 2010, a spokesperson for the Attorney-General's Department said, 'The Proceeds of Crime Act could be applied'. Could be applied? The book went on sale on 16 October 2010. Why is this matter still not completed? Why is there still any doubt about whether the government is going to take away from Mr Hicks the money that is the proceeds of this crime? It really is about time that the government dealt with this matter. There have been nine months of uncertainty about this. The government should stand up, stand by the act and do what needs to be done to make sure that the proceeds of this crime are taken by the Commonwealth and distributed to good crime prevention programs to help make this country a safe place.
In conclusion, I reiterate that I believe very strongly in programs to do with crime prevention, as I am sure everybody else in this House does. We are challenged by criminal elements in streets across our country, but we also challenged by those who seem to think that action on these crimes, action on reporting, is somebody else's problem. As I said before, crime is everybody's problem. We must all be prepared to stand up and be counted. We must all be prepared to stand up and do what needs to be done. I am not talking about going out and tackling people who are committing crimes; I am talking about active participation in the justice system by people who are prepared to pick up the phone, call the police, record descriptions of people and are prepared to go to court. These are the things that are required in this country so that those doing the wrong thing feel that they are constantly under pressure. Those who are walking through the streets of our suburbs looking for places to knock over or for cars to steal must be made to feel that they are under surveillance—that they are being looked at and observed. It is in those sorts of circumstances that our streets will become safer places.
I recall that, while door knocking through South Ballajura in Cowan during the 2007 election campaign, three times on one street of about 50 houses someone came out onto the street and greeted me with, 'Hello mate, what are you up to?' I felt that people were concerned—not concerned about me, a bastion of society like me, of course—that if they did not recognise somebody out on the streets they should find out who that person was. I thought that was a great example of a street where people care and where crime would not flourish at all. Places like that, and other streets in Cowan I have been on where similar circumstances have arisen, make you feel that people care about their street and their community and that they will do what needs to be done to provide that level of protection to the community.
I am in support of this bill that provides the opportunity to take the proceeds of crime away from criminals—to hit them where it really hurts and to make sure that they will not benefit in the long run from their crimes. This is very good principle in this country and the use of that money for community and crime prevention programs, such as the last government had and which this government has, is what we should be doing on all occasions.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (09:33): I rise to speak in support of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Proceeds of Crime Orders) Bill 2011. The coalition supports the efforts of this bill to strengthen our existing legal structures to register proceeds of crime orders. It follows the initiatives of the previous government in its resolve in these matters. We are always happy to support the government when they move in a direction that is consistent with the policies and practices that we ourselves employed when we were in government. Our issue comes when they decide to walk away from measures that have proved in the past to work and to go in different directions.
The topic of this speech is not that of broader border protection issues. The government obviously chose to go in a different direction on border protection three years ago, and we can see the consequences daily. But, on this matter, the government have decided to go in a similar direction to the coalition. Obviously, when they are engaged in good policy in a favourable direction in these matters they will get the support of this side of the House. The aim of these amendments is to uphold our current frameworks for rendering assistance to foreign countries, international tribunals and the International Criminal Court in registering proceeds of crime orders and to ensure these laws continue to function as they were originally intended. At its heart, this bill is about protection. It is about strengthening our borders and protecting the Australian people from subversion and violation by international crime syndicates. Where once we spoke of borders as clear pencil lines on a map, we are now called to defend not only the literal but also the figurative borders: expansive matrixes and parameters within electronic global-banking interfaces.
Organised crime is insidious. Up to $15 billion each year is lost because of it, according to the Australian Crime Commission. At least $10 billion a year is ripped from the spreadsheets of Australian businesses—money that could be spent across a dozen worthy legal sectors. The member for Gorton was absolutely right when he observed:
… money is the lifeblood of organised crime and if we can stop the money flow we can stop organised criminals in their tracks.
It is vital that Australia retains the right to confiscate assets and profits resulting from crimes committed overseas. Our borders must be stronger and we must be ever vigilant of the dangers that lurk not only beyond our checkpoints and ports but also within.
We talk increasingly of the global village. We celebrate the breaking down of boundaries and the ease with which we can travel the globe. But, as geographic barriers are increasingly porous and transcended, there is a pressing need to ensure border protection and law enforcement remains an utmost priority. We cannot do that without the international cooperation that this bill strives to sustain. Criminal syndicates have become increasingly sophisticated in their use of technology and the intricacies of their arrangements. Assets derived from criminal activities and nefarious dealings are often moved offshore to avoid detection and confiscation. Gone are the hackneyed days where smugglers gathered in hazy dockside inns swapping wads of cash or pockets of doubloons. Nowadays, the criminals are not so easily defined or discernible. But where a person has committed an offence in a foreign country and the proceeds from that crime are stashed in Australia, we must be able to enforce foreign orders and to take action. I agree with the assertion from the minister at the table that Australia must not be seen as a safe haven for criminals and their ill-gotten gains. This nation is not a secret storage space for tainted money and we must actively work to ensure we do not become a new overseas tax-haven bank account.
The coalition have a historic commitment to border protection and the fight against international organised crime, as outlined by my colleague the member for Stirling and the shadow minister in this area. We are proud of this legacy and we continue to uphold and cement it. It was the Howard government who established the Australian Crime Commission in 2002, a cooperative venture to pool the resources of the state and Federal Police to investigate serious crime. The ACC remains a successful venture, despite the Labor government's attempts to sabotage it by slicing funding and cutting staff. That same government has axed 340 jobs from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service over two years. A recent Customs' annual report showed that just 4.3 per cent of sea cargo is X-rayed and just 0.6 per cent of sea cargo physically examined. Yet the number of reported consignments for air and sea cargo has leapt significantly and will continue on that upward trajectory for the next four years. Less cargo will be inspected in spite of the burgeoning volume. By reducing the amount of cargo checked, Labor are leaving us open and exposed. As someone who represents a part of Sydney that is very close to Port Botany and also Sydney airport, many of my constituents are involved in the logistics and transport business, and in activities around the waterside as well as the airside, and it is important that we have these matters fully attended to.
Meanwhile, 11,533 people have arrived on 230 boats since Labor started to unwind the coalition's proven border protection and asylum policies in August 2008. The AFP have their hands full dealing with the incidents that this government's attitudes have created. By unwinding the border protection regime that they inherited, they have put inordinate stress on those agencies and those officers tasked with protecting our borders, and the government are making the job far more difficult than it ever needed to be. The officers in the Australian Federal Police and in our Customs service do an outstanding job for Australia, but they struggle under extreme pressure. And I extend that same commendation to the officers who work in our immigration department. These are difficult jobs and the processing and challenges that they are now confronted with because of the changes that this government have made to border protection policy have only made their job even more difficult. While measures such as the one brought by the government to the House in this bill today are supported and are worthy, it does not take away from the fact that this government's other policy failures are making the jobs of those who are entrusted with protecting our borders more difficult.
We need to send a strong and clear message when it comes to organised crime and border protection, not a hastily cobbled together, cut-and-paste model that encourages people to flout the law, more than being a deterrent. I remind the House that the Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was introduced and passed under a coalition government. The act provides a scheme to trace, restrain and confiscate the proceeds of crime against Commonwealth law. The act also enables confiscated funds to be given back to the community to lessen the impact of crime upon Australia. The coalition remain committed to the strategy of being able to confiscate assets and profits resulting from crimes committed overseas. Under the law as it currently stands, we have a framework in place to work with foreign countries and confiscate benefits derived from foreign criminal offences where those assets are located in Australia.
Part VI of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 allows Australian courts to register and enforce orders issued by a foreign court. These foreign orders include restraining, confiscation and pecuniary penalty orders over property derived from serious criminal offences. Once a foreign order is registered here, it can then be enforced as if it were an Australian order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act. But legislation is not static; it lives, it breathes and good legislation evolves with time as it is tried and tested. The 2009 High Court decision pertaining to New South Wales proceeds of crime related provisions shone a light on a potential legal conflict that could undermine these laws. This bill seeks to remedy that loophole.
We need to ensure the functions imposed on a court reflect the nature of judicial functions under chapter III of the Constitution. The amendments will allow a court greater discretion in determining whether a foreign order should be registered and enforced in Australia or whether to hear an application for registration on an ex parte basis. The amended provisions will also necessitate a court to register a foreign order unless it considers it contrary to the interests of justice to do so.
We do not approve of the reckless way in which this Labor government has softened Australia's border protection strategies. We have said many times that they inherited a solution and they created a problem. The government have cut vital resources at a time of great need and destabilised well-established and proven policies for the sake of appeasing one element of their constituency. But we welcome this bill as a step, albeit small, in the right direction—a direction that was established by the coalition government.
Where this government heads in the right direction, they will get our support. The government seem to be seeking the adulation of the opposition almost on a regular basis, waiting for the coalition to support them. I would have thought that a government that was confident in its own policies would not constantly be seeking opposition support and adulation on a daily basis. We are happy to support them when they get it right. But if we think they are going in the wrong direction, we will say so. That is what an opposition does. It is an opposition's responsibility to hold the government to account for good policy and not engage in any sort of bipartisan hubris purely for its own sake but embrace a spirit of bipartisanship where we firmly believe that the direction the government are taking is the right one.
On this occasion with this bill, they are heading in the right direction and they will receive support. If they would only head in the right direction in so many other areas, they might get the coalition's adulation that they crave. This government have become obsessed with the opposition. Every time they come to this place at question time or on other occasions, they spend their entire time debating the opposition about the opposition. They are full of advice for the opposition about how to be an opposition. I am sure the Australian people would love to give—
Mr Husic: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, a point of order on relevance: perhaps the member for Cook could return to the bill itself.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): I take the point of order from the member for Chifley. The member for Cook is certainly having a wide debate, and the bill does allow for that, I think. The title of the bill is Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Proceeds of Crime Orders). 'Crime' obviously can cover a whole range of issues. The member for Cook has the call and will obviously be aware of the bill before the House.
Mr MORRISON: I was in the process of saying that we are supporting this bill.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: It was in my first statement. If the minister at the table actually paid attention to the proceedings of the parliament, he would be very well aware that I was actually supporting his own bill. Finally, the minister has the adulation the government so often seeks from the opposition. My commentary was simply to make the point that where the government heads in the right direction it will get support from the opposition.
The government is very sensitive on this point. If it wants to raise points of order here on a Thursday morning, when the opposition is in the process of supporting one of its own pieces of legislation, and is so sensitive about comments from the opposition, then I suppose that suggests the level of sensitivity there is in the government. I can appreciate why the government would be so sensitive today. Fundamental Injustice Day mark 2 is on its way, and I can understand that the government feels very sensitive about these matters.
We are happy to support this bill today, because, for once, the government is following the good direction laid down by the previous government. If it would only do that more often then it would get the adulation it so constantly craves from the opposition. If the government would like to take up the role of the opposition, in which it thinks it could do a better job, I am sure the Australian people would be happy to provide that opportunity at the earliest opportunity. We would be happy to give the Australian people the opportunity to let the government get into opposition as quickly as they can, because the Australian people have had enough of this government and they urgently seek and demand an election to ensure that we can return to the path of good policy.
To the extent that this bill heads in that direction, it has the coalition's support. As a result, we support the passage of this bill, and I commend the bill to the House. I know those members opposite are feeling very sensitive today. They are feeling very touchy. They are very mindful of the events that took place a year ago. I am sure they will get through the day, but they might want to try to keep their seats and not express their oversensitivity too much, because they can expect a little more treatment on the topic as the day proceeds.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice) (09:48): I thank the honourable members for Stirling, Fowler, Swan and Cowan for their contributions and even the member for Cook for his lame contribution to this debate on the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Proceeds of Crime Orders) Bill 2011. One might be forgiven for thinking that the opposition opposes the bill, having listened to the last contribution, the last 10 minutes of which was utterly irrelevant to the substance of the bill, but it is good to see the opposition accept the logic behind this bill. It is an important measure to ensure that we have in place a very important arrangement between countries to fight transnational crime. I would also like to comment on some points that were raised by the member for Stirling in this debate yesterday, which I will do once I go through some other matters.
Again, I thank all those who contributed to the debate on this bill. As all members have noted during this debate, crime is an insidious threat to the safety, stability and wellbeing of all nations. As criminals continue to exploit the benefits of new technologies and globalisation to pursue their illicit enterprises, so must the law evolve and adapt to respond to the threat. The Australian Crime Commission estimates that Australia loses between $10 billion and $15 billion to organised crime every year. Reports from the United Kingdom have estimated that organised crime costs their countries up to £40 billion each year. These are staggering amounts of money, as others have said, that could be well spent on legitimate purposes—on important areas of public policy.
On these figures alone, the cost of crime is obvious. As criminals use the proceeds of crime to fund further criminal activity, the ability to confiscate and restrain the financial and material benefits obtained from criminal enterprises is an important tool for law enforcement authorities. Furthermore, it is essential that criminals cannot escape the consequences of their criminal actions by moving the illicit proceeds of their crimes out of the reach of law enforcement authorities.
I take this opportunity to respond to some of the comments that have been made by the member for Cowan and the member for Stirling in relation to Mr David Hicks. Part 2-5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 enables action to be taken to prevent a person from earning profits by exploiting their criminal notoriety. This can apply to crimes against foreign law if the benefit is derived in Australia or is transferred to Australia. The member for Stirling and the member for Cowan questioned whether action would be taken against David Hicks under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to the release of his personal memoir. A decision to commence literary proceeds action under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is at the discretion of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, following an investigation by the Australian Federal Police. The Australian Federal Police has given a range of material to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for their consideration. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the likelihood of any future legal proceeding, but I must refute some of the very outlandish and unsubstantiated claims made by the member for Cowan with respect to that matter, and I can assure the House that that matter is being dealt with by the appropriate agencies in the appropriate manner. I will return to the substantive provisions of the bill. Depriving criminals of their ill-gotten gains not only deters prospective criminal activity but also goes some way towards returning assets and property to their rightful owners. As reciprocity is the fundamental basis of international cooperation in criminal matters, these amendments will ensure that Australian authorities can enforce foreign orders over illegal assets that are located in Australia. Although the amendments are minor, they will ensure that Australia can continue to provide assistance to foreign countries in registering proceeds of crimes orders, and this will ensure legal loopholes do not prevent law enforcement authorities from pursuing criminal assets wherever they are found. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (09:55): The Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011 has come about largely in response to the final report of the expansive Bradley review of Australian higher education, which mapped out a broad vision for the restructure of the higher education sector. The review identified, amongst other things, the need to have a future skilled workforce where 40 per cent of Australians between the ages of 25 and 34 will hold at least a bachelor's degree by 2025. In principle, I support this target, as I believe a highly skilled workforce will contribute positively to our nation's economy.
To meet this target, it is important that higher education move away from a restricted intake to a student demand driven system and, in so doing, also allow choice of public or private institution enrolment for students. At present, Commonwealth supported places are capped by the Higher Education Support Act 2003, which prevents the approximately 220,000 additional students required annually to fulfil the Bradley review's recommended target from gaining a Commonwealth funded place.
The move towards demand driven funding for undergraduate student places and removal of the restriction on the number of undergraduate Commonwealth supported places that Australian universities are able to offer is a positive move, even though I note that the number of enrolments for medical student places remains capped. With this cap and restriction removed, public universities will be given the freedom to decide the number of undergraduate student places they will offer and for which degrees they will offer them. Decisions about undergraduate student places will be based on student demand and the needs of employers in a given discipline, rather than on rigid government stipulations.
On the Gold Coast we have four university campuses: Southern Cross, Griffith, Central Queensland and Bond. Southern Cross University and Bond University are in my electorate of McPherson. Much has been said previously in this debate in relation to public universities, so I would like to focus on private universities and in particular Bond University. When Bond University opened 21 years ago, it was Australia's first private university and it was modelled on the traditions of the world's most elite educational institutions. Bond has produced about 16,000 graduates since its establishment, and this has been achieved with minimal public funding, as more than 90 per cent of the university's total income is from student fees.
The Bradley review target of 40 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds to be degree qualified by 2025 is particularly important for Bond University, as it is centrally located in the Gold Coast region and the Gold Coast is a region with low higher education participation rates, as illustrated by data from the 2006 census, where only 18 per cent of the Gold Coast population aged 25 to 34 were degree qualified, compared to the national average of 29 per cent. There is an 11 per cent difference in those figures. Our universities on the southern Gold Coast are already taking action to address this issue within the region. Bond University takes part in the state low-SES initiative and it does this by providing academics to tutor in science based subjects and by providing advice on tertiary education. Bond has also signed a memorandum of agreement with the Gold Coast City Council under which the university and the council are working together to address low higher education participation rates and low aspirations of children in the Gold Coast region. This is a very positive initiative for us on the Gold Coast.
Bond University also has in place an annual scholarship program that compares favourably to the G8 universities. Ten per cent of Bond's fee revenue goes towards scholarships and, currently, a range of corporate and other funded scholarships are being developed. Importantly, these scholarships are merit based and therefore support access and equity to students who might otherwise not be able to afford a place at the university.
As the member for McPherson, I would like to see the Gold Coast economy mature to become a centre for excellence in education and research, to complement the existing industries of tourism and construction. I called for this recently in my speech on the appropriation bill to this parliament. On current projections, the Gold Coast is expected to become Australia's fourth largest city by 2050 and, accordingly, substantial investments in education, and research and development infrastructure will be needed in the region.
Even with the growth in non-government higher education in Australia over the last few years, Australia's higher education system remains overwhelmingly public. This is inconsistent with demand for private education more broadly in Australia and specifically on the Gold Coast. The demand for private education in Australia is evidenced by enrolments in private secondary schools in Australia, which account for 34 per cent of total enrolments, and is growing. On the Gold Coast, many of our independent schools have extensive waiting lists.
With private higher education providers comprising only six per cent of the higher education sector, private institutions such as Bond can and should play a much more significant role in Australia's changing higher education scene. It is also increasingly clear that the government and the taxpayer do not have the resources to fund this expansion and that the obvious way its targets can be met is through encouragement of private providers. Nevertheless, government policy remains firmly on providing the public product.
The Bradley review recommended that, to support the expansion of the system, Commonwealth supported places should be uncapped and made available to private providers. Bond University itself says that the difference between the tuition cost and the CSP funding should be the student contribution, which could be funded through FEE-HELP.
Parents who have struggled to put their children through a private school no doubt appreciate the Commonwealth funding which flows in support of private school places. However, support for private places stops at the university level if a student chooses a private university such as Bond. This is an obvious anomaly which should be addressed. The government has thus far refused to consider the provision of CSP places to private providers on the basis that students could pay the gap, or use FEE-HELP, to meet the gap between the CSP amount and the institution's fees. The Commonwealth's position is concerning, as the Bradley review clearly supported a demand driven system. The government, by not allowing students to use their CSP funding at a private higher education provider in this way, denies choice and a true demand driven system.
I know how important a demand funded higher education system is to Australia. I have worked closely on this and other private higher education issues with Adrian McComb, Executive Officer of the Council of Private Higher Education, and with Chris Hogan, Associate Director, Information and Planning, at Bond University. In fact, I found Mr McComb's views on private higher education providers insightful:
Under a student-driven system, how can you discriminate on the basis of where a student chooses to enrol? The nature of the ownership of their institution shouldn't be a factor.
Whilst Bond University is, undoubtedly, very grateful for the Commonwealth's investments to date, including contributions in support of the establishment of its School of Medicine and School of Sustainable Development, a fairer reflection of the public benefits of private education would be appropriate when considering allocating public funding. It would not cost the taxpayer any extra for students to be able to choose to utilise their CSP funding to assist them to enrol at Bond University. In fact, it would save the taxpayer, as Bond has established a wonderful campus with world-class facilities and academics, with very modest financial support from the government over the many years of its existence.
As I noted earlier, since the establishment of Bond University there have been domestic award course completions, at substantially no cost to the taxpayer. Completions in the public sector cost, on average, $100,000 when capital costs are included. On this basis Bond has already made a significant contribution to the public good, the majority of which would otherwise have been funded from the public purse. Private institutions are very grateful for public support and acknowledge how FEE-HELP has also been particularly helpful in facilitating a large number of domestic students, including low SES students, to undertake their degrees at Bond University.
The solution is to now go ahead and implement the public-private vision proposed by Bradley, which would allow students to take their CSP to the university of their choice, whether it be private or public. This would be a truly demand driven and high-quality system that would prepare Australia for the challenges ahead. In a genuine demand driven system, Commonwealth support should follow the student, irrespective of whether the student is enrolling in a public university or other approved higher education institution. The best outcome for the student and for the taxpayer will come from supporting the choice of the student in what and where they choose to study.
From 2012 we will have in a single national regulator, national accreditation standards and national course standards, providing confidence in the quality of the system. This clears the way for support for the student to follow their choice. I call on the government to allow CSP funding to flow to students, irrespective of whether they choose a public or a private university, and also to allow students at Bond University to top up their CSP funding to the Bond fee by using their own funds or FEE-HELP. There are a further three issues that I would like to comment on briefly today. Firstly, the bill requires universities to enter into a mission based compact with the Commonwealth government. These agreements require universities to show how their research direction contributes to the government's goals for higher education and link their goals to a university's Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding agreement. There are currently in place interim compacts between individual universities and the Commonwealth government. This bill therefore seeks to formalise the existing arrangements. Compacts have broad support, as they will help diversify the higher education sector and focus universities on their central research direction and goals. However, we do not want to see compacts used to micromanage universities when they should be given relative educational freedom. The government should not be seeking to use compacts to align universities' objectives and goals with those of the Commonwealth.
Secondly, this bill seeks to abolish the Student Learning Entitlement, which was introduced by the Howard government and implemented by the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to limit students' ability to qualify for a Commonwealth supported place to a defined number of years of full-time study. The defined number of years is typically seven years, with some exceptions, and also accrues over the lifetime of the student. The implementation of the Student Learning Entitlement was an extremely sensible move by the Howard government to prevent students from undertaking continuous studies at taxpayers' expense. While we can debate whether there are many or a few 'lifelong students', it is still important that we are prudent with taxpayers' money and ensure these students are not being funded for an education which will not lead to skilled employment and for which they have no intention of paying the money back.
Finally, the bill seeks to promote and protect free intellectual inquiry in learning, teaching and research and consequently requires universities to have institutional policies in place to achieve this. There is no prescription in this bill, however, on what is to be included in these policies, and there is no explicit mention of the requirement for students to be covered by this freedom. Academic freedom is a key principle in our society. It is often invoked as a shield in defence of unpopular but important scholarly activity. Sometimes it can be unsheathed as a sword to swing. It is a cherished foundation of the nation's universities, but is not necessarily a settled concept. It is the right of scholars and students to search for truth and to learn. Both scholars and students should be free to engage in critical inquiry and public discourse without fear or favour. It is their right to hold and express diverse opinions. Scholarly debate should be robust. Scholars and students are entitled to express their ideas and opinions even when doing so may cause offence. The ability to speak freely applies to the making of statements on political matters, including policies affecting higher education, and even to criticism of a university and its actions. Like scholars, students should not be disadvantaged or subject to less favourable treatment because they exercise their academic freedom.
We should not forget, though, that while academic freedom is a right, it also carries the burden of responsibilities. As scholars and students hold their own views and speak freely, they have the responsibility to exercise this right reasonably and in good faith. Discourse should accord with the principles of academic and research ethics, where these apply. For example, justifications should be given for an argument or statement in order for those who wish to respond to have a basis to do so, with potential conflicts of interest stated. I support the principle of academic freedom for both scholars and students. (Time expired)
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (10:11): I rise today to support the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011 and to oppose the opposition's amendments. This bill is an important development in the government's determination to ensure our economic future is sound. It is also a reflection of Labor's deep understanding—yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, our very deep understanding—of how critical a high-quality education really is. At all levels the Gillard government is governing to ensure that we are able to reach our national potential. The way that we will achieve this in the tertiary sector is through the kind of key structural reform that this bill will deliver.
That brings me to the main purpose of this bill, which is to implement a demand driven system for funding undergraduate places in a wide range of higher education institutions. That means removing the current controls on undergraduate places in all disciplines, except for medicine, and abolishing the Student Learning Entitlement. This was one of the measures announced as part of our comprehensive reform package transforming Australia's higher education system, contained in the 2009-10 budget. The way that the system worked up until Labor's landmark reforms was that the government would provide funding to eligible higher education providers for an agreed number of Commonwealth support places in a given year. In other words, each university was capped in regard to the number of places it could provide. So, even if there were students knocking on the door, ready, willing and able to start a course, that university could not meet the desire for education. As an educator, there is nothing worse than turning away someone who is ready to learn. It is the worst possible response to the expression of a thirst for engagement—a thirst for the risk-taking that is part of learning, a thirst for the challenge that taking up education at a tertiary level presents. This turning away of students is of great concern not only for the individuals, whose vision for improvement and skill development is thwarted, as others have noted in this debate; it is a great loss of the capacity of Australia to advance in the interests of our nation.
As others have noted in this debate, the context for this legislation is the review of Australian higher education chaired by Professor Denise Bradley. Professor Bradley could not have been any clearer. Australia is falling behind other countries in performance and investment in higher education—'Australia is losing ground', she said. We are at a great competitive disadvantage unless immediate action is taken. But further, Professor Bradley outlines what I believe is our moral imperative. The report's words again:
… we must [also] look to members of groups currently underrepresented in the system, that is, those disadvantaged by the circumstances of their birth: Indigenous people, people with low socioeconomic status and those from regional and remote areas.
To me, there is a social justice imperative for this reform as well as a productivity imperative because, make no mistake, failure to have the flexibility and the capacity to respond to changing community demands in this sector has a negative impact on our overall productive capacity. Higher skill and education levels are highly associated with better life and financial outcomes for individuals and for the society that benefits from those individuals' efforts.
When you represent, as I do, a regional community, the current limitations on flexibility are absolutely amplified. Many potential students from regional Australia have been more disadvantaged than their counterparts in metropolitan areas simply because of their geographical location. Often there is a physical or financial incapacity to shop around for a place at another university that might allow them in if the one that is near to home does not provide the place that they seek.
This bill offers universities in cities and regions a critical capacity to be more flexible and responsive to the fluctuations in demand for particular courses and fluctuations in the needs in their particular regions. Sadly, I had one poor student who was a couple of marks short of getting into a teaching place out in the western suburbs of Sydney. She was lucky enough to get a teaching place at the University of Newcastle, where I was teaching, and I was delighted to have her in my class as a student. She made a fine contribution, and I am sure that at this stage she is out making a fine contribution in the teaching profession. However, she did have to leave her family to undertake her first year of study. She had to finance that. There were many, many impediments put in her way. There was a social impact and a financial impact. She did successfully complete year 1, and on the basis of that she was then able to secure a place at her home university. There are students, however, who might not have had the personal drive, the agency, to be able to navigate that path to education. This bill will achieve a much cleaner and much more responsive capacity for universities to avoid that sort of stupid situation, which was very damaging in its impact on that young woman.
We want innovation in Australia; we do not want a system in education that challenges students' innovative capacity just to get round the system. This legislation offers the system the opportunity to serve the people. I believe it is a much better arrangement. On the Central Coast we are blessed in many ways—we have great people and a beautiful environment—but we are not blessed with abundant resources. There is no mining boom in our region. The people of my region want to lift themselves up, but there is no opportunity to access education that prepares us for this 21st century if we do not provide it within the context of where we live.
Once upon a time, a sixth grade, then a fourth form and then a year 12 graduation certification was satisfactory. But for this 21st century we really need to massively increase the number of tertiary graduates. We all know that higher education is a great enabler, and it is a powerful way to help people overcome disadvantage. This government is determined to give all Australians the opportunity for a great education, no matter where they live. In higher education we have set ourselves a target that will see at least 40 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds gain a qualification at bachelor level by 2025. That reality check demands that we must attend to the realities that press on us.
The government reveal in this legislation our commitment to Australians, our investment decisions and our determined reform efforts in the education of Australians as a critical investment in people and in our shared future. This legislation reveals our practical and real action to ensure that, on our watch, investment in Australia's talent, our young people who will carry us into the future, will make sure that they receive the opportunities they deserve. This legislation reveals the educational leadership that we are offering—the educational leadership necessary to ensure that those who are in high schools today can enter tertiary education settings across this nation and acquire the skills, knowledge, values and attitudes that will ensure their employability in a world economy.
But that is not all they will achieve through participation in learning in a tertiary setting. The experience of learning in a tertiary setting not only assures that we develop a highly qualified and competent workforce; indeed, in an age of technology, when knowledge is so easily accessed through the internet and other virtual sources, it is more important than ever that the acquisition of knowledge in a tertiary setting gives our students a social context in which they come to understand how that knowledge might be useful.
In my view, a tertiary learning experience provides our democracy with a populace that is critically aware—people who are able to critique themselves and other sources of authority. Well-educated communities such as those are innovative and adaptive. Innovation and adaptability are core capacities necessary in our fast-moving global economy. We need students who complete their studies and who are able to weigh up new information and ideas, new knowledges and new perspectives. We need students who complete their studies and who are able to draw on a body of sufficient knowledge to add to our productive capacity. But first of all we have to allow them access to the universities.
A quality tertiary education creates that most essential of assets for our rapidly changing time: a citizenry of lifelong learners who will become leaders of our professions, our businesses, our services, our community and our nation and leaders in our increasingly connected world. To achieve a degree of security for our future, to ensure that we have this skilled citizenry necessary to take our place amongst the leaders of the 21st century, we must deliberately move towards a much larger engagement in, and more completions of, tertiary education.
Our goal is clear: to ensure that the proportion of 25- to 34-year-old Australians with bachelor level qualifications reaches 40 per cent by 2025. By international standards this is a conservative goal. There are a number of nations out there which have set their target at 50 per cent. But 40 per cent is, I believe, achievable, and it is essential that we move towards it. To achieve the goal of 40 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds with a bachelor level qualification, something needs to change. Critically, this bill will provide vital change drivers to allow our tertiary institutions to respond to student driven desires to select the courses of learning that most appeal to them. The capacity of students' interests to drive change in the tertiary sector is an important part of the reform that this bill offers. That is the educational case.
There are also compelling economic and productivity reasons why we need to boost the number of 25- to 34-year-old Australians with bachelor level qualifications to 40 per cent by 2025. Nearly 6½ million Australians in the 15-to-64 age group have no postschool qualifications. Back in the Howard years, when the previous Leader of the Opposition held the education portfolio, our university completion rate was 72 per cent, just a touch above the OECD. These are the figures that were cited in the Bradley report. We need to do better than that average so as not to be left behind in a competitive region. It is difficult to talk about the future without reflecting on the past. There is a very telling table in Professor Bradley's final report that I draw to the attention of those opposite. It is table 2 on page 18, titled 'International comparisons of education attainment: percentage of bachelor degree or above'. The table compares the levels of education attainment between 1996 and 2006 and the rankings of various countries relative to others. In 1996, we were seventh in the world when it came to people holding bachelor degrees or above. By 2006, we had slipped to ninth. It is no coincidence that the relative reversal coincides with the years of the Howard government. Labor recognises that 28 per cent of students not completing their studies is not good enough. Look across the Tasman to New Zealand whose Prime Minister we were so honoured to hear in the joint sitting earlier this week. New Zealand went past us, so did Sweden and Finland. Congratulations to those countries for lifting their games in the bachelor degree stakes. But no-one should forget —least of all those opposite—that our ranking went backwards under their watch.
As an educator I understand the power of expectation and setting high standards in classrooms. This bill exemplifies the same expectation of high standards. Importantly, Labor is leading on this critical issue, along with so many others in this House, ensuring through this bill that we give Australians who want to be ready for the new global economic realities of our time access to the education that they need to be a participant. More importantly, we are willing to act. I add that we have also set the target of halving the number of Australians aged between 20 and 64 years without qualifications at the certificate III level or above. I am delighted and proud to be part of a government that is making this shift to a demand driven higher education system. The effect of the transition to a demand driven system over the last two years, where Labor has lifted the cap on enrolments from five per cent to 10 per cent, has begun to already have a significant impact.
I heard anecdotes the other day from a university about the changes in the nature of what is happening in their first-year courses. We have many more students from low socioeconomic levels engaging. It is delightful to hear in that context that they are not only engaging but succeeding, and they are staying. The problem seems to not have been the marks that students needed to get into the university; it was simply the fact that they needed to get the door open to allow them through.
Another thing that will change is the seven-year full-time access limit. This particularly impacts on students who might have a life episode where they have a child or experience mental illness and they might not be able to complete studies within seven years. I know just such a student who is very close to the completion of her degree. She will make a fine social worker. If the seven-year rule applies to her, she might be six years and three months from completing and all of a sudden we have lost somebody with all those skills. She will not be any less well trained. She will not be any less well prepared for the role if it takes her eight years instead of seven. So this is an important change that we have made as well.
This bill continues to build on Labor's great investment. Our record in governing since 2007 has shown that we are absolutely committed to higher education, early childhood education and general education through our schools. This is a transformative investment, an investment that will alter the quality of learning and teaching of this generation and those who follow them. We are investing in the people of our nation who add to our wealth through their engagement and learning, not just in the very important BER projects that are opening across the nation to the delight of local communities. Through this bill, we are going to invest in our people to lead in the economy of the future. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (10:26): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It is a bill that deals with some of the recommendations from the review done by Professor Denise Bradley in 2008 into the higher education system. The main purpose is to remove the restrictions on the number of undergraduate Commonwealth supported places that Australian universities are able to offer. From 2012, universities will be able to determine the number of students that they choose to admit to undergraduate courses with the exception of medical courses.
In addition, the bill seeks to abolish the student learning entitlement. That is a measure that the coalition will oppose. We will move an amendment to change that system from seven to eight years. We have had a consistent view on this matter for some time now that we should not be encouraging people to spend their life at university on the taxpayer. Those restrictions were put in place by the former government and we do not see a compelling case to remove those restrictions.
This bill also requires universities to enter into a mission based compact with the Commonwealth government and requires universities to institute policies which promote and protect free intellectual inquiry in learning, teaching and research. We will be moving an amendment relating to extending this provision to students as well as academics because, from time to time, we have had some concerns about the way in which students are treated if they have a differing view about the way they go about their work. Unfortunately, in some of our universities, no matter how much a student has addressed the criteria, if the thesis of their argument—particularly when it comes to more theoretical discussions—is different from that of the lecturer or tutor, sometimes the marks are substantially different.
My wife had that experience, surprisingly, at university. She was at Flinders University studying an international relations degree with an American politics bent. She wrote a paper, which of course was more from the conservative style of politics, and it did not pass, although when it was reconsidered it somehow got a distinction. So there was obviously a clear difference of view by the original marker. In fact, he commented at the time, 'I could not possibly pass this assignment because the view in it I find repugnant.' That did not really get to addressing the issue of whether the essay actually touched on the criteria for marking. It was simply that the political bent in the response did not meet the person marking the criteria. We will attempt to extend that academic freedom to students as well. That is important at our universities because an important element of what students should learn and be encouraged to do at university is to argue their case with strongly based evidence from their perspective. People should be respected for their ability to do so. That is something that we are attempting to change through this bill.
This is an important area where we should have a genuine discussion in this place about the future of our university sector. It is—and I agree with those on the other side who have made this comment as well—vital for Australia's productivity capacity for our future economic performance that we get the university sector right and, in fact, that we get all three levels of the structure of the education system right. In the first stage of that, early learning, which we are going through at the moment, we need to ensure children are getting the best access at that early level to get the solid base right before secondary education, where they are taught the fundamentals, and then in tertiary education we need to make sure we are meeting the needs of our market to ensure that we are training people in the areas that we should be and that we are training them so that they are achieving and are encouraged to achieve as much as they possibly can.
One of the things that strikes me is that one of our challenges in Australia is to continue to encourage our entrepreneurial culture and to encourage that desire to want to do very well—not just to go to university to achieve a degree for the purposes of having a degree mounted on your wall but to go to university to have the next step in your career so that you are contributing in a way that increases our productivity, increases our economic participation and increases the size of our 'economic pie'—to quote a former Treasurer and Prime Minister—for the future. We have increased competition in our region and worldwide. We are in a society that is flatter than it has ever been before. People can compete more than ever before and have access to information more than they have ever had before.
One of the policy areas that we need to look at in this place moving forward is creating provisions which encourage people to do their best. One thing that strikes me about the system in the United States is that it encourages people to achieve very high levels. It is not just a matter of ticking a box about how many people are achieving a degree. Professor Bradley's work has a goal of 40 per cent of people achieving a bachelor's degree, and that is a worthy goal, but in the US supertalented people not only go to university to achieve an academic qualification but are encouraged to look at their ideas, take them to market and create their own opportunities. The more we can encourage people to create their own opportunities and create their own future and not just rely on the old idea of 'achieve your degree and move into the workforce' but rather start their own businesses and look for their own spot in the market to employ people to continue to encourage our great entrepreneurial culture the better our country will be, the better out economic welfare will be and the more we will be able to achieve.
This bill makes some changes that the opposition support. It was undoubtedly a comprehensive review by Professor Bradley, someone who is certainly worthy of consideration in this respect. We take seriously the recommendations that she has moved and that the government are now trying to enact. But we say that we should continue to look for ways to improve our higher education system into the future so people are able to gain opportunities with what they have and are encouraged to achieve to the highest of their ability in the future. That is an important element of having an accessible education system but also an education system that, with achievement in mind, is based on encouraging the best out of our young people and not just ticking boxes. Something that we need to consistently look at in this place is how we make our education system more dynamic, encouraging people to engage with tertiary education not just when leaving school but, as they go through their career, to use the old phrase, to continue to engage in lifelong learning so that they are always looking at new ways to do things, always looking to engage in a different way and always looking at arguments from different perspectives so that they are achieving as much as they possibly can.
There is no doubt that we have to compete. We have to have a more dynamic and flexible tertiary education sector. We should be looking at the ways that young people are able to engage with it using the accessibility of the internet, particularly when it comes to regional areas. When I was growing up in Mildura, which is a long way from a capital city, it always had that tyranny-of-distance problem that many people in regional areas such as in the electorate of my friend in front of me, the member for Grey, consistently face. Now more than ever younger people in those regions are able to continue to live in those regions and still engage in tertiary education because of the accessibility of the internet.
Mr Craig Thomson interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: And you do not need the member for Dobell to spend $35 billion to do it either. You can do it a lot cheaper than some on the other side would like to do it and give people access to higher education for the future and also to ensure that our regional areas are strong.
One of the great challenges of regional areas has always been the loss of talent when young people go off to university and inevitably stay in the city. Not many return. One of the opportunities as we move into the future is that young people leaving school can stay and work in the regions and also achieve higher education qualifications at the same time, increasing the capacity of our regional areas to achieve what we want them to achieve and to grow how we want them to grow. This is an important bill that is worthy of support. As I said, we think there are some improvements that should be made. I support in principle Professor Bradley's recommendation, which is contained in this bill, that we have a goal of 40 per cent of young people having bachelor's degrees. I put a caveat on that: it should not just be about ticking that box; rather, we should be aiming to get the most out of our young people by having the best system we can have to encourage people to study in whichever field and however they are able to do it so that they can go on and create their own opportunities, which of course creates economic opportunities and increases social wellbeing in our country into the future.
With those remarks, I indicate that I support the bill's intent. I hope the government sees the wisdom in encouraging freedom of speech—I know there are members on the other side who wish that they could be more open and more able to speak freely on a range of issues. This bill would be a good way for them to start to encourage that greater freedom of speech approach. I understand that some of the newer members opposite who entered this place after the last couple of elections have a desire for that freedom of speech, that freedom of expression. I hope they are able to use this bill to make that indication known.
Mr CRAIG THOMSON (Dobell) (10:38): The member for Mayo's contribution does remind me that the contribution of the previous government to higher education was to tie funding to the compulsory introduction of Work Choices in universities. I will be saying something about that later. I was pleasantly surprised to hear the member for Mayo not only quoting but endorsing the words of former Prime Minister Paul Keating. I actually did not think I would ever hear the day that the member for Mayo would come in here and quote Paul Keating in glowing terms and say that what he said about higher education was actually right. So it is a red-letter day today: the member for Mayo is out there supporting Paul Keating and the Labor legacy in higher education and education generally. I will come back to that legacy later on as well, because I think the member for Mayo has made a very good, telling point, which I will emphasise a bit more later in my contribution. I do thank him for bringing to the attention of the House the very wise words of former Prime Minister Paul Keating and the contribution that he made to both productivity and higher education. Congratulations to the member for Mayo: that was a fine contribution.
The Australian government is fully committed to transforming Australia's higher education system through implementing a demand driven system for funding higher education providers for undergraduate places. This results from the 2008 Bradley review that this government instituted to look at what we needed to do to fix up higher education, to make sure that Australia is leading the way in higher education rather than falling back as we saw happen in the previous 11 years.
I was listening earlier to the contribution of my colleague the member for Robertson from the Central Coast, who was talking about how Australia had fallen back over the 11 years between 1996 and 2007. She referred to some of the countries that had overtaken us, one of which was Finland. The member for Mayo was saying that making sure we have the right number of people with degrees is not just about ticking boxes. He is absolutely correct in that analysis. It is interesting to note that Finland has the highest growth in productivity in the world, and has for some years. Their investment in education, from childhood education right through to tertiary education, is clearly linked to those productivity outcomes. What we saw in the decade of neglect under the previous government was Australia going backward and countries that invested in higher education, like Finland, moving forward, being highly productive and changing their economies. Again, the member for Mayo was right to bring that point to the attention of the House as being a very important point. Really, the member for Mayo should have come across to this side of the House to deliver his speech because so much of what he was saying is what we on this side of the House have been saying for so long. Unfortunately, very few of those on the other side have been making that point, but he did a great job of that.
The Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill gives effect to the implementation of a demand driven funding system for undergraduate student places at public universities from 2012. It will do so by removing the current cap on funding for undergraduate Commonwealth supported places. This is an exceptionally important reform because it means that demand is going to determine issues of access to higher education and the number of places and the types of courses offered. This will have a particularly strong effect on regional universities. As the member for Robertson pointed out earlier, we on the Central Coast are lucky enough to have the Central Coast campus of the University of Newcastle. If there were any university campus in Australia that epitomised the model Professor Bradley was looking at it would be this campus in my electorate. The university also integrates a community college and a TAFE, and they are doing a terrific job in providing services and making sure that the people of the Central Coast have access to a university. The reforms in this piece of legislation will enable the university to better target the courses that are run and the places that are available, providing greater opportunities for the people in my electorate.
This is particularly important in electorates like mine, when we are talking about having a target of 40 per cent of young people having bachelor degrees. In my electorate that figure is just under 10 per cent. There have been historic problems in my region concerning access to higher education and this government is about trying to address those problems. The reference that the member for Mayo had to the previous Labor government is again a good one, because the university campus in my electorate would not be there but for the Hawke-Keating government and the tremendous work and advocacy of my predecessor, Michael Lee, the former member for Dobell, who was able to successfully get that campus instituted on the Central Coast. That is the sort of thing that Labor does. We know how important education is because of the opportunities it creates. It gives people the chance, no matter what background they have, to maximise their potential. The former member for Dobell, Michael Lee, is owed a great debt of gratitude from the people of the Central Coast for fighting very hard to get that campus up and running. It is a pity that not long after that campus was built we had to endure the 11 barren years of the Howard government in the area of higher education.
My area particularly needs these reforms because it will continue to open up these opportunities for young people. What we have found in the past is that, with limited places at the university on the Central Coast, many students have had to go to Sydney. That is a four-hour round trip commuting, which many young people find difficult, and often they drop out of university. There is then the flow-on effect of their lack of qualifications and their suitability for jobs. That is an issue that goes on to affect the economy.
As a country, we need to make sure that we are creating the workforce to match the jobs of the 21st century. For Australia to remain and continue to be competitive, we must upskill our workforce to make sure it has the opportunities in education not just for its own self-betterment but for that of the economy. With unemployment at less than five per cent and tipped to go down, issues of workforce and the availability of work very much mean that we need a smarter and better educated workforce.
One of the things that employers often speak to me about on the Central Coast, where we have unemployment a couple of percentage points higher than the national and state averages, is that we have jobs here but often have to fill them with people from Sydney because we do not have people locally who have the qualifications. It is universities like the Central Coast campus of the University of Newcastle that will be able, if this bill goes through, to offer more places locally to get our local workforce to the stage where it is able to fill the jobs that are there.
It is important that we look at what the previous government did not do for higher education. What they did not do was make investments in higher education. What they did do—their single biggest reform of higher education—was to tie funding for every higher education worker in the country to the offering of AWAs under Work Choices. This was pushing their ideological bent to new levels not seen in the wider employment area. In universities and higher education generally across Australia, a university's funding would be held back and it would not get its funding unless it could demonstrate that every employee had been offered an AWA. This philosophical bent, this particular issue that they have with the labour market, is one that we know will not go away. We have seen Barry O'Farrell leap back into this space. We know that the member for Mayo and many of those on the other side still strongly hold the view that that was the right thing to do. That was their single biggest contribution to higher education. Meanwhile, Australia has slipped further and further behind other countries in terms of its investments and the number of people with degrees. We also continue to have issues around capacity constraints that the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia continually warned the previous government about. But their contribution was: 'Let's impose Work Choices on every higher education worker. That is our answer. That is our contribution to higher education.'
It really typifies the approach that the other side took to education generally. They were not about rebuilding schools; they were not about getting higher quality teachers in schools. They were about putting flagpoles in schools. It does not matter at what level you look, the contribution of the previous government to education was about cheap gimmicks and pushing an ideology on workforces that did not accept it. It is something they really should be condemned for.
This is an important bill because it frees up and responds to the demand for places in universities. It is particularly important for regional universities, like the one in my electorate. The bill is very important if we are to ensure that Australia's workforce is better placed to respond to the changes in the economy and the changes in the world that are taking place and to continue to make Australia very competitive. This is part of a Labor agenda that, as the member for Mayo was able to plot for us, goes back over previous Labor governments. We had an 11-year hiatus in contributions to education at all levels. Thankfully, this government is getting this country and our higher education system back on track with real investment and real reforms to the way in which universities are run. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (10:51): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It is uncontentious, I think, that the health and vigour of the higher education sector is of critical importance to Australia in so many ways. It is critical to the enrichment of the lives, the opportunities and the earning prospects of those who study at universities. It is critical to the importance of the higher education system as a place where extremely important research in a whole range of areas occurs, and it is absolutely critical to our national competitiveness and our national economic performance. Therefore, all Australians and certainly all members of this parliament have a critical interest in the performance of the higher education system, and particularly the university system.
This bill, to a degree, increases the amount of flexibility available to universities and, to a degree, makes it easier for universities to respond to student demand. To that extent, we on this side of the House support that broad direction. But we also make the point that there is so much more that could be done to bring flexibility to this sector and that there would be very considerable public policy benefits from doing so. In the brief time available to me, I want to first of all illustrate the general principle as to the importance of the university sector; second, note that this bill does go some distance towards improving the position of universities, and to that extent it is to be welcomed; and, third, make the point that there is so much more that can and must be done if we are to maximise the capacity of universities to contribute to our national life, our national economic performance and our national competitiveness.
Let me start closely with the proposition that the university sector is of critical importance to our nation. If you look, for example, at the submission made by Universities Australia to the Bradley inquiry, it is now some three years old but the broad dimensions still remain valid and are worth highlighting. In that submission it is pointed out that the university sector is worth in excess of $15 billion. There are around a million students and around 100,000 employees. The point is made, amongst other things, that the education sector is a very substantial generator of export earnings. Of course, it is important to our society in so many ways beyond simply the generation of export earnings.
The critical importance of the university sector to national innovation and in turn, therefore, to national economic performance cannot be overstated. Over the years we have seen some fine examples of the commercialisation of Australian innovations based upon their initial development in the research sector. I think all Australians look with pride at the performance of companies like Cochlear, which is a world leader in the hearing implant devices sector. In a related area, the communications sector, many mobile phones around the world embody technology which was developed, as it happens, not by universities but by the CSIRO, but I think the same general point remains—that the research activities carried out in Australian institutions are of enormous economic importance. It is evident that scientific and technical research is critical to the performance of so many industries that are central to the Australian economy, including agriculture, mining and manufacturing.
It is also evident that as our economy transforms it is increasingly important that we are world competitive in the quality of our thinking, in the quality of our innovation and in the quality of our research. We must be a knowledge economy if we are to survive and prosper. We will not compete successfully on the basis of low-paid jobs, and if we seek to do that we will be competing against many countries which have the capacity to offer employment at much lower levels than is consistent with Australian expectations. Therefore, we need to survive and prosper in the world based upon our capacity for innovation and clever thinking, and the university sector is critical and central to that.
The importance of the university sector passes through all stages of the career of individuals within the university system—the importance of education at the bachelors degree level for those starting out on their careers, the importance of research work being done by postgraduate scholars, and the importance of research work and teaching work being done by full-time academics. So the role of the university sector is absolutely critical in building a highly skilled population and in underpinning an economy which prospers based upon innovation.
The second point I wish to make is to acknowledge that this bill does go some distance towards improving the position of universities, which has become increasingly difficult. Universities have faced, particularly since the arrival of the Rudd-Gillard government, very significant constraints on their ability to manage their own resources and to raise their own revenue. Indeed, one of the early actions of the Rudd-Gillard government was to create even greater difficulties for universities by abolishing their right to offer undergraduate full-fee-paying places. But presently, prior to this bill passing into law, it remains the case that universities are under very severe constraints in relation to the number of places that they may offer and receive funding for. In essence, the number of places that they may offer is centrally controlled. This is poor policy: it is outdated policy and it greatly limits the managerial freedom of universities; it greatly limits the incentive for them to bring to bear innovative and clever thinking in the way they conduct their own affairs; and it makes it very difficult for the fundamental principle of competition to apply between different universities, because right now there are very few rewards for coming up with, for example, a degree program which better suits the needs of students than do the degree programs of other institutions. Under the bill that is before the House, from 2012 universities will be able to determine the number of students they choose to admit to undergraduate courses, with the exception of medical courses. This is consistent with the recommendation in the Bradley Inquiry that we move to a 'student demand driven system'.
It might be thought rather curious that a full-scale review was required to arrive at the recommendation that we ought to move to a system that was driven more by student demand than it presently is. The mere fact that a major change in thinking was required reminds us how institutionalised the instinct towards detailed centralised control has become in the university sector, as in so many other sectors. But, nevertheless, it is plainly a sensible principle. Of course, there are significant limits to the extent to which the Gillard government has been prepared to implement the principle of a student demand driven system—for example, by excluding both undergraduate medical students and, at this stage, all postgraduate students.
The third point I make is that, while the changes in this bill, to the extent that they increase the degrees if freedom of universities, are to be welcomed, there is much more that could be done in this direction. We must remind ourselves that Australia is in a fierce, international competition for people of talent and ability. Similarly, there is fierce competition between nations and their effectiveness in making the best use of the talents and capacities of their existing population. In competing in that process, the university system is a national asset of critical strategic importance. To maximise the capacity of universities to perform well, it is so important that they are given the greatest possible managerial flexibility. I commend the work of my predecessor as member for Bradfield, Dr Brendan Nelson, during his time as Minister for Education, Science and Training in the Howard government.
I think it is worth considering the model of the United States higher education system. The US is widely recognised as having the best research universities in the world. Jonathan Cole, formerly Provost of Columbia University, recently wrote a very interesting book entitled The Great American University: Its Rise To Preeminence, Its Indispensable National Role, Why It Must Be Protected. I cite this book not just because I hold a degree from Columbia University, as well I might add as two from Sydney University, but because it is relevant to the broader policy issue of how we best unleash the potential of the Australian university sector. In his book, Dr Cole notes that 40 of the top 50 universities in the world are in the United States, according to the research based assessment from the Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Since the 1930s, roughly 60 per cent of all Nobel prizes have gone to Americans, and a very high proportion of leading new industries in the United States, perhaps as many as 80 per cent, are derived from discoveries at US universities. Dr Cole says:
These universities have evolved into creative machines unlike any other that we have known in our history—cranking out information and discoveries in a society increasingly dependent on knowledge as the source for its growth.
If we are honest when we compare our university system in Australia with the US system, we will see there is much we can learn. The US system is highly decentralised and competitive, whereas our system is heavily centrally controlled—notwithstanding some of the welcome changes in this bill. The United States system has multiple tiers and recognises that only a minority of universities in any system can be world class. In Australia, following the dreadful reforms instituted by John Dawkins when he was Minister for Employment, Education and Training, we persist in pretending that all 39 universities are equal and that all can be world class. Our system is too heavily dependent on government funding, and universities are not given sufficient freedom to go out and earn additional revenue
Returning to the Universities Australia submission to the Bradley review, it is interesting to look at a chart that compares funding to universities in Australia and the United States as a share of gross domestic product. While that chart notes that public funding in the US is greater than ours, what really stood out to me is that private funding in the US for the university system is greater by a factor of 119 per cent than private funding in Australia for the university system. That is a very significant difference. I would suggest to the House that the success of the system of great research universities in the United States is at least in part a consequence of the much greater managerial flexibility afforded to those charged with the management of these institutions and their greater capacity to earn private income in addition to public funding.
The reforms in the bill before the House, to the extent that they allow universities a greater degree of freedom, autonomy and capacity to plot their own course, are welcome. I do note, though, that that extent is modest and there is a great deal more that can be done if we are to pursue a policy framework which allows our universities to maximise their capacity to contribute to our national wellbeing, our national economic performance and the personal fortunes of those who are lucky enough to attend them. If we are truly to unleash the capacity of the university sector we need to go considerably further than this bill takes the matter.
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (10:59): I speak in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011. I do so with some degree of pleasure—it is a big change in the way that students will be able to access higher education and to the way that the system works. I do so for a number of reasons, some of which I will outline in my contribution. This bill does a number of things. It has one primary purpose, but a number of objectives that it will be able to achieve, and it is about also the policy idea that people of all backgrounds can get a fair go, which means an opportunity to have access to university and to have a university education. The bill itself cannot do all of that but it can provide part of the framework for an enabling environment for that opportunity. As the Prime Minister and the minister are wont to say, it is transformative, and it is a number of other things as well. If a person has a desire to go to university and they get that opportunity, that is thrilling. I can remember the thrill of being accepted into university and I am sure there are people in this place who have been to university and remember that feeling of arriving on campus on the first day. For some, it is a natural progression in life because they have grown up knowing that that is what they will do, that they will go to university and it is part of a normal progression of the things that they will do. For others, it is something that they dream of and think will never happen. And some end up there having never dreamt of it or saw it as part of their experience. The government are not only focused on ensuring that people from all backgrounds get that opportunity if they desire it—and not everybody wants it—but also on creating an environment whereby people can see that if they want to. Some people growing up in different backgrounds think it is not something they will ever do, that it is for other people. The law alone cannot change all things, but it can and does provide the opportunity and it can and does over time change and shape thinking. This bill charts the way forward for these things to happen.
As the legislation states:
The main purpose of this Bill is to implement a demand driven system for funding undergraduate places at higher education providers ...
And they are mainly public universities. The legislation refers to table A and table B. I was not too sure what that meant, but I did read it because I thought, 'What is this about?' Table A contains mainly public universities. From 2012, the universities will be able to determine the number of students that they choose to admit to undergraduate courses with the exception of medical courses—and I will say a little more about that later. Except in specific circumstances, the government will no longer regulate this aspect of a university's operations, and the Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding for these places will not be limited.
Within the bill there are three schedules and they amend the Commonwealth Grant Scheme provisions and the Higher Education Support Act to abolish the student learning entitlement, SLE. The SLE currently limits a student to the equivalent of approximately seven years full-time study as a Commonwealth supported student. With the removal of the SLE, the amendments to the Higher Education Support Act are required to ensure that people are able to request a refund of their student contribution and reduction in the HELP debts under special circumstances.
It is nice to come into this place and talk about a bill that has widespread support. Across the parliament everyone will have their own view, but generally there is support and it shows that this bill is on the right track in its policy settings and policy direction. I also note that Universities Australia strongly support the bill and that it was one of the key recommendations of the Bradley review, a review that set out policy directions for higher education. In my thinking, I broadly endorsed everything in the Bradley review, though there was not enough in it about regional areas and it could have done more in that area. But the government have done more policy work in that area. Coming from a regional area, I look at any report in this regard to see what is in there. I think we need to do a bit more thinking around that. The student learning entitlement has been around for a long time, but it is something that is unnecessary.
The bill also amends the Higher Education Support Act to promote free intellectual inquiry. Free intellectual inquiry is an important principle and underpins higher education and the development of thinking. And that will become an object of the act. Universities Australia and a range of other groups in the sector, including the union, as I understand it, support this because it is universities and it is higher education. As much as we want universities to provide people with the necessary skills and qualifications to participate in the workforce and in the changing workforce around goods, services and skills—and that is necessary—universities should and do maintain intellectual endeavour, intellectual inquiry and free-thinking. People come out of universities with degrees that equip them to work broadly or to work specifically as a global citizen. When you come out of university, it is good to have that grounding in free-thinking.
It does not cover medical graduates but there have been developments in that area. This government have provided a lot of additional places for medical graduates. We know that the number of places will rise from around 1,900 to over 3,000, an increase of over 60 per cent. With the previous government there was a cap on those medical places. It was necessary to deal with that and increase the number so that we will have enough doctors, because there is a doctor shortage in Australia. We want to make sure we have that corrected for the future.
I live in Lismore, a university town or city. Having a university in our local area is a good thing. It is a good thing for education and for opportunity, and it is a good thing for the regional economy—it is one of the drivers of the regional economy. If you look at the research and the statistical evidence of what having a university does for regions, it certainly is one of the big employers and it puts a lot of money into the local and regional economy. It also acts as a flagship and as a stimulus for people to think about going to university when they might not otherwise have done so. The traditional experience was that you went off to the city to go to university. Some people still debate that. Some people say it costs more to have universities in regional areas. Yes, it does, but sometimes we have to bear those costs for essential public policy, and that is one of those ongoing issues.
Having Southern Cross University in our area is clearly of great benefit to the whole area. I say it is in Lismore, my home town, but there are also campuses in Coffs Harbour, Tweed Heads and the Gold Coast. It has a very large footprint across the North Coast and Northern Rivers. According to its website, Southern Cross University has a total of 16,322 students, and there is a breakdown of how many are full time and part time and the number of international students onshore and offshore. I am closely connected to our university. I am on the governing council and have the public policy perspective of being in this place, dealing with legislation and all those other issues. I am very interested in that. I have a longstanding association with Southern Cross University, starting with when it was Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education before it became a university, from which I graduated, as well as Macquarie University. So I have a special place for Southern Cross University, and I know that the vice chancellor, Peter Lee, is quite pleased with the changes that this legislation will bring, as are the other vice chancellors as well.
This bill reforms the Commonwealth Grants Scheme, which provides the Australian government's financial contribution to a student's place at university. Australian universities will no longer be asked by the government to ration Commonwealth students' supported places among students competing to get a bachelor degree. The government has committed to increase the target for the number of young people receiving a bachelor degree to 40 per cent by 2025. That is important so that we have the necessary skills and qualifications for our economy and for our workforce. I note that people often do not think of education as an export earner, yet it is our third largest export in terms of the money it brings in. When we think about exports we often think about more tangible things, we do not think about the goods and services sector; yet education clearly is one of the big ones and very important to our national economy. This bill locates it within that broader framework.
From 1 January 2012, universities will have greater flexibility to respond to student demand and to employer and industry needs. The Commonwealth Grants Scheme will fund universities not on the basis of the number of places the education minister decides they will be given but the number of places they provide and can provide. The bill will remove the legislative cap on the Commonwealth Grants Scheme. By 2012, the government will have increased higher education expenditure on teaching and learning by 30 per cent in real terms since 2007. I know that is something that the higher education sector welcomes. Expenditure had been going down. According to the national and OECD figures and the comparisons, we were slipping backwards, so I welcome that percentage—an increase in expenditure by 30 per cent in real terms since 2007. With those comments, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr SCHULTZ (Hume) (11:21): I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011 and in support of statements made by my coalition colleagues. Our university system plays an important role in fostering the expansion of our younger—and some older—minds. An ancillary benefit to the expansion of human knowledge, research and inquiry that our tertiary sector provides is that our universities and their facilities are equipping our people with the necessary skills to participate and excel in our multibillion dollar economy.
The nature and increasing competitiveness of the globalised economy means that Australia cannot merely compete but must excel at all levels and in all sectors. A mostly glowing report on Australia recently published in the Economist highlighted our tertiary education sector as one of the areas that was letting us down:
However, the most useful policy to pursue would be education, especially tertiary education. Australia's universities, like its wine, are decent and dependable, but seldom excellent. Yet educated workers are essential for an economy competitive in services as well as minerals.
I totally disagree—our wines are first class! However, it is hard to ignore this objective critique by the Economist of our higher education system, especially when it is backed up by authorities such as Professor Simon Marginson, from the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne. In reference to the critique in the Economist, Professor Marginson states:
It's absolutely spot on …
Australia spends less in public funding on universities than almost every other country in the OECD. Australia spends 0.7% of GDP and the OECD average is 1.1% of GDP …
There's been no increase in Australian Research Council funding for about 10 years. There was a major report in 2001 which led to a doubling of research funding over the next four years but there has been nothing since then.
… … …
The University of Toronto is in the top 20 in the world. ANU is number 56 and the University of Melbourne is 62 and they are the best two we have. Sydney is in the top 100.
It really is just about investment. That's what the article is saying—the government has to get serious about those things. Universities are a long term thing.
Australia as a whole should be doing as Dr Glenn Withers AO, Chief Executive of Universities Australia, stated:
A wave of investment can lift all. We can then ensure a new national balance by better combining the luck of natural bounty with the even greater skills and smarts of our people.
The Bradley review of Australian higher education handed down its final report in December 2008 and it is this document which forms the foundation for national debate on higher education as well as framing the policies advanced in this bill. The bill before us aspires to remove the restriction on the number of undergraduate Commonwealth supported places that Australian universities are able to offer, abolish the student learning entitlement, require universities to enter into a mission based compact with the Commonwealth government and require universities to institute policies which promote and protect free intellectual inquiry in learning, teaching and research.
The Bradley review in its final report outlined a broad vision for the restructure of the higher education sector. Amongst the recommendations was the aspirational goal of 40 per cent of Australians between the ages of 25 and 34 holding at least a bachelor's degree by 2025. The coalition supports this aspiration in principle. Investment in our tertiary education sector through research grants, capital funding for new buildings and expanding the number of tertiary institutions is vital if we are to expand the educational horizons of Australians. If the Australian government is to meet the aspirational goal of having 40 per cent of Australians between the ages of 25 and 34 holding a bachelor's degree by 2025, the Commonwealth government will have to accommodate an additional 220,000 students every year. The bill before us attempts to accomplish this by moving away from restricted supply to a demand driven funding system. This will be achieved by removing the capping system of Commonwealth supported places instituted by the Howard government under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 from 1 January 2012.
As I outlined earlier, the coalition agrees with this aspiration. But the question is: how and where do the government intend to place the extra 220,000 students that they are hoping to encourage into taking up a bachelor's degree? The removal of restrictions on placements is great in theory but, as with most policies of this government, it is ill thought out. The expansion of tertiary places will require a corresponding investment from this cash-strapped government to actually build the infrastructure to support these places. When we have a government stripping regional Australia of over 800 Medicare access points, including in the shires of Cootamundra, Weddin and Yass in the electorate of Hume, in order to save a measly $9 million, you just know that they are not able to stump up the money for university infrastructure to back up the expansion of placements.
The move to a demand driven system away from restricted supply must fall within a broader strategy of investment in our university sector. In regional Australia, and in particular in my electorate of Hume, we have seen this government stripping away financial support for university students as well as denying opportunities to invest in university infrastructure. Although providing greater access is an objective we can all agree on in principle, this government has already betrayed this aspiration by scrapping eligibility criteria under the independent youth allowance scheme, which has greatly affected inner regional students and families in the Hume electorate. Regrettably I was absent due to illness earlier this year when hundreds of signatures on the coalition's petition to reinstate the eligibility criteria for inner regional students were tabled in the House on my behalf by the member for Forrest.
Whilst the government is claiming under this bill to expand the number of opportunities for Australians to obtain a bachelor's degree by moving to a demand driven system, it is at the same time stripping regional students of the financial support they require so that they can survive whilst trying to obtain their degrees. These policies are self-defeating. The new demand driven funding system is estimated to cost $3.97 billion over the 2010 to 2015 period. Reinstating the criteria for inner regional students to obtain independent youth allowance would be only $90 million per annum.
A lack of access to financial support under independent youth allowance is only one of the hurdles this government is shoving in front of regional students; access to physical tertiary institutions in regional Australia is another. The Goulburn-Mulwarree Council, in conjunction with the Goulburn Chamber of Commerce, have been seeking funding under the Regional Development Australia Fund for the construction of a University of Canberra campus in the city of Goulburn. The merits of this proposal are worthy of consideration and I congratulate them on their persistent efforts, as well as the Goulburn Post, which has been following the funding merry-go-round.
Under this grant the government requires a fifty-fifty funding commitment from the local community, which effectively falls to local council authorities, such as those of Goulburn, to find the money for. How does the federal government expect local government authorities to continue to absorb the cost burdens of raising capital for projects such as these, costing up to $25 million? It is another hurdle that some of the local government representatives here in Canberra would agree is often insurmountable. Constructing tertiary institutions in regional centres has been a boon for local economies. Bathurst, Armidale and Wagga Wagga are examples of the benefits of that to regional students and the economies of regional centres.
The demand driven system will require a corresponding investment in tertiary facilities. It is simple mathematics: if you expand the number of students, you will then be required to build the universities to host them. Cities such as Goulburn, with its proximity to inner regional Australia, as well as to Canberra and south-western Sydney, should be carefully considered for investment by the Commonwealth to become the home of a university campus.
Despite this bill moving the sector to a demand driven scheme, it fails to remove a cap on numbers in one crucial faculty: medicine. This bill fails to remove the restriction on the number of places for medical students. I am aware that the placements for medical students are dependent upon the state government's availability to provide clinical placements for them. In rural centres in the Hume electorate we are facing a critical shortage of doctors. The township of Grenfell, with a population of nearly 3,700 people, has been left in the absolutely unjustifiable position of having neither a doctor nor a visiting medical officer for the hospital for nearly six months. The situation is being exacerbated by the shortage of doctors willing to come to regional Australia and the visa requirements for overseas doctors. However, we should not have to be reliant on overseas doctors. Governments at all levels should be assisting our future regional doctors by investing in tertiary education in regional Australia and, where available, should uncap the number of placements in regional areas where the need for doctors is dire.
One final point I would like to raise with respect to this bill is in relation to the requirements under this legislation to have institutional policies in place to promote and protect free intellectual inquiry in learning, teaching and research. Interestingly, the bill does not prescribe what is to be included in these policies. That is why the coalition has attempted to amend this bill to ensure that the new policy to protect free intellectual inquiry applies to both students and academics.
The university sector has long been the bastion of social engineers on the left of the political spectrum. For decades, students have had well-founded fears that academics are more often inclined to allocate grades not on the basis of quality work and the pursuit of open and free inquiry but rather on a student's capacity to illustrate their adherence to the left-leaning political agendas of their lecturers.
The coalition's amendment to require that both students and teachers are subject to university policies on academic freedom provides protection for students who are fearful of expressing their God-given right to freedom of thought and philosophical inquiry. The coalition's attempt to extend the protection of students' rights to freely explore their philosophical underpinnings safe from fear of persecution does more than help students get fairer grades; it strengthens the foundation for why we have tertiary institutions in the first place.
Universities are there for all Australians to deepen their understanding of the world we live in. That is achieved through investigation, observation, testing, theorising, arguing and debating ideas about who, what, where, when and why. Academic freedom is essential to this process and that is why it must be protected at all costs.
Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (11:34): I rise to speak in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011. I commend the government on its far-reaching insight into extending and opening up our university sector. For too long, places have been withheld because of the cap system. All universities have welcomed this piece of legislation and are looking forward to its merits.
The previous speaker, the member for Hume, made statements about students being fearful of persecution from lecturers. Obviously, he has not been in touch very much with universities recently. I do not think there is a student who is fearful of any lecturer at the moment. The current generation of students are more than willing to demand their marks, their scores and their ideas are respected and adhered to. One issue we need to ensure is that universities are free to embrace all ideas. Nowadays, if you go onto a university campus you will see that one of the frightening things is the conservative nature of the university populace across the board, and I do not mean that in a political sense. They are not radical environments anymore. They are not the hothouses that the opposition keeps referring to. Nowadays, it is mostly about 'Heads down, bums down, get in, get a degree and get out.' Students do not actually have time to engage anymore; they are too busy passing their three- or four-year degree in order to get out and get a job. So they are not racking up too much of a HECS debt. They are not involved in lots of things. They have part-time jobs to pay their mobile phone bills and car bills. So maybe you should visit a university occasionally, speak to some students and understand the reality of what is actually transpiring on these campuses. I am lucky enough in my electorate to have two very large universities: Monash University in Clayton, one of the largest campuses in Australia; and Deakin University's city campus site. The latter is a rural university, and bizarrely they have a campus in the city, which I think is a great thing because the actual headquarters of the university is in the regions, in Geelong, but they have a city campus in Burwood. It of course has more students than downtown Geelong, but it is a thriving place and there is a great integration between the two sectors. I also have one of the largest TAFEs in Australia, Box Hill TAFE, which is a thriving institution.
I have been very pleased that this federal government has taken the importance of education at all levels so seriously, particularly within the higher education sector and within universities. But we have also not forgotten TAFEs. One of the great things we have done, unlike what the member for Hume was talking about, is that we have actually funded infrastructure in universities. I have been thrilled to see my universities and my TAFE receiving grants for funding of actual buildings—which had stalled under the Howard government. I did not get to go to any openings of new premises at my two very big universities or TAFE during my nine years in opposition, because there was no funding given for them.
Mr Robert: Oh, that's tragic: did you cry?
Ms BURKE: But now I have been to lots and lots of openings! The member for Fadden may cry tears but he can just suck it up!
Mr Robert interjecting—
Ms BURKE: I have been to many, many openings. The $86 million being given to Monash University for the New Horizons Centre is going to provide an enormous—
Mr Robert interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms S Bird ): Order! The member for Fadden is being extremely disorderly, as he is out of his place.
Ms BURKE: benefit to the higher education sector. The $16 million given to—
Mr Robert interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you want to debate it with the member?
Mr Robert interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. I am issuing a warning to the member for Fadden.
Mr Robert: Oh, for stuff's sake.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Fadden will leave the chamber for one hour. That was very disrespectful.
The member for Fadden then left the chamber.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chisholm has the call.
Ms BURKE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that sadly it highlights the complete disregard for this really important bill before the House today that someone can be that outrageous when we are talking about something that is so vitally important to all of us. Everybody has been speaking about the need for change in this area, and we have just seen that disgraceful display.
I have been absolutely thrilled within my electorate to see us putting money into infrastructure, into buildings, because we want more people to go to these facilities—$86 million to Monash University for the New Horizons Centre; $16 million to GippsTAFE, to update it from the antiquated situation is was in. The pleasure of going to Holmesglen TAFE, just outside my electorate, to open up their fantastic new building for their childcare centre, offering both diploma and degrees within that setting. And offering money for buildings—because yes, if you get more students, you actually need new buildings. But we are ahead of the game: we have been funding the new buildings.
As for the continual catcalling about the 'school halls rort', I have not been to a primary school and opened their Building the Education Revolution building and not been warmly welcomed. I have not been part of a community that is not absolutely ecstatic about what they have got and what we are leaving behind as a legacy for their education. To go to Kerrimuir Primary School, Glendal Primary School, Mount Scopus, Huntingtower, St Leonards—all the primary schools within my electorate. The one I am looking forward to most that has not finally happened is of course where my children go to school! We are very much looking forward to opening their fantastic new hall very soon. But all of these have been welcomed because, as I say at all the openings of these things, and at all the other events, good teaching outcomes do not come with good buildings; good teaching outcomes come from good teachers. But it makes it a lot nicer and lot better to be teaching in good environments, to be teaching in 21st century environments, absolutely recognising the pedagogy of the day. So, yes, the demand driven funding will require more space, but we have already put money into that environment so there will be more space available.
The government is committed to increasing the proportion of 25- to 34-year-old Australians with a qualification at bachelor level or above to 40 per cent by 2025. This is a credible benchmark that we should be striving for. Australia is actually slipping behind in the number of graduates we have. We are competing in a global world. In my seat I have a high proportion of people born overseas, the majority now coming in as skilled migrants from China and India. And that is terrific, in one space, but it is also a bit frightening when we are competing with so many terrific graduates from China and India and we are not training up our own. We should be training up our own. Many of these graduates, of course, are actually educated in my electorate, because they got their qualifications from Monash University—and that is a good thing too: overseas students have been a great benefit to my community and we want to ensure that we continue to have that opportunity for the benefits of our whole community of having that mix of ethnicities there.
But we need to be increasing the number of people going to university. Like many in this place I am a first-generation university graduate in my family. My parents did not get to go to university. As I have often said in this place, my mother got to go to university and I got to go to her graduation, but I was about 24 when she finally graduated from university. She put herself through part-time study. It was one of the proudest days of our family's life, my mum getting her degree. I think we need to be encouraging people and understanding that education is lifelong—it doesn't end. We need to recognise that people come in and out and train. And one of the great things about the TAFE sector is encouraging people to also take up those qualifications at an older age.
Education is also fundamental to ensuring that Australia is participating fully and benefiting from the global knowledge economy. The economy of the future will require more Australians to be degree-qualified. Demand for professional managers and community and professional services is high and growing. More professionally qualified people will be needed in the future—for instance, in health care, engineering and mining. Education is also vitally nationally important and, as I have described, particularly in my electorate. It is also the heart of the economy in my electorate. More people who live in my electorate are actually employed within the higher education sector than across the board. Not only do I have significant higher education institutions; I have very large government and non-government schools. A large proportion of my electorate is highly educated and they very much value the notion of higher education. As they often say in places, I have more PhDs per square metre in my seat than most people can deal with! But I think this is a terrific thing, and it really highlights the need for more people to be taking up qualifications.
There are also a number of nationally renowned organisations which exist within my seat that need qualified individuals—CSIRO; the Monash Sustainability Institute; the Australian Synchrotron, just outside my electorate—which I am hoping will continue as a fine tradition of education and research endeavour—the GOC, which is Telstra's very large research and development and platform for a lot of its telecommunications; as well as some other big research areas; because they all congregate around CSIRO and Monash University, it makes sense to have them within a precinct. But all those places require qualified individuals, and those individuals do not just stay with that job and that one qualification. They are always retraining. They are always being asked to do more. So this bill will also ensure that people can continue in that higher education space.
The bill further strengthens the government's commitment to education by creating a demand driven higher education sector. It implements the government's commitment to funding growth in undergraduate student places and further opening the doors of university education. The bill implements a number of reforms proposed by the Bradley review, a broad review of Australian higher education commissioned in 2008.
Again, the member for Hume was talking about one of the implications of the Bradley review—about the changes to student youth allowance. The changes that this government has introduced in student youth allowance have actually increased the number of people attending university, particularly from regional centres, because it has recognised not just distance but people's incomes. We have modified that to ensure that more and more people can have access to universities.
One of the bizarre things about my electorate is that, while the university is sitting there, the people who live in the suburbs right next door to the university are the least likely to go there because of the sociodemographics of that neck of the woods. This bill will hopefully ensure that people in my neck of the woods who live within walking distance of that university will now have the benefit of maybe getting the opportunity to attend.
Firstly, the government will no longer set the number of places a university can offer. It will make its contribution to the cost of education of all students admitted to undergraduate courses of study. The legislative cap on the Commonwealth Grant Scheme is being removed by the bill so that universities will be funded based not on the number of places which the education minister decides they will be given but on the number of places they provide, so it will be up to the university to decide. They will be able to drive and look at what is the best mix for them. They will be able to say, 'These are the areas we want to go to; we need these places,' instead of turning people away, which currently happens.
This means that as at January 2012 universities such as Monash and Deakin will have greater flexibility to respond to the needs of students, employers, industries and their local communities. The capacity of the universities to be funded by places they provide is being supported by the government's increased spending on higher education. By 2012 the government will have increased higher education expenditure on teaching and learning by 30 per cent in real terms since 2007.
I think one of the things that we as a Labor government have not sold our story on is what we have done in the higher education space. We have done so much in this space since coming into government, because we saw higher education and universities completely denuded under the Howard government. There were so many restrictions on what they could do and how they could do it, and funding was taken away. One of the issues that we are still grappling with, of course, is voluntary student unionism. Whilst you may want to talk about unions and all the rest of it, it has actually deleted a whole lot of terrific services on my university campuses. Monash University is not in town; it is in Clayton. There ain't a lot there, and you cannot leave it because it is in the middle of nowhere. Once you are there, if you have arrived by public transport, you stay there for the day. A lot of the activities, the life on campus, have just gone and you are captive. You actually cannot go down the road—as the former minister for education in the Howard government said—to buy a sausage roll because there is not anywhere down the road near downtown Monash University to get it. So we have done a lot in this space, but more needs to be done.
This year the government will fund more than 480,000 undergraduate places at public universities. Particularly, this will greatly assist my electorate of Chisholm. The bill also eliminates the student learning entitlement that limits a Commonwealth supported student to seven years of study. It makes for a simpler, fairer system. Now a student who completes a three-year undergraduate science degree and subsequently goes on to a six-year medical degree will not suffer financial hardship by virtue of their study going beyond seven years. This is particularly important for people who are at the University of Melbourne under the Melbourne model. It was going to be a huge impost on those students who were seeking to study under that regime.
Added to this flexibility, the government will engage each higher education provider in a mission based compact. These compacts will ensure that each university is aligned to a national higher education framework in terms of teaching, research, training and innovation. We want world-class universities. We have world-class universities. We want to maintain and grow them. The TEQSA Bill, moved earlier this week in respect of standards in universities, is also ensuring that this place will be great. The result is that this government is better informed about future research directions, approaches to innovation and efforts to train Australia's research workforce. It also means that the Australian education system is able to deliver high-quality education that is internationally oriented and recognised. This is something that is very much driven within my electorate at Monash University and Deakin University.
Importantly, this bill will also amend the Higher Education Support Act to promote free intellectual inquiry—and, unlike the member for Hume, I think that is a good thing. I think it is something that the universities have been calling for. Free intellectual inquiry will become an object of the act, and that is something we should be proud of. (Time expired)
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (11:49): I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011. I was very interested in listening to the contribution made by the member for Chisholm. We would disagree, of course, most vehemently on voluntary student unionism. As somebody who was forced to pay that upfront fee, I think it does deny access to a lot of students who otherwise cannot afford that fee.
Ms Burke: Oh, 200 bucks; dream on!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms S Bird ): The member for Chisholm is being extremely disorderly!
Ms O'DWYER: However, the bill before us today is the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill, and I will refer to it. Australia is fortunate to enjoy one of the finest education systems in our region and one that is recognised throughout the world. Our universities are the envy of many other countries, many of which send their students to Australia to study. It has been to date a critical export and central to the success of our economy.
As we know, education is one of the critical keys to improving our society and underpinning our economy. Our universities are not only schools of knowledge and skills but places of enlightenment. They provide students with the knowledge they need to gain employment. They provide places of research at the coalface of scientific discovery. They encourage innovative thinking. Importantly, they also give students a global perspective of the world in which we live and teach life skills as well as job skills.
As a country, the improvement of our higher education system should be one of our top five priorities, because if we truly want to become a knowledge nation, if we want to attract the best and brightest to Australia, if we want to keep the best and brightest in Australia, if we want to develop the innovators of tomorrow and lead the world in groundbreaking research, we need to unshackle our higher education sector. We can do this in a number of ways. One is by enhancing teaching and research and finding the locus between these two areas. We can do it also by encouraging a greater sense of openness and tolerance of people's views in the university sector and by ensuring that students are not put at a disadvantage academically when they express their own views on an issue. But, more significantly, we can do it by allowing universities greater autonomy over their destiny, both in funding and in the allocation of their resources, by stripping away the regulation that suffocates the higher education sector and leads to perverse incentives and perverse outcomes. While this bill moves us in the right direction by touching on these first two issues, the third is left unaddressed. What is more, it concerns us that it has taken the government this long to propose these small changes. It is an indictment of this government's ongoing mismanagement of education policy in this country.
In the time available I want to touch on three key elements of the bill. The bill seeks, firstly, to abolish the student learning entitlement which places limits on the number of years a student can study full time while in a Commonwealth supported place. The limit is generally seven years and accrues over a period of the student's study at university. The limit has been put in place to prevent students from undertaking continuous study at taxpayer expense. When a student qualifies for Commonwealth assistance, there is an expectation that they will endeavour to complete their studies in a reasonable time and that they will not undertake additional study that is superfluous to their professional requirements when it is taxpayers who are footing the bill.
We need to ensure that we provide students with the best possible higher education for those who are committed to learning and who have the dedication and drive to complete further study. As a society, it is important for us to ensure that these are the people that we continue to support. The famous American educationalist John Dewey once said: 'Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.' For many people the pursuit of education is indeed a lifelong goal. There are people who are interested in gaining knowledge for the sake of learning. Indeed, we all told by our teachers at school that we learn something every day, even if we are not consciously studying. This is a good principle.
However, the Howard government brought in the student learning entitlement measure because, as much as we support the principle of lifelong learning, we do not support the concept of 'professional students' who undertake continuing study at taxpayer expense with no intention of paying off their FEE-HELP or HECS debt. These are the people who, unless limits are placed on their ability to remain at university indefinitely, use additional study purely as a means to avoid the transition to work. This is only one way that we can create a sustainable education system where society is happy to assist those who have a desire for further learning but at the same time where the student recognises his or her obligations to return that investment. While their pursuit of education may seem noble to professional students, people in the workforce who are providing them with the benefits of our education system do not necessarily view it in the same light.
While Dewey was right in saying that education is life itself, we are wise to ensure that subsidised university education does not become a way of life. There must be a mechanism in place to ensure that the obligations of those who enjoy education are eventually acted upon. That is what we tried to do previously in government. We on this side of the House are not convinced that the proposal of the government is a prudent step. We propose to retain the student learning entitlement in our amendment and extend it by one year to accommodate those students who are completing longer professional degrees. But we are committed to ensuring that funding is given to those students who intend to use their education.
The second aspect I raise on this bill is the step towards demand driven education. This legislation does take a step in the right direction towards demand driven education, which is what Australia needs if we are to have a flexible system that responds in the short term as well as the long-term trends. As we know, we need an education system that is able to adapt to changes in the demand for student places and for changes in what society deems to be the most valuable skills. A top-down approach cannot facilitate this relationship, which is a complex one and relies upon the interplay between the demand for knowledge and skills in industry, the available educational resources that universities have at their disposal, the interests of individual students, the desire for universities to conduct research as well as teach, and the state of the overall economy. These variables make planning for education very difficult, and so moves towards a demand driven model are a positive development.
However, much like the Bradley report and the government's subsequent response, this is a very conservative step towards demand driven places. The report recommends a move away from restricted supply, with available places capped under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The Bradley report suggested that some 220,000 additional students could be given a Commonwealth supported place through a removal of these restrictions and an increase in funding. But, in the end, the Bradley report did not recommend a functioning price mechanism, which meant that the idea of a demand driven education system was essentially a false one but a step towards what could potentially be real reform. The report suggested that Australia should achieve a graduate output of 40 per cent of students holding a bachelor degree in the 25- to 34-year-age group by 2020. It also proposed student entitlements, which the review believed should be limitless. The coalition agrees in principle with the target proposed by the review.
This bill proposes to allow universities to determine the number of students that they choose to admit to undergraduate courses, with a few exceptions such as people studying medical courses. Removing government regulation with respect to places is certainly the right way forward. Where a university can expand their student intake on a sustainable basis above the allocation limits imposed by the Commonwealth, they should be given the opportunity to do so. It is important to bear in mind that this is yet another issue that the government has delayed action on. The idea to implement a demand driven education system was proposed 2½ years ago in the Bradley report. Since then the government has not taken any serious action until today.
The third issue I touch is the compacts with the Commonwealth. The concept of the compacts between the Commonwealth and the universities is potentially a valuable idea. These are agreements where universities receive Commonwealth support for integrated teaching and research plans. If implemented correctly, compacts could improve the learning experience of students while also enhancing the research side of university operations.
Often there is a tension between teaching versus research. In many cases there is a trade-off between the two, with resources dedicated to one area detracting from outcomes in the other. Compacts could help reconcile the two areas and provide greater diversity to the sector. These plans would then be linked to the university's Commonwealth Grants Scheme funding agreement. However, the coalition does have concerns that compacts, if poorly implemented—and the record of the government is certainly not great on that front—have the potential to impose new regulatory burdens on tertiary institutions. Worse, they may be used by an interventionist government to micromanage the teaching and research curricula of universities and to pervert the desired outcome of a fully integrated research and teaching program. This is the basis of the coalition's amendment. We want to ensure that the government is not in a position to add further regulatory impositions on our universities.
As I mentioned earlier, we are moving to a demand based system because it is better placed to deal with the requirements of students, universities and industries. A more flexible system is the objective of the legislation. A poorly administered compact system could undermine this objective by making it harder for universities to create their own learning environments that are adaptive to the needs of both teaching and research. The coalition is aware that these two areas need not be mutually exclusive. There is and should be a great deal of overlap between the two. By incorporating the latest research into their teaching, universities can stay at the forefront of intellectual developments as they occur. But this is not what is likely to happen should this government continue to be in control of our higher education institutions. Rather than align the objectives of universities with those of the government, the government is more likely to manage the practices of the universities in exchange for the funds. This will not create more innovation in research or teaching but will simply make life harder for our universities.
Another area I would like to touch on is academic freedom. As I said at the start, our universities are more than just conduits for skills and knowledge. They are places where students can exchange ideas, intellectual as well as moral, without fear of reproach or discrimination. This bill introduces a legislative requirement for universities to promote and protect free intellectual inquiry in learning, teaching and research. What it fails to do, however, is describe exactly what policies universities might be required to put in place to ensure academic freedom is protected. Just as with their demand driven proposal, the devil is in the detail and particularly in the implementation. While we all support academic freedom at university—as, indeed, we support it everywhere—the lack of detail with regard to how the government intends to promote it means that this aspect of the bill is little more than rhetoric.
To ensure clarity in the legislation, the coalition proposes an amendment that makes explicit that the legislation applies to students as well academics. Students have the right to have their work assessed based on application and not on the political notions of the assessor. There are numerous accounts of academic bias affecting students who have reached a conclusion that does not accord with the opinions of their tutor or lecturer, despite the student having treated the topic in a perfectly adequate way from an academic perspective. Requiring universities to have a policy in place to deal with instances of academic bias will create an environment that is more intellectually rigorous, more interesting and, importantly, fairer for both teachers and students. When students are free to explore their own philosophical underpinnings without fear that their views will offend the sensibilities of their teachers then we will make our universities more vibrant and enlightened places.
The government has put forward this bill and, as I said earlier in my speech, we support some of the principles of it. We have moved a number of amendments, as I have explained. But, in conclusion, it is worth noting that the government's record in higher education is certainly not a particularly strong one. One of the first things they did when they came into government was stop Australian students from accessing full-fee-paying places. These can be accessed by overseas students but Australian students here in this country can no longer have the benefit of accessing those places.
Another thing that the previous Howard government did was put in place the Higher Education Endowment Fund—a $6 billion fund to fund the ongoing infrastructure needs of our university sector. This fund, which has morphed into the Education Investment Fund under this government, has been raided. No longer is this fund being used in perpetuity to fund the infrastructure needs of our higher education sector. It has been raided, just as the government has raided other funds that had been put in place for the long-term good of our country. The university sector will be all the poorer for it. The government does not have a great record in the higher education sector. We encourage the government to accept our amendments to the bill to improve it and we hope that they take them on board.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (12:03): I am very pleased to rise to speak in support of this legislation, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011. I am very pleased because one of the reasons I decided to join the Labor Party, apart from the Liberal Party's stance on industrial relations, was the way they approached access to higher education. I was at university when the Howard government brought in the fee-paying places so that those who could afford to go to university could go and those who could not afford it did not have access to higher education. It was this education for the wealthy but not for everyone that drove me to join the Labor Party and to decide that I wanted to stand up and ensure that everyone got the opportunity to get a good education. That is why I am very pleased to speak in support of this legislation.
According to the Chair of Universities Australia, Professor Glyn Davis, this new legislation will directly transform the accessibility of higher education in Australia. A study by the Department of Education, Science and Training revealed that, while social stratification directly influenced the relevance and attainability of higher education among young Australians, the overall attitudes of young Australians towards higher education are similar regardless of their socioeconomic circumstances.
Specifically, the study stated that 90 per cent of the sample reported that, all things being equal and imagining no constraints, they would prefer to undertake tertiary education of some kind after school. However, when asked whether they believed this preference for higher education would eventuate, the proportion agreeing with this fell away significantly and students from medium- and low- socioeconomic backgrounds reported that, while they hoped to go on to higher education, they believed that they would not be able to do so.
This demonstrates the clear willingness of young Australians to acquire a higher education. This government has recognised and responded to this through the introduction of this amendment as well as a number of other initiatives. This bill will significantly improve the possibility for all young Australians, regardless of socioeconomic background, to receive and benefit from a university qualification. The government has also set ambitious targets to emphasise its commitment to higher educational opportunities. It is seeking to increase the proportion of 25- to 34-year-old Australians with a qualification at bachelor level or above to 40 per cent by 2025.
This bill considerably enhances the opportunities presented to young Australians and will have numerous positive effects on communities across Australia. It encourages young Australians to equip themselves with the qualifications and skills they need to secure their futures. I have often said at many functions, whether they be for a TAFE certificate, a bachelors degree or further training, that training and education is a passport to a young person's future. This bill goes significantly towards enabling students to get this passport.
Also included in the bill is the removal of the student learning entitlement, the SLE, from 2012.The SLE currently offers the equivalent of seven years full-time access to a Commonwealth supported position at an Australian university. The bill before the House will remove the SLE as an eligibility requirement for a Commonwealth supported place, such that the seven-year limit will no longer apply. The bill has been well received by Australian universities, who fully support its greater flexibility and increased responsiveness to the needs of students. The Australian Technology Network of Universities supports this measure and believes that it would significantly reduce red tape within the sector and as such ensure that resources are better directed towards teaching and learning. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations confirms that only 0.2 per cent of students currently undertaking higher education are at risk of exceeding their entitlement, yet the bureaucracy required to administer this system is immense. The bill before the House abandons this limit, making it easier and simpler for all Australians to access higher education, including those who wish to return to study later in life to learn new skills.
In addition to improving the educational opportunities of young Australians, this bill will also stimulate growth in the higher education sector. If Australia is to remain globally economically competitive it must promote a highly educated workforce. As Australia grows, the need for university educated workers also grows. For this reason, this bill removes the current cap on funding for undergraduate Commonwealth supported positions. Economically, this will prevent distortion of the higher education market by ensuring that student and market demands govern the number of Commonwealth supported positions offered by Australian universities; there will not just be an arbitrary figure decided by government. Australia's economy and higher education sector will greatly benefit from this demand driven system.
The bill before the House is finally moving Australia away from an outdated system of higher education funding. The old capped system was stifling the growth of Australian universities and preventing many Australians from experiencing the benefits of higher education. Australians will no longer have to compete for unnecessarily limited spaces that have been dictated by university negotiations with the government. It is estimated that in 2012 there will be over 500,000 undergraduate student positions, which equates to a 20 percent increase in the number of positions between 2008 and 2012. We are really providing much more opportunity for people to study at university, to choose what they would like to study and to ensure they get opportunities for the future. Australian universities will be able to grow, diversify and innovate in response to student needs, which will greatly enhance Australia's higher education sector.
For students commencing studies in 2012 and beyond, the system will be far more efficient as Australian universities will receive funding for however many places they offer within each discipline. This process has commenced, with transitional arrangements currently underway. During the transitional period in 2010-11, the cap on funding for overenrolments has lifted from five per cent to 10 per cent, allowing universities to overenrol by 10 per cent in funding terms above their funding agreement targets. This is enabling universities to prepare and get ready for the demand driven system. This will be very important so that they can prepare for the future.
The amended legislation will significantly improve higher education as well as the lives of many people across Australia. The higher education community is looking for bipartisanship on this issue, yet those opposite still insist on rejecting not only this legislation and the concerns of the higher education sector but also the future of young Australians who are seeking to improve themselves and gain a passport for the future.
I strongly concur with the sentiments of the National Tertiary Education Union, who express concern over the coalition's response to this bill, stating that it appears to be crude opposition for opposition's sake itself. That is not surprising considering the performance that we have seen from this coalition, who seem to oppose everything put to this House. I call on the opposition to support this bill. It will significantly enhance and increase the opportunities for young Australians. It will ensure that we have a vibrant, innovative system. I ask the opposition to stop thinking about the past, to stop harking back to the Howard era, where only wealthy children could attend university. There was no encouragement for people. There was no strategy in place for young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to attend university. If the opposition suggest that the Howard government had a strategy, then maybe they should produce it, because there was certainly no strategy that I could see to ensure that every young Australian got that opportunity; in fact, it was quite the opposite. This is sensible amending legislation that is supported by the tertiary education sector and by families who want to give their children the best opportunity. I would strongly encourage the opposition to support it. I commend the amendment bill to the House.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (12:13): My contribution to the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011 will be brief. The previous speaker, the member for Kingston, said she hoped the opposition would support this legislation. I would like to join with her in expressing that same hope, because it is so rare that we come into this parliament and find that the opposition supports good, sound, solid legislation that provides opportunity to all young Australians.
Mr Simpkins: We're still waiting for some.
Ms HALL: As the member for Cowan said, 'We're still waiting.' We are still waiting for the opposition to get in there and actually provide support to our legislation. They are an opposition that say no, no, no to everything. They oppose everything and have no constructive approach to being members of this parliament. It really disappoints me. For a parliament to work truly well you need to have an opposition that are considered in their opposition and are supportive when they need to support legislation. The bill that we have before us today is the type of legislation that I would expect all members of the opposition to support.
The bill will implement the government's commitment to demand driven funding for undergraduate student places, except places in medicine, at public universities by removing the current control on undergraduate places within the universities. That is great news for all Australian students and all those young people who want to go to university. From 2012, it will abolish the student learning entitlement. It will also require, as a condition for Commonwealth funding, that table A and table B higher education providers have a policy that upholds free intellectual inquiry in learning—and that is something that worries me because those on the other side are not supportive of it—teaching and research and that they enter into a mission based compact with the Commonwealth, which is also very important.
The Australian government is fully committed to transforming Australia's higher education system through implementing a demand driven system for funding undergraduate places at higher education providers. Those providers are listed in table A of HESA. The majority of these providers are public universities. What does the demand driven system mean for those young people who are seeking to enter university? It means that there will be places available for them to attend university. It means that we will have a skilled workforce. It means that young people will have a future and an opportunity to attend university and study in their chosen area.
This bill will give effect to the implementation of a demand driven funding system for undergraduate student places at public universities from 2012. By doing that, it will achieve just what I was saying a moment ago. It will remove the current cap on funding for undergraduate Commonwealth supported places and the current seven-year limit on students' eligibility to receive Commonwealth support for their higher education. Recently, I had a young man visit me in my electorate office. He had studied science and was later accepted into medicine, which meant he was going to be studying over a period longer than seven years. Because of that he was unable to receive Commonwealth support for that education. Anyone who knows anything about medicine would know that by doing science and then doing medicine he was putting himself in a position to be a better doctor. Whilst the uncapping of places does not relate to medical students, the ability to extend one's studies over seven years does.
In the demand driven funding system, universities will have greater flexibility to respond to students and markets. I have already spoken about the students and about market demands. It means that the courses provided by the universities and the places in those courses will meet the needs of the market and of students. This is good legislation that all members in the parliament should support. I am encouraged by the government's approach to this and I implore the opposition to get behind and support this legislation. It is good legislation that will deliver to Australian students and to Australian businesses.
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (12:20): I apologise to my colleagues for adding to the confusion about whether I would be here in time to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011. I thank the member for Shortland, who just the other day was telling me that she was quite anxious to speak on such an important bill. Now that I am here, I rise to support the bill.
Reform and investment have been the hallmarks of this Labor government's approach to higher education. This bill is another piece, and a very important piece, of our reform framework for the sector. We want to help universities get ready to play their role in preparing our country to meet the economic and social challenges of the 21st century.
When we came to government in 2007, we recognised that we had a lot of work to do to undo the damage done to the university sector during the years of the Howard government. Universities were going backwards under the Howard government, struggling financially from funding cuts and pressured by the incessant micromanagement of the sector when it came to things like academic freedom and workplace relations. When it came to higher education, the Howard government's years were characterised by neglect and underfunding. That is not just my analysis or rhetoric. It is clearly evident in international comparisons from the time. By the time Labor came to government in 2007, public investment in universities had declined by seven per cent since 1995. Funding for our Australian universities went backwards by seven per cent. Over the same period of time, from 1995 to 2007, funding for universities within the other OECD countries increased by an average of 48 per cent.
It is clear from those figures that when Labor came to government in 2007 there was a real risk of our country being left behind by our competitors because we were not making the necessary investment in human capital to equip our country with the skills, qualifications and innovation required by the modern global economy. From our first days in office we recognised the link between education and our nation's economic future. We recognised that spending on education is an economic investment, an investment in human capital essential for creating an innovative, productive workforce that can adapt to a rapidly changing world. We also recognised, however, that as much as the university sector required additional funding it was not enough to simply increase funding without a thorough understanding of exactly what we need our universities to achieve, their current capacity and challenges facing the sector and how we can maximise their potential.
Early in our term of government, therefore, the then Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, asked Denise Bradley, an experienced educator and university leader, to undertake an inquiry into Australia's higher education sector to help us develop policies to grow and strengthen the sector and broaden access to university education. As the Bradley report says:
The review was established to address the question of whether this critical sector of education is structured, organised and financed to position Australia to compete effectively in the new globalised economy.
The Bradley report concluded:
Analysis of our current performance points to an urgent need for both structural reforms and significant additional investment. In 2020 Australia will not be where we aspire to be—in the top group of OECD countries in terms of participation and performance—unless we act, and act now.
The government has acted and continues on its agenda to transform the scale, potential and quality of higher education in Australia, with measures like the one in this bill. The move to demand driven funding that would be achieved through this bill is tied to the participation targets recommended in the Bradley report and adopted by this government. Participation in higher education is another area where Australia has slipped behind comparable OECD countries in the last decade or so. In the period when the Howard government was cutting funding to universities, Australia fell from seventh place in 1996 to ninth place in 2006 in terms of the number of graduates in the 25 to 34 year age group.
In a study commissioned as part of the Bradley review, Access Economics predicted that in the coming decade the demand for people with higher education qualifications will exceed the supply of those graduates. The government understands completely the link between a highly skilled and qualified workforce and national productivity and prosperity. We do not want the skills shortages identified in the Access report to hold us back. The fact is that the knowledge based economy of the future will require more Australians to be degree qualified. It is clear that major changes are needed in the way our universities are structured and funded so that access to a university qualification is opened to a significantly higher proportion of our population than is currently the case.
The government has set a target of 40 per cent of 25- to 34-year-old Australians attaining a qualification at bachelor level or above by 2025. This is an ambitious target. As of 2006, the figure for degree holders in the 25 to 34 year age group was 29 per cent. We will only meet that 40 per cent target by opening the doors of higher education to a new generation of Australians, and a fair proportion of those will need to be from groups that have traditionally been underrepresented in our universities: rural Australians, Indigenous Australians and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. We have been putting in place policies to drive that demand for higher education and to encourage people to see university qualifications as part of their career path. But universities have to be part of generating that greater demand and also need to be ready to meet it. That is what the demand driven funding model is all about—opportunities for individual universities, adding up to growth, flexibility and diversity across the sector as a whole.
On 1 January 2012 we will see the start of a new era for universities and the way they are funded by the government. Importantly, the government will no longer set the number of undergraduate places that a university can offer. Universities are currently resourced through funding agreements negotiated with the Commonwealth government which effectively cap the number of places for which public funding will be provided. It was concluded by the Bradley review that 'a demand driven, student entitlement model of funding higher education teaching is essential if Australia is to achieve better attainment of higher education qualifications'. As recommended by the Bradley review, from 2012 universities will be able to offer as many undergraduate places as they like, giving them greater flexibility to respond to student demand and employer and industry needs. Universities will set their own entry standards and determine which and how many students to enrol. The only exception to this, as we have heard from other speakers, is medicine. The government will continue to allocate Commonwealth funded places for medical degrees.
One of the outcomes we are seeking to achieve through this change to demand driven funding is an increase in the number of people undertaking tertiary study, so it will require a greater investment from the federal government, but we are committed to doing that. Already this year the government will fund more than 480,000 undergraduate places at public universities. With an anticipated four per cent growth next year, this will rise to over half a million places. That is a 20 per cent increase since 2008. To fund this historic expansion of opportunity, the government provided an additional $1.2 billion in this year's budget, bringing the total demand driven funding to $3.97 billion over successive budgets.
As I said at the start, this government is committed to investment and reform in the higher education sector. These reforms represent a massive change for universities, and with that comes opportunities but also challenges as funding shifts between universities in response to student demand. The university in my electorate, CQ University, has taken up that challenge and in the years since the release of the Bradley report has embraced the need for change ahead of the shift to demand driven funding. The university has been rewarded for its dynamic approach, which has seen the introduction of new courses and a much higher level of engagement with local communities and industries. CQ University is currently one of the fastest growing universities in Queensland, with its domestic enrolments up by 10 per cent and its mid-year intake up by 40 per cent. I have been particularly pleased with the university's decision to develop a large number of new courses. Already there have been 20 new courses offered in 2011 including law, medical imaging, sonography, financial planning, engineering management and paramedic training, and planning is underway for the introduction of further courses in allied health and oral health. This shows that the university is working with the communities where its campuses are located to understand what skills are in demand and then to provide access for local students to the qualifications that will enable them to fill those positions. It is great to know that local people can finally obtain these qualifications without leaving Central Queensland. It makes their education so much more affordable and makes it much more likely that they will remain and pursue their career in the region, which has traditionally struggled to fill many professional positions. It is also worth mentioning that the university is developing facilities and structuring its courses in innovative ways so that students, particularly those in allied health courses, can complete their clinical training on campus by offering treatment to members of the public. This is a great example of the way that the university is engaging with communities and other organisations to identify needs and build our region's capacity to solve our own problems.
The new system will require universities to be strategic and flexible. CQ University has got that message and it is not standing still. That is obvious in its plan to become Queensland's first dual sector university preferably through an amalgamation with the CQ Institute of TAFE. There is enormous support for this initiative and plans are progressing, so I hope the university gets the go ahead from the Queensland government very soon. The dual sector proposal is driven by the same goal that this government has: opening the door to tertiary education to as many people as possible.
CQ University serves a part of regional and rural Australia where there is a low rate of participation in tertiary education. The university has one of the highest rates of any university in Australia of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, Indigenous students and students who are the first in their family to go to university. CQ University sees the TAFE amalgamation as one way of boosting participation by making university qualifications more accessible, more flexible and more relevant to the people in our region. Because of the low rate of participation in tertiary education in Central Queensland and the current skills shortages across the region, our local university has a great opportunity to tailor its course offerings and expand the number of students it enrols. CQ University really stands to benefit from the demand driven funding model in this bill and the evidence so far shows that it is doing all the right things to make that happen.
I have already mentioned the new courses being developed and offered by CQ University. That has required significant investment in new and upgraded facilities across the university's campuses. In total there is $50 million worth of infrastructure works underway, which is a fantastic investment in the future of the university and which gives substance to its claim to be an essential partner in the development that is taking place in the Central Queensland region.
The university also has a renewed focus on research, building on its current world ranked research in the areas of engineering, nursing and health sciences. There is a major recruitment effort underway to attract senior researchers to the university, and in great news just the other day it was announced that CQ University's collaborative research application with the University of Queensland, QUT and Western Australia's Curtin University was successful. The application for $5.53 million has been granted in full and it will boost the research capacity and output of the university's Institute for Health and Social Science research. The institute is headed by Professor Brenda Happell, and I congratulate Professor Happell and all those involved in the application on that great result.
There are other elements of this bill that I also support. The bill abolishes the student learning entitlement, which is an unnecessary barrier to people accessing and completing tertiary qualifications. Previously a person's ability to study at university as a Commonwealth supported student was limited to the equivalent of seven-years full-time study. The Bradley review recommended the student learning entitlement be abolished, and the government agrees that it is inconsistent with our aim of encouraging greater numbers of people to pursue higher education and to add to their qualifications throughout their lives and careers.
In closing, this bill marks a major transformation in the funding relationship between the Commonwealth government and universities which will drive the expansion of the sector needed to sustain our prosperity in the knowledge based economy of the future. On that basis, I support the bill very strongly.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (12:29): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011. Since coming to office in 2007, the Labor government has made education reform a priority, with record levels of investment in education and a commitment to several major policy reforms. Yesterday in this House, in response to a question from the member for Wakefield, who is in the House right now and who I know to have a very deep concern and care for implementing a good education system throughout this country, the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth outlined a number of measures that the government has implemented since coming to office and that will lead to a better education outcomes for young people throughout this country.
I will not repeat all of the matters that the minister referred to, but I will highlight some of the significant changes that have been made by this government since it came to office in 2007. Labor since then has nearly doubled the education budget to nearly $64.9 billion over the next four years. The government has built or upgraded facilities at every single Australian school, including 500 science labs or language centres, 1,300 covered outdoor learning facilities and 1,900 school libraries. The government has delivered around 413,000 new school computers in more than 2,000 schools, with more to come. To support students with disabilities the government will provide $200 million in new funding to provide more in-classroom support for students, including from health and other professionals, and the government has committed $1.5 billion to support around 398,000 students in disadvantaged schools, $540 million to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes and $550 million to improve teacher quality. I welcome the allocation of $425 million for a national bonus pay scheme for teachers. As a result of the Gillard government's reforms and record investment in higher education, we have already seen an extra 80,000 undergraduate students since 2007 get the opportunity of a university education. Over the same period, we have doubled the number of Commonwealth supported postgraduate places from 16,500 in 2007 to 33,000 this year. Right through from preschool to university education, Labor understand the critical difference good education makes to individual lives and to the nation's prosperity. We also understand that in a competitive global world having a university education is not just a privilege but indeed a necessity. That is why this legislation is important. At the turn of last century, fewer than one per cent of Australians had the opportunity to pursue higher studies at a university. In 2006, around 26 per cent of 25- to 34-year-old Australians had a university degree. The government's goal is to increase that figure to 40 per cent by 2025.
There are many families whose sons or daughters will be going to a university for the first time. This means so much to people. I know what it meant to my own family when my older brother was awarded a university scholarship. For my father to see his son go to university was a dream come true. University education should be accessible to everyone and this government want to ensure that that is the case.
On speaking earlier this year on a private member's motion on youth allowance, I made the following points: 'Since the youth allowance changes were made, more than 100,000 young people have benefited because they are eligible for youth allowance for the first time or they are receiving more money than before. More than one-third of these young people are from rural and regional areas. More than 240,000 university students have received student start-up scholarships towards their education costs. More than 55,000 of the students are from rural and regional areas. More than 36,000 university students, who need to move away from home to study, have received relocation scholarship payments toward their accommodation costs and more than 15,000 are from rural and regional areas.' The government's education reforms to date are making a difference and in particular for disadvantaged families such as those from rural and regional areas.
This legislation makes further important reforms with respect to university education. Under the changes that this bill will bring in, Australian universities will no longer be asked by the government to ration Commonwealth supported student places amongst students competing to get a bachelor degree. The government will no longer set the number of undergraduate places that a university can offer. From 1 January 2012, universities will have greater flexibility to respond to student demand and employer and industry needs. This year the government will fund more than 480,000 undergraduate places at public universities. With an anticipated four per cent growth, next year this will rise to over half a million places—that is a 20 per cent increase since 2008.
To fund this historic expansion of opportunity, the government provided an additional $1.2 billion in this year's budget, bringing the total demand driven funding to $3.97 billion over successive budgets. I note that the government are not uncapping funding for student places in postgraduate and medical courses. It will continue to allocate Commonwealth supported places in these areas for the time being. The bill will ensure that the government have the capacity to respond to any new skills shortages and if necessary to the oversupply of graduates in particular areas.
I particularly welcome the abolition of student learning entitlement from 2012. Under the current arrangements, there is a limit as to how much study a person can undertake as a Commonwealth supported student. Student learning entitlement provides the equivalent of seven years full-time access to a Commonwealth supported place. It was agreed as part of the demand driven funding system that student learning entitlement would be abolished from 2012. The bill will remove student learning entitlement as an eligibility requirement for a Commonwealth supported place.
These changes are particularly relevant to disadvantaged communities such as the northern suburbs of Adelaide, where education achievement and university attendance has been below the state average, even though the University of South Australia has had a campus in the northern suburbs since the mid-sixties. We used to have the Salisbury college of advanced education, up until the late-nineties. When that was closed, their work was transferred to what was the old institute of technology at Mawson Lakes and is now the University of SA's campus at Mawson Lakes.
On this matter, it was only a couple of weeks ago that at a function organised by the Northern Economic Leaders Group of the northern suburbs of Adelaide, the member for Wakefield, who is in the chamber with me now, addressed the group in respect of the issue of disadvantage in those communities and the need for the community to work together to ensure we encourage and facilitate the ability of more younger people from that region to not only complete year-12 education but go on and become university qualified—and the member for Wakefield certainly made the point very strongly on the day. The purpose of function was to discuss the statistics that clearly show that the northern region of Adelaide is where all the jobs growth has occurred in recent years, but those jobs, however, have been taken up by people from outside the northern suburbs because they were largely created in the defence sector at the DSTO at Edinburgh and in the IT sector and they could not be filled by young people in the region because in most cases they did not have the appropriate qualifications. So on one hand the region is creating jobs and employment opportunities for an area with a higher than average unemployment rate, but on the other hand the very people who need the jobs are unable to take them because they do not have the appropriate qualifications. It is certainly something that the region is working together on. The changes in this bill will be absolutely relevant to making the difference that we all hope to see. For several years, the University of South Australia has been involved in a community engagement strategy for the very purpose of finding ways to ensure that the young people from that region will be able to take up the jobs that are made available. Simultaneously, the industries of that region have also been working very closely with the university, trying to ensure that the courses offered at the university are relevant to the jobs that will be available in their industries in the years to come. So there is a very strong link between the employers in the region and the work of the university. It is critical, if there is a particular profession or qualification that is required in order to fill jobs, that the university not be restrained by having to cap the number of places and therefore the number of qualified students that can come from a particular course. It is important to ensure that the courses available at the university are closely matched to the jobs on offer, and that is exactly the kind of direction that this bill takes us in.
In recent years Australia has made international student trade a critical economic component of our community. In the year to July 2009, nearly 550,000 students on student visas enrolled for study in Australia. I suspect that most of those 550,000 students went to a university. I certainly know that the University of South Australia's Mawson Lakes campus has a very high ratio of international students. In 2008-09, Australia's international education sector became Australia's second-largest export earner, earning an estimated $16.6 billion. International student numbers grew as a proportion of total tertiary student numbers from 11.4 per cent in 1998 to 21.8 per cent in 2008. As I said a moment ago, the majority of students coming to Australia would have been university students. Again, it is important, if we have an opportunity to educate international students and those international students want a particular degree, to make sure they have the opportunity to get that degree—and that will be the case if there are no constraints on the types of courses universities can offer. I know that universities around Australia are working right now with other countries and other overseas universities to ensure they can accommodate the qualifications overseas students are seeking.
I note with interest that Australian universities support the demand driven funding system provided for in this bill. I am not surprised they support it—it is my view that for years and years universities have been frustrated because they have not been able to provide the number of places required by students pursuing a particular degree. As the member for Capricornia quite rightly alluded to, this legislation arises from the Bradley review. Professor Denise Bradley—whom I knew personally; at one stage she was associated with the University of South Australia—understands the importance of these changes and the difference they will make particularly to disadvantaged communities around Australia. I commend the legislation to be House.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (12:48): I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011. I am sure I mirror the sentiments of all members of the House when I say that when I visit the schools in my electorate, particularly in those areas of greater socioeconomic challenge, I like to say to the students, and particularly the primary students, that a great future awaits them because they live in this country; that this is a country of opportunity where if you have a big dream and you are prepared to work for it, you can achieve it. God forbid that that should ever change. It is important that we do talk up the dreams of young Australians and remind them that they do have great opportunities. Many of those opportunities will be provided through tertiary education. I say to them that one day—and I seriously mean this—one of them could be Prime Minister of this great country. I believe that, and I hope they believe it as well. One day they could run BHP. As I say in Western Australia, they could be doctors or nurses in Royal Perth Hospital saving lives, or they could be Qantas pilots flying around the world.
These are some of the great dreams that I hope the young people of Australia will have. I hope that they do not just listen to those influences in their lives which are not as ambitious; those influences in their lives which might lead them to believe that their only hope for the future is a life of welfare dependency. It is important that we as community leaders, and this is certainly the way I approach it, talk up the dreams and talk up the ambitions of these young people and remind them of their opportunities. Many of these opportunities will be delivered through university education—there is no doubt about that—but it is not a good idea to try to re-establish the Keating-esque view of the world where if you do not have a degree you are somehow at a lower level.
Mr Stephen Jones: That was never what he said—come on!
Mr SIMPKINS: We will get to the accuracy of statements in a second. It is very good to have South Australians in the chamber, because I want to cover things that the member for Kingston said. She said on two occasions that under the Howard government only the wealthy could study. I was really surprised to hear that. You would have thought that entrance exams in each of the states did not matter, that you had to have money before you could study. I thought there was a system called HECS in this country. I thought if you studied and got the marks, you could get into university, get a loan, HECS, and pay at the end—with the exception of the obligatory, compulsory student union fee. We have talked enough about that barrier, which some like to impose upon tertiary students. The member for Kingston specifically made the blatant false claim that under the Howard government only the wealthy could study. That certainly was never the case. While lines like that might run pretty nicely with the National Tertiary Education Union—who may be preselectors or booth workers, or possibly both—that line is inaccurate.
The coalition have a number of amendments which we wish to advance on this bill. As has been said by the government, the ambition of this bill is to uncap the number of students who are able to receive a Commonwealth supported place at university. It requires universities to have a policy on free intellectual inquiry, to enter into agreements with the government called 'compacts' that set out the objectives and it removes the limit on the student learning entitlement, the length of time a student may occupy a Commonwealth supported place at university. The coalition have proposed that we would amend the bill to talk about retaining the limit on the time a student can occupy a Commonwealth supported place, extending that limit from seven to eight years, and ensuring universities' policies on free intellectual inquiry apply to students as well as to academics. These are positive proposals which will benefit the intent of the bill.
There has been a great deal of talk in the past about professional, lifelong students. When I was at university, admittedly many aeons ago, students were not asked to provide a copayment for their university degrees. There were up-front costs, of course, but the overall cost of the degree was not put to the student. There were people at the university who had been there for a very long time and that was certainly the case before the Howard government brought in this limit. There were still people who chose to use the system to permanently remain in study mode, to start a number of degrees and not finish them, and basically live a reasonable sort of life in an environment in which they were obviously extremely happy.
It is not the place for people in this country who see a looseness in the system to decide: 'That's something I will exploit. I have no regard for taxpayers' contributions, I will just carry on and enjoy the high life.' And that applies to social security payments as well. If you have the capacity to work, to contribute, that is your duty and you must acknowledge that duty. The government, in seeing that the measures they have put in place have reduced the number of lifelong students, may mistakenly believe they can back away from the good changes of the Howard government and release the system, and then for some reason think there will not be any more lifelong professional students. The government has unwound so many of the Howard government policies which worked—boats et cetera—but the government says: 'There's no-one in this category; there are hardly any professional, lifelong students. We'll back off from those measures.' So should this bill pass unamended, as we found with boats we will start having people who think that the government and society owe them, that there is an opportunity for them to just carry on and not contribute to the country.
That relates back to some of the things I have said to students within my electorate of Cowan. Recently I have said to Warwick Senior High School and to Waddington Primary School, whose students have a very great future, 'You have opportunities in this country, but society does not owe you; society gives you the opportunity and has the systems in place of which you can take advantage'—that is, putting teachers in front of them so that they can develop and learn and seek higher qualifications along the way. It is not that anyone is bound by right to have automatic access to these things; it is still a matter that the person has to work, has to commit to their studies and to a workplace later on, and they have to continue to commit to this country. These are very important matters.
Moving on to deal with academic freedom and the compacts, as I said before, it is important that there is free intellectual inquiry within universities. It is important that that is not just enshrined for the academics but that it also applies to the students. These things are very important. There have been suggestions in the past about certain universities around the country that if a student expresses viewpoints that may politically differ from those of the academic in charge of the course there might be some sort of comeback or negativity sheeted home to the student. So I think it is very important that we keep an eye on these sorts of matters and that we have that oversight over the tertiary sector so that there is governance and methods by which there can be genuine academic freedom for students as well. If a student has a differing political view that is put logically and referenced in detail it certainly should not result in a negative outcome just because it might not necessarily reflect the view of academics.
So, from the coalition perspective, there are aspects of this bill that we appreciate. As I have alluded to, the coalition oppose the abolition of the student learning entitlement and we have an amendment to increase the entitlement for a further year of study. The coalition also believe that an amendment is necessary to ensure that free academic inquiry extends to students as well as staff. The coalition will introduce an amendment also indicating that we oppose compacts being used to micromanage universities but we do support compacts that make university performance transparent and measurable. In general terms, the coalition do not oppose the remainder of the bill.
I reiterate that this is a nation of great opportunity and that it is through the courses and opportunities that are provided in our excellent universities that our young Australians can take up opportunities. If they have ambitions and take up the opportunities to fly Qantas planes around the world, to be doctors in Royal Perth Hospital or to be Prime Minister for the good cause of serving the people, not because it is a great sounding job, often they will find themselves moving through our universities. But that does not mean it is only through higher education, tertiary education, that the great opportunities of our nation are achieved. Many people who do not have a tertiary education live very good lives in our cities and have done very well. I believe that many people in this House have succeeded and serve the people of their constituencies well without having had a particular degree. Based upon their experience, other jobs that they have done and other qualifications beyond university, they have been well equipped to serve the interests of their people. So, as I have said, there are aspects of this bill which we support and there are things which should be amended but in any case I do appreciate the opportunity to make those comments on this bill today.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (13:03): Before I continue with what I planned to say on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011, I will make some comments on the member for Cowan's speech. I do agree with him: many, many people do get ahead in this world, especially in Australia, without an education and we certainly do not want to degrade people who do not have a degree, a certificate or a diploma. But that does not mean that we should not be encouraging people by doing all we can as governments to ensure that people do get a higher education and better skills, because all of us know that all the research—every little bit of research that has been done—and all the statistics show that the best way to get out of poverty is through education and the higher the education the more likelihood of that happening. So it is very important to ensure that we do everything we can as governments to ensure that the facilities and the programs are out there for people to be able to achieve to their highest ability. It is so important to get that message out there and to ensure that we let people know that those facilities and those programs are there—and this is what this bill is all about.
We have had a number of members rise to their feet to speak in support of this bill and the system-wide reforms that this particular government developed, implemented and continue to implement. Members well know of the intent of this bill: freeing up universities, our higher education places, to offer more publicly supported places in courses of high demand and the removal of the seven-year limitation on individuals' access to Australian government sponsored university education. These are, as we know, elements of the suite of reforms that the government has been implementing to transform Australia's higher education sector. This year, over 480,000 undergraduate places are being funded, an increase of 20 per cent on those funded in 2008. This is all about higher education giving people opportunities and ensuring that we skill the workforce that we will so desperately need in the future. The expansion is set to continue through this year's budget. The government will be investing a further $1.2 billion, bringing the total additional investment in additional student places to $3.97 billion. Annual funding to universities in 2011 is around 30 per cent higher than in 2007—I repeat: 30 per cent higher than it was in 2007. That is a significant amount.
We have here, plain for all to see, a government that believes there is value in higher skilling, in ensuring Australians are gaining a higher education with skills that will assist us to become a smarter nation and assist us to be innovative in our industries and at the cutting edge. These are skills that will not only help people get out of the poverty cycle or assist them in gaining employment but also help the nation in cutting-edge innovation.
In the past the former government and the former Prime Minister sought to appeal to complacency. They dressed it up as nostalgia by portraying a university education as something to do with elites, as we heard earlier. Education may have been something to do with the elites back in the era of very staunch conservative governments but certainly not in this government. The opposition dress up those that get university degrees as people other than ourselves and nothing could be further from the truth. As I said, we know that the best way to skill people to exit the poverty cycle is through education. The higher the education, the more likelihood of employment and the more likelihood of improving oneself. Australia is a nation very, very different to what it was in John Howard's day—in his mind of 50 years ago or maybe even 100 years ago of how he saw Australia—when education was for the elite only.
As the Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens reminded us in his address to the Economic Society of Australia just a week or so ago, 'Our manufacturing sector peaked as a proportion of GDP in the 1950s,'—that is when it was at its highest—'and saw its most rapid drop in its share of our economy in the second half of the 1970s.' This was 40-plus years ago when, perhaps, there was plenty of need for many of these manufacturing jobs to be filled. Manufacturing, of course, continues to be very important to our economy and to our nation and many people still work in manufacturing, so it is an important element of our national economy. But it is unfortunate that manufacturing industries have declined and, compared to other sectors, are not the main meal ticket for a lot of people.
In looking at my electorate and the western suburbs of Hindmarsh I look back to when I was a kid growing up. Up until a few years ago we had places like Lightburn that used to produce washing machines, refrigerators and a whole range of other things; they are gone. We had Griffin Press which was a company that produced novels as well as printing and employed around 200-odd people; they are gone. We had Clarks Shoes in Marleston; they have taken off to Fiji or Vietnam. We had Perry Engineering that used to do massive steel construction and employed around 200 workers; they are gone. We had Onkaparinga Textiles which employed over 200 people. We had Mason and Cox, another big engineering firm, that has also gone. They all went from my electorate in the last 15 to 20 years. I do make the point that those industries went from my electorate of Hindmarsh under the Howard watch. That is when they all disappeared; when Howard was in government.
On the other side, for instance, professional business services such as legal and accounting have continued to grow as a proportion of our economy and they are now twice the size of the manufacturing sector. The levels of sophistication required today for people to gain employment and to derive an income in Australia have been increasing for a long time, and continue to increase. The types of jobs that are increasingly available, the types of jobs that are seeing growth over time around most of Australia, are high knowledge jobs. They are jobs that require certificates, diplomas or degrees.
We need heightened sophistication in all workplaces, irrespective of their industry, to fuel the productivity gains that will keep us in work and enable us to pay our way as households and as a nation. This is most likely, I believe, in enterprises that value high education, feeding innovation and smarter ways of working. We know that renewable energies, for example, are right at the cutting edge. We want to ensure that we have all the knowledge available so that we come up with innovative ways for industry to be leaders, not just here in Australia but in the world.
It is increasingly high-knowledge jobs themselves—professional, technical and managerial jobs—that will fund the Australian wage in the future. At the end of the day, nothing will assist any Australian in gaining a better paying job than the right education, the right skilling and the right training. As I said earlier, we know that we need those skills to be able to better our chances of employment. That is why the Gillard government, in its wisdom, is increasing higher education funding, participation and achievement. The government's goal is to achieve 40 per cent of our 25- to 34-year-olds having a bachelor-level qualification by 2025. We need to catch up with the rest of the world as we have lagged behind for many, many years.
I would like to delve a little deeper into an emerging industry that is earning increasing revenue for Australia and for the Australians employed in that particular sector. International education has grown from its infancy in the early 1990s to a major force of the Australian economy. It was little more than a sideline to campus activity and something that universities appeared to dabble in 20 years ago. Today it is very different. The income has grown substantially in a very short period of time. The sector grew to approximately $10.7 billion in 2006 and is now worth an estimated $18-plus billion per year. Once a sideline that universities used to dabble in is, today, a major part of our national income stream.
There have been almost half a million international students studying in Australia over the last couple of years. They are studying at all educational levels from primary school right through to tertiary level. To put this into context, in 2009 there were 813,000 domestic students in higher education enrolments. In comparison, tourism has generated some $24 billion in export income per year. In 2010-11, all farm exports are expected to be $29.1 billion, energy exports will be in the vicinity of $71 billion, while export earnings for metals and other minerals, as we know, will increase to almost $100 billion. In other words, the provision of education services as a saleable commodity has emerged in the space of 15-20 years to become a new industry worth just as much in today's economy as some of the principal industries that have kept Australia afloat in years gone by.
I fully expect that, with the ongoing development and quite radical raising of living standards of literally billions of people in the two great nations to our north, China and India, and with the great flood of wealth that will enable these peoples to invest in their children's future over the course of this century, we have probably only gone a very small way towards realising the potential of this sector. Just as education is becoming a very substantial export market for this nation, a market fuelled by university graduates, I fully expect there to be other markets which Australia will increasingly access in years to come.
The role of tertiary education in our nation's future prosperity is great and cannot be overestimated. I wholeheartedly support all government initiatives directed at increasing the proportion of our labour force who are given the opportunity to gain university qualifications and, possibly more importantly, the knowledge of how to learn continually throughout their working lives.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (13:16): I thank the honourable member for his contribution and all other members who spoke on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011. I will just make some brief remarks to sum up. The bill before the House amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to implement the government's package of initiatives outlined in Transforming Australia's higher education system. The government understands that the Australian economy today requires, and in the future will require, more Australians to be degree qualified. The bill will ensure our nation's universities are able to meet the increasing demand for higher qualifications from students and employers and our nation's future workforce needs.
The government is committed to achieving the ambitious goal it has set for national attainment. The government wants to increase the proportion of 25- to 34-year-old Australians with a qualification at bachelor level or above to 40 per cent by 2025. This is the major reason for the introduction of demand driven funding for undergraduate student places at public universities. Australian universities will no longer be asked by the government to ration Commonwealth supported student places among students competing to get a bachelor's degree.
The government recognises that it will continue to have a role in the national oversight of our higher education sector. It will retain some powers to assist the achievement of those outcomes and to enable it to respond to national imperatives. There may be circumstances in which the Australian government needs to limit the extent of future growth in expenditure for unallocated undergraduate places. The minister will be able to do this by specifying a maximum grant amount for these places in a university's funding agreement.
There will also be protections in the legislation for universities to ensure the minister cannot reduce an institution's funding or force it to cut back on its previous year's enrolments. These are not protections that apply in the current system of funding universities on the basis of a fixed number of places for each individual university, that fixed number being based solely on the minister's allocation decision. These protections, which are written into the bill, are new and substantial and they provide an additional level of reassurance for universities as they move to demand driven funding for undergraduate places. The government will monitor demand and supply for graduates in all disciplines in the early years of implementation of the system. The bill ensures the government has the capacity to respond to any new skills shortages and, if necessary, to any oversupply of graduates in particular areas.
The measures in this bill for demand driven funding of undergraduate places provide for much-needed investment in higher education. As a result of these reforms, universities will be able to grow with confidence and diversify in response to student needs. Consistent with the shift to a demand driven funding system, the government agreed, in its response to the Bradley review, that the student learning entitlement provisions of the act would be abolished from 2012. The SLE currently limits a person's eligibility to study at university as a Commonwealth supported student to the equivalent of seven years of full-time study. Abolishing the entitlement will reduce the regulatory burden on universities and allow them to get on with teaching the next generation of students.
The dialogue between universities and the government plays an important role in determining future policies and funding. It assists in understanding the strategic directions of universities in response to government initiatives. Mission based compacts provide an important process of dialogue and communication between universities and the government. The amendments proposed by this bill will ensure that the investment of time and effort by the universities and by government in these compacts is recognised as part of the overall requirements for funding under this act.
I particularly thank the members who contributed to the debate on the application of free intellectual inquiry. Free intellectual inquiry will become an object of the act. Table A and table B providers will be required to have policies that uphold free intellectual inquiry in relation to learning, teaching and research. We believe that, as autonomous institutions, universities are best placed to determine how they wish to articulate their commitments to free intellectual inquiry. This bill reflects the government's continued commitment to invest in Australian universities and to expanding opportunities for Australians to obtain a higher quality education. I commend the bill to the House.
Question put:
That the amendment (Mr Pyne's) be agreed to.
The House divided. [13:25]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (13:30): I move opposition amendment (1):
(1) Schedule 2, page 13 (line 1 ) to page 23 (line 4), omit the Schedule, substitute:
Schedule 2—Amendments relating to student learning entitlement
Higher Education Support Act 2003
1 Section 70-1
Omit "7 years", substitute "8 years".
2 Section 73-5
Repeal the section, substitute:
73-5 Ordinary SLE
Ordinary SLE for persons eligible immediately before 1 January 2012
(1) A person who was an eligible person immediately before 1 January 2012 has at the beginning of that day an increase of 1 *EFTSL in the person's *ordinary ESL.
Ordinary SLE accruing after 1 January 2012
(2) A person who (by birth or otherwise) becomes an *eligible person for the first time on or after 1 January 2012 has at the beginning of that day an *ordinary SLE equal to 8 *EFTSL.
Meaning of eligible person
(3) An eligible person is:
(a) an Australian citizen; or
(b) a citizen of New Zealand; or
(c) a *permanent visa holder.
3 After Subsection 73-30(2)
Add:
(3) A person who ceased to be an eligible person before 1 January 2012 and next becomes an eligible person again on or after that date is taken to have had, immediately before so ceasing to be an eligible person, an *ordinary SLE that was 1 *EFTSL higher than the person actually had.
For the benefit of the House, I spoke to this amendment in the second reading debate. So that we know what we are voting on, it is the amendment that would retain the student learning entitlement aspect of the legislation and increase from seven to eight the number of years in which an undergraduate can be at university. I spoke to that in the second reading debate. So the Independents are aware of what we are voting on, it is a vote on the student learning entitlement, and the next vote will be on other amendments. I commend the amendment to the House.
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (13:31): The government does not support this amendment. Consistent with a shift to demand driven funding, the government has agreed in its response to the Bradley review that the student learning entitlement provisions of the act would be abolished. The government's decision to remove a piece of red tape that effectively exists within this legislation has been well received, including by the Group of Eight universities. Even the former Minister for Education, Science and Training, now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, acknowledged that the student learning entitlement is flawed policy. The government does not support the amendment.
Question put:
That the amendment (Mr Pyne's) be agreed to.
The House divided. [13:36]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question negatived.
In division—
The SPEAKER: While I have members' attention, earlier I was informed by a Queensland member of the coalition with a froggy throat that today is the birthday of the member for O'Connor. On behalf of the House I extend to him best wishes. This is not an attempt to highlight where he is in the chamber at the moment!
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (13:40): by leave—I move opposition amendments (2) and (3):
(2) Schedule 3, item 1, page 24 (line 6), after "free intellectual inquiry" insert "for students, researchers and teachers".
(3) Schedule 3, item 3, page 25 (line 10), after "free intellectual inquiry" insert "for students, researchers and teachers".
These amendments address the issue of free intellectual inquiry and extend it beyond academics to students and researchers. They therefore widen the scope of academic freedom, research freedom and student freedom. I commend my amendments to the House. I feel the pressure around me, so I want to have them moved as soon as possible!
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (13:41): I will not speak at great length on why we oppose these amendments. I think that has been canvassed already by speakers. I will conclude my remarks thus.
Question put:
That the amendments (Mr Pyne's) be agreed to.
The House divided. [13:45]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr GARRETT: by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being after 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Casey Electorate: Wonga Park Country Fire Authority
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (13:49): On Sunday I had the pleasure of attending the Wonga Park CFA for the handover of its so-called new truck, the 'Big Fill'. Mr Speaker, you would appreciate that Wonga Park CFA, like all of our CFAs, performs a wonderful service for our community. Over the last five or six years, the CFA has dedicated itself to single-handedly raising all of the funds for this important new addition to its fleet. It was a great occasion. It was a day of celebration and congratulation. Many members of the community contributed to the fundraising effort. Over those five or six years, they raised more than $100,000.
I pay tribute to all the members of the Wonga Park CFA, led by Captain Kingsley Allen. I also want to specifically mention the Bendigo Bank of Warrandyte, represented by Sarah Wrigley, which was a generous donor to the purchase of this truck; and Mr Phil Munday, from Phil Munday Panel Works, who also contributed significantly to the purchase of the truck.
Oxley Electorate: Vietnamese Community
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (13:50): There are approximately 173,000 people of Vietnamese origin in Australia and census collection data from 2006 tells me that about 8,135 Vietnamese people are in the Oxley electorate. Of course, that number is much larger today. It is the single largest group, behind people of British or Irish descent, in Oxley.
Almost all of these people have come as or are the children of refugees fleeing for their lives after the fall of Saigon in 1975. It was an incredibly brave thing to do and for what in the end amounted to a huge cost of lives for thousands of those who made the perilous journey.
Next year, 2012, will mark the 50th anniversary of the first involvement by Australian troops in the Vietnam War. The media has reported that some individuals within the RSL are considering a march in Vietnam next year of Australian Vietnamese veterans, and former North Vietnamese army and Viet Cong soldiers. This idea came from sections and individuals of the ex-service community and the RSL. I understand that the RSL itself is dealing with this matter at present.
The government acknowledges that there are differences of view in the ex-service community about this idea, in particular those who served in Vietnam during the war. This is not an initiative of the government, nor has it been promoted by the government or any minister. This is properly a matter for veterans and the RSL to determine.
The government and I acknowledge that this is a sensitive and emotional issue for many Australian Vietnam veterans and the Vietnamese community. We also understand the pain and anguish that this has caused for many people. Vietnam veterans and many people in the Vietnamese community have raised their concerns about this proposed march with me and have explained that a number of unresolved issues continue to exist. (Time expired)
Holsworthy Public School
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:52): Yesterday, 91 students from Holsworthy Public School visited parliament for their senior school excursion to the ACT, which included a trip to Perisher Valley, where they had great fun throwing snowballs at their teachers. Among these special visitors were the members of the school's 2011 student parliament. The program is an integral part of the school's student leadership and development policy. It gives the students a genuine say in how their school is run.
This unique program at Holsworthy Public School is in its 16th year of operation and has a proud record of assisting in the development of local students' debating skills, speech making, logical argument, critical thinking, and understanding how Australia is governed and how our laws are made. The Holsworthy student parliament includes the annual election of two prime ministers and a cabinet of 10 ministers, covering the portfolios of Events, Sport, Environment, Technology and Health and Safety.
It was great to catch up with kids from Holsworthy Public School again, and their conduct and thirst for knowledge is a great credit to principal Wayne Roberts and the rest of the staff. And I would like to congratulate their prime ministers, Elly Catt and Kieran Sheva-Kumaran, and their team on the wonderful work they have been doing this year. The leadership team seemed at home here in Parliament House, and it is only a matter of time before Holsworthy produces their first federal parliamentarian—hopefully sitting on the right side of the House!
Bourke, Dr Chris
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:53): It is with pleasure I rise today to congratulate Dr Chris Bourke on his election to the ACT Legislative Assembly. Dr Bourke is the ACT Legislative Assembly's first Indigenous member and, in wonderful timing, was elected during Reconciliation Week.
Dr Bourke brings with him a wealth of experience in business, government policy development and Indigenous health. He graduated from Melbourne University in 1982 as Australia's first Indigenous dentist and went on to run a successful private dental practice for 16 years. He served the community delivering pro bono dental services to the public dental clinic in Queanbeyan. He is also the president of the Indigenous Dentists Association of Australia.
Dr Bourke lives in the Ginninderra electorate and has been actively involved in his community over 25 years. His community interests include the Closing the Gap campaign for Indigenous health equality and the Capital Region Area Consultative Committee that advises the federal government on a range of regional development issues. Dr Bourke was also Chairperson of the ACT Indigenous Education Consultative Body, Treasurer of the ACT Branch of the Public Health Association of Australia and President of the Aranda scout group. He is a strong supporter local of Canberra artists as a member of the Capital Arts Patrons Organisation.
Dr Bourke will be an excellent representative of his community and I wish him all the very best in his new role in representing the people of Ginninderra.
Richardson, Professor Jack, AO
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (13:55): I rise to associate the coalition with the earlier comments of the Special Minister of State regarding the death of Professor Jack Richardson. Professor Richardson of course was a distinguished law academic and the inaugural Commonwealth Ombudsman, from 1977 to 1985. He died recently at the age of 90.
Jack Richardson established the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office, overseeing the first critical years and guiding the office through substantial changes and growth both in jurisdiction and caseload. He was a man known for his intellectual rigour and his robust approach to public administration. I understand that in his earlier years, when he was seeking to establish a working relationship with the departments that he was then required to inquire into, following complaints from members of the public, he did take the opportunity to perhaps concern some of the departmental heads in 1982 when he ran his milk carton advertising campaign in the ACT. The slogan was 'Bamboozled by the bureaucracy? Call the Ombudsman'. He was a man of great contribution, a good man, a good Australian, and we convey our sympathies to his family and honour his life and wish his family all the best.
Clements, Mr Alex
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:56): I rise today to congratulate a successful young athlete in my electorate of Bass, Alex Clements. Just 18 months ago 17-year-old Alex was a great tennis player. Alex made the decision to switch sports to cycling after attending a talent identification test at the Tasmanian Institute of Sport. Over the weekend Alex participated in the third leg of the 'National Road Series', which was the 'Tour of Toowoomba', and placed an impressive second place. This event is the highest level of racing in Australia, a particularly impressive effort from someone who is still relatively new to the sport. Alex also won the best young rider category—a fantastic effort.
Alex attends Scotch Oakburn College in Launceston—a great school in Launceston—and in a recent newspaper interview he made mention of fellow cyclist Richie Porte—who I might add was a good swimmer before he switched sports to cycling—and Wes Sulzberger and Matt Goss as his inspirations.
It is pleasing to see young athletes from Tasmania so competitive on a national scale and I encourage them all to continue to pursue their sporting interests and aspirations. I would again like to congratulate Alex on his achievements, a great effort for such a young athlete, and I encourage him to continue with his obvious dedication and commitment to the sport of cycling into the future.
Gillard Government
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (13:58): On the last day parliament sat last year the Prime Minister announced 2011 would be a year of delivery and decision—but it has been a year of debt and delay. At least she got the Ds right! Given this minority government was put there at the whim of the country Independents, we were told—more importantly, the Australian public was told—there was going to be a renewed focus on regional Australia. But this government has let everyone down, again.
When our Prime Minister addressed the New Zealand parliament she lifted a 90-year ban on New Zealand apples coming into the Australian market. This angered Australian apple growers, and rightly so. They stand to lose almost a third of their farm income. Worse, the threat of our own orchards being placed at risk of imported diseases is now very real. The government has suspended all live cattle exports to Indonesia, which could cost the industry hundreds of millions of dollars. There is a better way.
Despite recommendations to stop all non-strategic water buyback immediately, this government continues to create uncertainty among farming communities and desperate selling with haphazard purchasing. When there was an incursion of Asian bees which threatened our honeybee industry in particular, and agriculture in general, did this government care? When mice were in plague proportions right across the country, did Labor act promptly to save the situation? A year since 'fundamental injustice day', when this Prime Minister knifed her predecessor in the back to take the top job, regional Australia is still wondering if Labor cares or if it is all hypocrisy, no democracy.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being approximately 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded.
CONDOLENCES
Robinson, Sapper Rowan Jaie
Report from Main Committee
Order of the day returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the motion presented.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House record its deep regret at the death of Sapper Rowan Jaie Robinson on 6 June 2011, while on combat operations in Afghanistan, and place on record its appreciation of his service to the country and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:01): I inform the House that the Minister for Employment Participation and Child Care and Minister for the Status of Women will be absent from question time today as she is attending a funeral in Adelaide. The Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts will answer questions in relation to employment participation and sport; the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will answer questions in relation to the status of women; and the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth will answer questions in relation to child care on her behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of her statement a year ago that she wanted to make life easier for Australia's working families. Since then she has announced a carbon tax that will drive up the price of everything, she has re-announced a mining tax that will damage jobs and investment in our most vital industry and she has announced a deficit of $50 billion that makes it more likely that interest rates will rise. Does she understand why Australia's forgotten families think that our country has gone from bad to worse?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:03): To the Leader of the Opposition let me say: I understand that families around the country feel the pressures of the world we live in and particularly the cost-of-living pressures on their shoulders. I understand that very, very keenly. That is why we want to work with families on those cost-of-living pressures and why we want to work with them to improve the services that they rely on and to improve their prospects in the future. There is nothing more important to the prospects of Australian families than keeping the economy strong and making sure that people have the benefits and dignity of work, which is why I am so pleased that we were able to manage the economy so that Australia came out of the global financial crisis stronger than any other developed country in the world and that over the next two years we will create half a million jobs.
I am also pleased that we are able to continue our work with families to assist them with cost-of-living pressures. We have of course provided tax cuts for three years. We created the education tax refund to help with the costs of getting kids to school. We have added to that in the recent budget by enabling families to recover some of the money they spend on kids' uniforms. We have worked with families to alleviate the burden of childcare fees, increasing the childcare tax rebate to 50 per cent and, in the recent budget, moving to a fortnightly payment arrangement so that people do not need to be so far out of pocket before they see some money come back from the government. We have also assisted the lowest income Australians, those eligible for the low-income tax offset, by bringing forward some of the payments that they would have otherwise not been eligible for. This move in the recent budget means that they will better see the rewards of work.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. To be directly relevant, the Prime Minister needs to talk about the things that she has done since she was Prime Minister. The things she is talking about were done by the member for Griffith when he was Prime Minister.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
Ms GILLARD: For the information of the House, I was referring to a measure in the last budget. I really find it quite offensive that members of the opposition are so cavalier about the needs of low-income Australians that they do not understand a major measure in the last budget involving the low-income tax offset and enabling people to see more money earlier so that they can better see the rewards of work.
We have increased the family tax benefit for the parents of teenagers, a benefit that is worth more than $4,000 a year to families on the maximum rate. Families also rely on services. I want them to have the best of health services, which is why earlier this year I entered an agreement with premiers and chief ministers around the country which means more doctors, more nurses, more local control and less red tape. We will finalise the details of that agreement at the forthcoming COAG.
People in this parliament are aware of my passion for extending opportunity. We have built on our earlier education reforms with a $3 billion skills package in the recent budget. I am very proud that that will enable people to get that all-important training place and get a better job and a better prospect in life. We have also delivered in the context of the recent budget new welfare measures to better enforce opportunity and responsibility around our country. We have done all of that, and we are bringing the budget back to surplus exactly as promised to alleviate inflationary pressures in our economy. I am very happy for the Leader of the Opposition to keep talking about what the government has done in the face of his relentless negativity and just saying no.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): I have a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Given that almost everything the Prime Minister has just referred to has actually been the work of the member for Griffith when he was in the top job, has the political assassination of a prime minister been worth it?
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: that was not a supplementary question. It should be ruled out of order
Mr Abbott: Mr Speaker, on the point of order: she did in her answer almost entirely refer to the work of her predecessor. I admire the work of her predecessor and that is why it is entirely in order to ask her this question.
The SPEAKER: Order! I simply say to the Leader of the House I was more concerned about the application of standing order 100 to the question rather than whether it was a supplementary question or not. I can only say that—through generations of speakership—leaders of the opposition, as has been given to prime ministers, have been given leeway but that leeway and the way in which in this case the standing orders that apply to the rules for the questions are put in place should not be expected on all occasions. But I allow the question on this occasion.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:09): I say to the Leader of the Opposition I cannot believe that he is so reckless, so negative and so incompetent that he has failed to absorb any of the detail of the last budget. We know, of course, that he is bored by economics. We know that he is incapable of adding up budget figures, because every time he has tried to do so he has produced a black hole. But this question indicates that he is completely unaware of the measures in the recent budget. I am disgusted by that. It shows complete contempt for the need to keep the economy strong. It shows complete contempt for the need to get job opportunities for working Australians. It shows complete contempt for the measures we have enacted to assist them with cost of living. It shows complete contempt for people who rely on education and health services. So let me again go to matters dealt with in the—
Mr Abbott: Mr Speaker, a point of order, reluctantly, but the question that I asked was whether it has all been worth it, and she should answer that question.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition acknowledges that there was a preamble before those words and, whilst the relevancy rule has been ratcheted to direct relevance, as I indicated, leeway is given either way. I have said before that, if I am to allow the questions, I will allow the leeway in the answer.
Ms GILLARD: To the Leader of the Opposition's question, the Leader of the Opposition has asked me about matters I have done as Prime Minister and I am answering them. I am pointing out to him what was done in the recent budget. Because he is so negative he clearly never bothered to read it. Let us go through the recent budget—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Dickson is warned.
Ms GILLARD: a budget coming to surplus in 2012-13 as promised. If the Leader of the Opposition had his way, the cost of his negativity would be a huge deficit. A skills package delivered $3 billion in skills to get Australians the benefits of opportunity around the country. The cost of the Leader of the Opposition's negativity is he wants to rip money out of apprenticeships and out of skills. The recent budget invested more than $2 billion in mental health—something that you can only do if you balance the government's budget, not create a black hole. The cost of the Leader of the Opposition's negativity would be a black hole which means initiatives like mental health initiatives could not be funded.
Better help for families with teenagers was in the recent budget—something that the Leader of the Opposition has never shown any care or concern about. School uniforms were in the education tax refund in the recent budget—something that the Leader of the Opposition has never shown any care or concern about. The childcare tax rebate was moved to fortnightly payments to assist working families with the costs of paying for child care, a better circumstance than ever provided when the Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet minister. Low-income Australians get the benefit of the low income tax offset being brought forward. We care about the circumstances of low-income Australians. The Leader of the Opposition cares only about his negativity. And, of course, we earlier this year delivered a healthcare agreement, which means more doctors, more nurses, more local control and less waste. We have delivered the package which will enable Queensland to be rebuilt while we pay as we go. That is something that the Leader of the Opposition opposed and then he produced a package which fell apart within days. We have delivered the structural separation of Telstra, reform above and beyond anything the Howard government was capable of. The NBN continues to roll out, including with today's announcement. And the list goes on.
I can tell from the look on the Leader of the Opposition's face that he will never be interested in positive plans for the nation's future. He will never be interested in the benefits being provided to working families. The only thing he is interested in is negativity, and the problem for working families is that that comes at a cost to them. His negativity comes at a cost to them. We will let him play the silly political games he is going to play today and we will get on with the job of helping families around the nation. (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:14): I inform members that we have in the gallery this afternoon His Excellency the Hon. Dr Brendan Nelson, former member for Bradfield, former minister in this place, former Leader of the Opposition and now Australia's ambassador to the European Union, Belgium and Luxembourg as well as Australia's representative to the WHO and NATO. Given his busy schedule, I am pleased that he has found time to come and visit us. Doc, you are a welcome visitor.
Honourable members: Hear, Hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Afghanistan
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (14:16): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you inform the House about President Obama's announcement today on Afghanistan?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:16): I thank the member for Melbourne Ports for his question. It is a good thing Brendan Nelson is in the gallery, given the work he did with me when we attended the NATO summit at the end of last year. As Australians would have seen today, President Obama has made an important announcement about the international effort in Afghanistan. To use President Obama's words as he talked about the clear progress that is being made in Afghanistan, 'We are now working from a position of strength.' Those were President Obama's words. His message was that the transition strategy is on track towards achieving the goal set by President Karzai in Afghanistan that the Afghan state be able to assume responsibility for its own security by the end of 2014.
Australia shares President Obama's assessment that progress is being made and that the transition strategy is on track. As I have had cause in the past to report to the House, we believe that we have reversed the momentum of the insurgency that our troops face. We are training Afghan security forces and they are becoming more capable and more able to operate on their own. We have hit al-Qaeda hard. President Obama talked today about the hardest hit of all with the death of bin Laden. And we are helping the Afghan authorities to improve the lives of the people of Afghanistan.
I understand that many Australians today will have listened to President Obama's words, particularly his words about drawing down American troops in Afghanistan. They may be thinking to themselves, 'If President Obama is drawing down troops, what does that mean for Australia and what does that mean for our mission?' I think it is very important we get a sense of scale and context here. The Americans put in 30,000 additional troops in a surge to take their troop involvement to around 100,000. We have around 1,500 troops involved in Afghanistan. President Obama outlined a draw-down strategy for the troops involved in the surge. Then he charted the course forward on transition. He has said that he is looking for a draw down, and one will occur by the end of this year and then continue throughout 2012. Then he is looking beyond transition in 2014 to what he refers to as an enduring partnership as the international community continues to support the Afghan government. To those who may be concerned that America is drawing down, I say to them that the context is of far higher troop involvement and the quite rapid surge, with the draw down now to come.
The advice that I have had from the Chief of the Defence Force as recently as this morning is that our current troop presence remains appropriate for our mission. I am also advised that we do not expect that there will be any significant implications for the US-Australian joint efforts in Oruzgan from the draw down of the surge. We are on course in Afghanistan. It is hard work. It is dangerous work. It is work that on too many occasions has required us to mark moments of condolence in the House. But we are on course and we will be staying that course. With President Obama's statement today we have a further insight into his thinking and the strategy ahead as Afghanistan begins to transition to local security leadership.
Gillard Government
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (14:20): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement that the Labor Party is the party of truth telling. I remind her that 10 days before she deposed the member for Griffith she said any suggestion of a leadership challenge was absolutely absurd, that during the election campaign she said the idea of doing deals with the Greens was absolutely ridiculous and that with respect to the carbon tax she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Prime Minister, how can Australians believe anything that you say?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:21): We see a continuation of the opposition's strategy. We see it on display every day. I have referred to the Leader of the Opposition in the past as coming into this place with a mouth full of insults and no ideas for the nation's future, and we are seeing a continuation of that strategy today. Whilst the opposition engage in their politics of stunt and carry-on, which we have seen across this parliamentary week as much as we have seen across other parliamentary weeks, we will leave them with these debates that they think are interesting in this parliamentary chamber.
What really drives me and drives this government is matters beyond this chamber that make a difference to the lives of Australian families. I do not take too many questions from the opposition about jobs. I do not take too many questions from the opposition about health. I do not take too many questions from the opposition about education and getting a future for Australia's children. I do not take too many questions from the opposition about broadband and having the infrastructure of the future. I do not take too many questions from the opposition about bringing the budget back to surplus.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. In the context of the new paradigm to answer directly, this is an opportunity for her to defend herself, which she refuses to do on censure motions. So I ask her to address the question: why should we believe her on anything she says?
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: As I was saying, I do not take too many questions from the opposition about bringing the budget to surplus. I certainly do not take any questions from the member for Mackellar about the circumstances of older Australians. And I have certainly never heard an explanation from her as to why it took this government, this Labor government, to deliver a historic pension increase and why she was a member of a government that never delivered a historic pension rise. I certainly do not hear from the member—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume her place until the House comes to order. The Prime Minister has the call. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence.
Ms GILLARD: I have certainly never taken a question from the member for Mackellar about superannuation earnings and decent retirement incomes for working Australians—something of course we are committed to; lifting superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent and using some of the proceeds of the minerals resource rent tax to do what government need to do to make that policy change possible. I would have thought, representing older Australians in this place, she might have a care and concern about retirement incomes. But, of course, we do not ever see the opposition ask questions about things that require thinking and policies and plans and budgeting and having a vision for the nation's future. We never hear them ask questions about those things because they do not do any thinking, they do not have any positive plans, they have never done any budgeting and they do not have any vision for the nation's future. Instead, day after day, they go out with relentless negativity that ultimately costs Australian families. If you are in the business of smashing the budget surplus, you are costing Australian families. If you are in the business, as the opposition is, of voting against positive changes in health and education, then your negativity is costing Australians families.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order!
Ms GILLARD: If you are in the business of ripping the National Broadband Network out of the ground, then your relentless negativity is costing Australian families. At some point the Leader of the Opposition will need to rethink this strategy of relentless negativity. Whilst he does so, we will get on with the job.
Broadband
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (14:26): My question is to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister outline to the House the significance of today's agreements between NBN Co., Telstra and Optus? What does this agreement mean for broadband in Australia? Are there any risks to this and other economic reforms?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:27): I thank the member for Greenway for her question—a woman with considerable expertise when it comes to these questions, an expertise she has been able to share with us in our discussions within the government about the National Broadband Network. Can I say to the parliament I do not think anything could better symbolise the difference between a government focused on the future and understanding what this nation needs for the future and political parties like the Liberal Party and the National Party trapped in the past.
We are determined to deliver the National Broadband Network, and it is being rolled out as we speak, as we stand here, around mainland Australia. I am very pleased that I had the opportunity to turn the NBN on in mainland Australia, in Armidale, earlier this year. What does the National Broadband Network mean? It means for Australian businesses greater productivity and competitiveness. It means for Australians better health care. It literally means that a mother with a sick baby in her home at night can get face-to-face health care through the power of the National Broadband Network. It means that Australian school kids and adults who are learning skills, whether it be at a trade centre or in a university, can have the best of education brought to them from around the world. It means ending for all time the burdens that regional Australia has lived with because of the tyranny of distance and because of the differential costs in telecommunications.
We are determined to roll out the National Broadband Network because we understand this vision of the future. Today we took another major step forward. Of course, we have taken the step forward of turning it on in mainland Australia. We have taken the step forward of getting the structural separation of Telstra—something that eluded the Howard government as a microeconomic reform. I do thank the member for Wentworth for acknowledging the significance of the microeconomic reform we have achieved, with the words:
It was honestly a failure of imagination on our part in government. We should have worked out a way to enable Telstra to be separated in a way that preserved and enhanced shareholder value.
Lack of imagination on that side; a vision for the future over here—we got it done. The reform that eluded the Howard government—we have got it done. Today we have taken another big step forward with the agreements with Telstra and Optus, which mean that the copper network will be decommissioned, that the customer base of Telstra will move to the National Broadband Network, and we will get the savings and efficiencies that come with rolling out broadband through the infrastructure that already exists. That means faster rollout. It means less overhead cabling. This is unambiguously good news for Australians who are waiting for broadband. It is unambiguously good news if you care about the competitiveness of our nation against other economies around the world. It is unambiguously good news if you care about Australians getting the health and education services of the future. It is unambiguously good news if you care about regional Australia. This is the telecommunications structure and infrastructure our nation needs today and I am very pleased that today we were able to deliver this big step forward in getting faster broadband, more choice and cheaper prices to Australians around the nation.
Asylum Seekers
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (14:31): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement 12 months ago that the Rudd government had lost its way. I remind her that in the last year 89 asylum seeker boats have arrived, carrying 4,900 asylum seekers. There are now 6,700 people in detention centres. Her East Timor solution has been abandoned. Her Manus Island plan has stalled and the Malaysian people swap is yet to materialise. Can the Prime Minister understand why Australia's forgotten families feel that the country has gone from bad to worse?
Mr Tony Smith interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Casey is warned.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:32): To the member's question I would say that I understand that the opposition have forgotten about Australian families—forgotten about their jobs, forgotten about the health services they need, forgotten about the education services they need, forgotten about the infrastructure they need and forgotten about everything that supports Australian families. That is why they have no plans to bring the budget back to surplus to help deal with inflationary pressures, no plans in health, no plans in education. They want to rip the NBN out of the ground. They have no plans at all to alleviate cost-of-living pressures. You cannot deliver to Australian families if you cannot make the budget add up. So I understand that the opposition have forgotten Australian families—absolutely right; correct.
Ms Marino: Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: this is about the Prime Minister's need to understand and explain why Australia's forgotten families feel that these—
The SPEAKER: The member for Forrest will resume her seat. She must go directly to the point of order. She cannot further debate the question. The Prime Minister is aware of the requirement to be directly relevant. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: I was simply making the point about the families that the opposition has forgotten. The member who asked the question has forgotten ever to ask about the $23 million cancer centre delivered in her electorate by this government. If she was remembering the needs of Australian families she might have used her opportunity today to ask a question about that.
In answer to the member's question on asylum seeker policy, I say to the member that the answer is as simple as this: the opposition has tied itself in so many political knots in this area that it stands today in this House supporting a weaker policy. We stand supporting a stronger policy. We are determined to break the business model of people smugglers. You are determined not to do that. I will stick with our strong border protection policy. You can try and justify your weak one.
Afghanistan
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (14:34): My question is to the Prime Minister. It is in light of your previous answer to the House regarding Afghanistan. With the United States President announcing the start of a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and with Robert Gates now openly confirming that coalition forces are holding peace talks with the Taliban, will you now reconsider my dissenting report in 2009 to the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee, which recommended Australia publicly and explicitly identify our military exit strategy from Afghanistan as well as seeking a public and explicit confirmation of the strategic importance of engaging in peace talks with the Taliban?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:35): I thank the member for his question. Whilst it may not—
Mr Schultz interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hume has been in this place long enough and in a state legislature long enough to know that that sort of behaviour in the chamber is intolerable and disorderly. I cannot condone it at all. To abuse the questioner in that manner is disorderly. The member for Hume will leave the chamber for one hour under 94(a).
The member for Hume then left the chamber.
Ms GILLARD: In answer to the member's question, whilst it may not have been in the form that the member was anticipating, I believe that we are now in the situation where we do regularly and very publicly provide the strategic outlook for Afghanistan to the Australian people by having a parliamentary debate. That is something that we had last year. It is something that we are committed to annually and I believe that that is the appropriate and most formal time for me as Prime Minister to update the Australian nation on the strategic outlook in Afghanistan.
Of course, in between those very formal occasions in the parliament, the Minister for Defence keeps updating the parliament, and consequently the Australian public, on our view of the strategic outlook. Our view of the strategic outlook is that we are on course to transition. We always indicated that Oruzgan province, where we work, would not be amongst the first areas to transition, but that progress is being made. The insurgency is being countered and we are acquitting our training mission, and these are the preconditions to move into leadership by Afghan local forces of the security environment.
I hope that when we come to update the House on Afghanistan through my formal statement later this year we will be in a position to provide more particular guidance about what transition in Oruzgan province means. As I have indicated to the parliament before, it will not be a transition day for the whole province but a more finely calibrated place-by-place transition. I would hope we would be in a position to provide more information to the parliament and to the Australian public through that important statement and the ensuing debate on Afghanistan, where I anticipate people will put a variety of views, as is absolutely appropriate in this place, on something as important to the nation as Afghanistan.
On the question of continued engagement in other work and activities in Afghanistan, I know through his dissenting report the member took a particular interest in governance, in aid and in what makes a nation in Afghanistan. As the member is aware, we are engaged in governance and aid work and I have said publicly, and I am happy to reiterate, we will stay engaged in Afghanistan beyond 2014 in assisting the Afghan people. President Obama has spoken today about the enduring need for that partnership between the international community and the people of Afghanistan. I am always happy to look again at a parliamentary report, and the member has invited me to do so, but I believe we have achieved his broad aims in that we now have a much more regular and detailed way for the Australian nation to consider the strategy in Afghanistan through the regular parliamentary statements and debates.
Economy
Mr CRAIG THOMSON (Dobell) (14:40): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the importance of delivering on reforms to support jobs and growth?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:40): I thank the member for Dobell for his question. Despite recent natural disasters, which did have a very substantial impact on growth in the March quarter, our economy remains in good nick and continues to be one of the best performing developed economies in the developed world. Australian GDP is significantly higher now than it was before the global financial crisis, and that is in very stark contrast with many other developed economies. Of course, we do have an unemployment rate with a 4 in front of it. That also stands in very stark contrast to what is happening in many other developed economies. Our peak net debt is less than one-tenth of the average of major advanced economies. We are bringing our budget back to the black in 2012-13.
But I guess the source of greatest pride for this government is the number of jobs that have been created in our economy in the past 12 months—250,000 jobs in the past 12 months, well over 700,000 jobs in our term of office. Everybody on this side of the House is very proud of that record of job creation because it delivers a record of security for Australian families. Of course, that is why workforce and labour force participation was central to our most recent budget—to make sure that we can maximise the opportunities that will flow from the Asian century and from the resources boom, because we do have record terms of trade and we have a massive investment pipeline, which is very important to future job growth. Because we understand that fact, we also understand how important it is to bring our budget back to surplus in 2012-13 and we understand how important it is to make savings—something not understood by those on that side of the House.
We also understand how important it is to reform tax, how important it is to get the resource rent tax in place so we can boost national savings and invest in infrastructure. We understand the importance of reform. We understand the importance of putting a price on carbon to our future prosperity. Of course, today you have no better example of a major reform which will lift our productivity and ensure our future prosperity than the announcements that we made today regarding the NBN. Those deals with Telstra and with Optus put us in a position where we can deliver superfast broadband to every corner of our country. This is very important not just to those who live in the city but to those who live in our great regions, because getting away from and giving up horse and buggy telecommunications and moving to superfast broadband is absolutely essential to lifting productivity and our future prosperity.
So what we are about is getting the economic fundamentals right, making sure we put in place the essential reforms, bringing our budget back to surplus, putting in place superfast broadband and reforming education and training. All of these things are the core of prosperity. Of course, from that side of the House all we see is stunts and slogans. From this side of the House, we are getting the fundamentals right for all Australians.
Asylum Seekers
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:44): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. How has the government's handling of asylum seekers and border protection improved since 24 June last year?
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:44): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for the question. The answer is very straightforward and it goes to the Bali process. The Bali process is the first regional agreement—out of 13 regions across the world—which demonstrates that you can achieve an outcome in partnership with countries in your region. The Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees told both the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and me, when we met on this in Bali a couple of months ago, that all regions of the world are striving towards a comparable agreement. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked what achievements have been registered. Firstly, through the process of that Bali framework agreement, we have, for the first time, the support of the international agencies—that is, the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration. Secondly, we have within the agreement, also explicitly for the first time, the embrace of the possibility of regional assessment centres. Thirdly, we have the buy-in of more than 30 regional states, if they exercise this option, to cooperate with one another to make it work. In the previous several years of the operation of the Bali process, which was initiated by Alexander Downer as Minister for Foreign Affairs, no such regional framework agreement was ever achieved. That is the advance and we are proud of it.
Broadband
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. Minister, how is the government delivering telecommunications reform in Australia? How have these reforms been received and what is the government's response?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:46): I thank the member for Page for her question. She knows how important the National Broadband Network is, particularly for communities in regional Australia. The fact is that today's announcement is good news for Australian consumers and good news for shareholders. The definitive agreement between NBN Co. and Telstra is a binding commitment by Telstra to decommission its copper network and HFC network capability and transfer its customers to NBN. The definitive agreement with Optus will ensure that Optus decommissions its HFC network and transfers its customers to the NBN. These agreements pave the way for structural separation, building on the work on the legislation that was carried through this chamber.
Mr Truss interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: The Nats opposite say, 'Communist government.' 'Communist government,' says the Leader of the National Party. There has been a bit of rhetoric recently about extremist parties and a bit of sloganeering around. That might be one of the reasons why those opposite are so opposed to modern telecommunications. If they logged on to the internet, they would be able to see one of their heroes, Lord Monckton—
Mr Pyne: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: it is an improvement on 'break glass Work Choices', but I do not think that the Lord Monckton issue could possibly be within either the minister's responsibility or have anything whatsoever to do with this parliament or the issues before it today.
The SPEAKER: I will listen carefully to the response. The Leader of the House understands his responsibility to ensure that his material is directly related to the question.
Mr ALBANESE: Indeed it is related to the question, Mr Speaker, because what the NBN will allow is not just the downloading but the uploading of material—uploading of material at faster speeds and at higher quality. It will improve education, for example. It will be even better, once the NBN reaches full speed, for watching Lord Monckton's speech at the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies convention on 30 June 2011 in Perth. The Leader of the Opposition is of course opening that particular convention in spite of the fact that, if you look on the internet and use modern communications, you can see that Lord Monckton has branded Professor Garnaut a Nazi. But they think that is okay over there.
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister must not use a prop and he must relate his material directly to the question.
Mr ALBANESE: Indeed I am doing so, Mr Speaker. Those opposite say this is about communism. Those opposite took a public monopoly, turned it into a private monopoly and called it reform. That was their policy objective. This is what the member for Bradfield described their failure as:
… the equivalent of Qantas owning all the airports. The result: competition is weak.
This is what the member for Wentworth said about the failure of the former government's 20 different plans:
It was honestly a failure of imagination on our part in government.
That is what he had to say and he was right. He is right about the mad monk, he is right about Lord Monckton and he is right about this.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister—
Mr ALBANESE: Labor is doing the job properly. We are providing for real—
Mr Ruddock: He is ignoring the Speaker!
The SPEAKER: Order! There are plenty of people ignoring the Speaker, Member for Berowra.
Mr Sidebottom interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Braddon will withdraw.
Mr Sidebottom: I withdraw.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Now the Leader of the House will withdraw.
Mr ALBANESE: I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will be heard in silence.
Mr ALBANESE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labor is doing the job properly: real structural separation, real change and a better deal for regional Australia, for health services and for education. In their own words, they seek to demolish the NBN. What today shows is how out of touch they are with the people currently delivering telecommunications and those who would deliver it in the future. (Time expired)
Live Animal Exports
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (14:52): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement 12 months ago that the Rudd government had lost its way. I remind her that the government's handling of Australia's live cattle export industry has plunged that industry into crisis, risked jobs and damaged the livelihoods of 17,000 people across Northern Australia. Prime Minister, why can't the government immediately issue an export licence for cattle destined for Australian owned and operated abattoirs in Indonesia? If it does not, can she understand why rural and regional Australians feel so let down by her government?
Mr Fitzgibbon: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I think you will agree that the questions from the opposition today have been consistently in breach of standing order 100, as confirmed by page 540 of House of Representatives Practice.
The SPEAKER: I am happy to acknowledge that there is some relevance in the point of order, but I have indicated that I will allow them and, in allowing them, allow greater scope than I would otherwise allow in the response.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:54): In respect of the member's question I would say that it is, unfortunately, simplistic—I wish it could work some other way—to say that the issue of live animal exports and appropriate treatment in abattoirs in Indonesia, following the very graphic and very disturbing footage that Australians saw of the treatment of animals there, can be solved by inspecting an abattoir and saying that standards are okay in that abattoir because—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume her seat. I find it quite extraordinary. For the last 30 seconds, if people had been listening to the response, they would have heard that it was directly related to the question. I would have thought that, whilst some people might not agree with the response, they would listen to it in silence.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a good reminder that you cannot claim to take this issue seriously and then not try to absorb the facts. The facts are that inspecting standards in an abattoir is a vital part of getting the trade back up and running, absolutely—but it is only one part. The other part we have to have in place is the ability to track cattle as they leave Australia and go into Indonesia. The trade does not work on the basis that you move seamlessly from a part of Australia into an Indonesian abattoir. Animals go via feedlots; consequently, we need a tracking system that works from Australia, through the journey, into the feedlots and into the abattoirs where animals are ultimately dealt with. Consequently, we can then ensure that Australian cattle are ending up in the abattoirs where the standards are appropriate.
I note that the Leader of the National Party has been talking about tracking systems in recent days. He has been extolling the virtues of the National Livestock Identification System—
Mr Hockey: Yes!
Ms GILLARD: If you allow me to finish my sentence, you might actually learn something. I think there is a piece of information that the opposition clearly do not have which is absolutely vital to understanding this problem and resolving it. I suggest to the opposition that they might follow this piece of information. As the Leader of the National Party has been talking about, there is a National Livestock Identification System. The Leader of the National Party knows a bit about that. As a former agriculture minister, he is obviously familiar with it. The system was implemented between 2003 and 2004. When the Leader of the National Party was the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry he agreed to exempt from that system northern cattle for live export—that is, the cattle that we are talking about and that need to be traced into Indonesia were exempted from the livestock tracking system that the Leader of the National Party is extolling the virtues of. So to get the trade back up and running, given that the cattle we are talking about have not been in that livestock tracking system, we need the two parts. We need the tracking and we need the inspection as to standards, and we are working on both.
I understand that there are many people who are anxiously waiting for this live animal trade to get back up and running and I am very sympathetic to the circumstances of those who are anxiously waiting, which is why we will be working with them to get this reform done. Australians do not want to see animals treated in the way we saw them treated on the Four Corners show. We will get the system up and running so that we know there are standards and we know where Australian animals are.
Climate Change
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (14:58): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister update the House on the current debate about climate change? Why is a rational debate necessary, and are there any impediments to this debate?
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (14:58): I thank the member for Throsby for his question. The scientific consensus on climate change is very clear. Every scientific academy in the world, as well as the World Meteorological Organisation, NASA and the CSIRO—to name just a few—accepts the climate science and recognises that climate change is a real threat to our prosperity and our security. The government respects the science, and that is why we are committed to putting a price on carbon, because it is the most efficient, least-cost way of driving down pollution in our economy and driving investment in clean energy. Too often the public debate on climate change is not informed by rigorous scientific evidence and careful policy analysis. Sometimes it is informed by nothing more than conspiracy theories, alarmism and fear. We have heard that Lord Monckton, who is a well-known climate change denier, is visiting Australia to address a mining conference in Perth. He has recently described Professor Garnaut, an eminent economist advising the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, as a neo-Nazi for saying that the scientific consensus should be respected. This is the same Lord Monckton who has previously stated that climate change is a global communist conspiracy hatched in the UN for the purposes of establishing world government. It is the same Lord Monckton who, along with Alan Jones, David Flint and Andrew Bolt—all fellow travellers of the Leader of the Opposition—has been a participant in the so-called Galileo Movement, a climate change deniers movement. It is the same Lord Monckton who the Leader of the Opposition met the day after releasing his subsidies-for-polluters policy in February 2010. On that occasion the Leader of the Opposition had this to say about his meeting with Lord Monckton:
I think that you actually come up with better policy if you're prepared to have a discussion not just with people who say yes sir, yes sir, three bags full, sir.
Lord Monckton has clearly been a key adviser on the coalition subsidies-for-polluters policy, and this is the same Lord Monckton that the Leader of the Opposition will share a platform with at the upcoming mining conference. That conference will probably be subjected to the same demeaning performance that the Leader of the Opposition put on here for the Minerals Council, begging for a TV advertising campaign to be run against carbon pricing and giving commitments that he would bring back Work Choices. This is the same Lord Monckton who the member for Wentworth this morning described as 'a rather sick, vaudeville character who makes more and more outlandish charges in order to get attention for himself'. At least, in part, that statement might be evocative of some of the performances of the Leader of the Opposition and his scare campaigns about carbon pricing. The truth of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition associates himself with extremists—when he addresses rallies, with Pauline Hanson, with the League of Rights, with Lord Monckton—and it is unbefitting of a political leader in this country to hold these views and to have these associations.
Families
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (15:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement of one year ago that she would like to do anything possible to help families. I remind her that in the first nine months of her prime ministership the price of electricity has risen by 12 per cent, water by 13 per cent, fuel by seven per cent and food by five per cent. Can the Prime Minister explain how she is easing the burden on families by means-testing the private health insurance rebate and hitting them with a carbon tax, a mining tax and a flood tax?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:04): I thank the member for Higgins for her question; I know she is frustrated by the Liberal Party's current political strategy and by the absence of its asking for any ideas. I know she is a member who thinks she could contribute to a policy debate, if the Liberal Party ever had one—and that is a difficulty she faces. I understand that there is cost-of-living pressure on the shoulders of Australians, and that is why we have worked to ease that pressure. First and foremost, as the economy continues to strengthen and moves to running at full capacity, the best thing we can do as a government to ease inflationary pressures and the cost-of-living pressures that come with moving to full capacity is to bring the budget back to surplus, as promised—and we will. The opposition stands for an $11 billion black hole, bigger deficits and bigger debt.
On the direct cost-of-living pressures on Australian families, we have moved to increase the family tax benefit for parents with teenagers, to pay the childcare tax rebate fortnightly, to assist with the cost of school uniforms and to bring forward the low income tax offset so people get the benefits of more money as a reward for work. Building on other measures that the government has put in place in the recent budget, we have moved to introduce additional measures to assist families. I understand it is still tough and there are cost-of-living pressures, but we are working with Australian families on those cost-of-living pressures.
On the reforms that the member refers to, I believe it was in the interests of Australian families to rebuild the nation after the summer of floods, and I believe the best way of making sure we paid as we went was to engage in tough budget savings and to have a progressive flood levy which asked upper income earners to pay more. Around half of the flood levy will be paid by people who earn $200,000 a year or more. I believe it is appropriate to ask them for that contribution.
The member referred to carbon pricing. I stand for helping Australian families; she stands for subsidising big polluters. In a choice between families and polluters, we support families; the Leader of the Opposition and the member who asked the question support polluters. When it comes to the mining tax, which the member also raised with me, we stand for the superannuation earnings of Australians; they stand for big mining companies. We stand for infrastructure for mining communities; they stand for big profits for mining companies. We stand for company tax cuts around the nation; they stand for big profits for mining companies. We stand for small business; they stand for big profits from mining companies. There is a theme emerging here, which is: if required in this place to make a policy choice between helping out the little guy, helping out Australian families and helping out big polluters, big business and big tobacco, the opposition is always on the side of big business, big polluters and big tobacco. We are on the side of Australian families, and we will continue to be.
Mental Health
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (15:07): My question is to the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing. How is the government delivering on its commitment to make mental health reform a second-term priority?
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide—Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) (15:07): I thank the member for Oxley for his question. This year's budget delivers on the Prime Minister's commitment to make mental health reform a priority for this term of government. The budget delivers the largest mental health package ever, with $2.2 billion in new measures.
Mr Laming interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bowman is warned.
Mr BUTLER: The package recognises the diverse impact that mental illness has across the life span. It will build resilient kids. It will support teenagers experiencing mental illness at such an important time in their life. It will improve access to primary care, particularly for hard-to-reach groups in the community. And it will provide intensive and integrated support for those Australians who live with severe and chronic mental illness.
We are moving quickly to implement these reforms. From 1 July, just next week, a number of new measures will start to flow. I will name just a few. Divisions of general practice will start to receive funds to provide crisis counselling within 24 hours for people at risk of suicide referred by their GP or an emergency department. Divisions will also receive a substantial increase in their base level funding for psychological services targeted at people on low incomes and in regional and rural locations.
Funding has already started to flow to support up to 1,700 primary schools, expanding the KidsMatter program that helps kids in primary schools build coping skills and build resilience at such a critical age. Lifeline and Beyondblue will also receive additional funding—Lifeline to be able to increase its call capacity from 450,000 calls per year to around 700,000, as well as to be able to take calls from mobiles toll free, and Beyondblue to vastly expand its services for men, including its workplace program, its men's helpline and its stigma campaigns.
From 1 July Headspace will qualify for huge increases in its core funding, enabling it to expand its services, like outreach to schools and outreach to homeless youth. Having recently announced providers for 10 new services, we will be seeking expressions of interest for the next tranche of 15 new Headspace services in the second half of this calendar year.
I have already begun discussions with states about ways in which we can work together on implementing our mental health reforms. The next COAG meeting intends to discuss mental health, and we are taking more than $200 million to that meeting to help drive reform in state managed areas like hospital emergency departments and accommodation support. By 1 January we will also have established the first ever National Mental Health Commission to ensure better transparency and better accountability in the system. It will report not to any particular department but to the Prime Minister and to this parliament, reflecting the Prime Minister's strong ownership of this reform package.
This reform package is comprehensive, it is balanced, it is targeted across the life span and it will make a real difference to those many, many Australians living with mental illness and to their families.
Broadband
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (15:11): My question is to the Prime Minister, who only a year ago said that the government had lost its way. Given that the largest group of Australians without access to the internet are households with incomes of $40,000 a year or less, how can she claim the government is finding its way by today agreeing to pay billions to Telstra and Optus to eliminate any competition with the NBN, so that it can charge higher and higher prices for broadband—as its own corporate plan reveals—making the digital divide deeper and more unjust?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:12): I thank the member for Wentworth for his question. We have waited a long, long time to hear from the member for Wentworth, and so it is nice to have him back and have him ask a question in this parliament. I did think, as question time went on, that it was more likely than not that the opposition, trapped as it is in its relentless negativity, would allow the major milestone of today's announcement with Telstra to absolutely pass it by, because of course it is not interested in a vision for the nation's future or the part that superfast broadband can play in that vision. But the member for Wentworth has ridden to the rescue and asked a question on this important topic.
Unfortunately, the member for Wentworth is mistaken in his question, so next time he gets to ask one perhaps he could ask one that is better pitched than this. As the member for Wentworth really knows, I believe, the National Broadband Network is developing the infrastructure, it will be a wholesale provider and there will be retail competition based on the broadband network—so retailers will be competing in order to get people's business. Those of us who believe in free markets and in economic theory know from first principles that if you can get competition into the market then you will get lower prices, you will get more choice and you will get better services, and of course with the National Broadband Network you will get faster speeds.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sturt is reminded that he is in the chamber of the House of Representatives. I am not sure what caused the outburst, but he will ignore those interjections that he receives, cease interjecting and attempt to sit there quietly—attempt! The Prime Minister has the call. She should be heard in silence.
Ms GILLARD: As I was saying to the member for Wentworth and to the House, competition obviously gives us the benefits of the greatest competition on price, the greatest competition on service and the greatest number of options for consumers, and of course superfast broadband gives us the benefit of speed. The member for Wentworth has raised with me the digital divide and I say to him, yes, I am desperately concerned by the digital divide, and one of the reasons we have gone down the path of creating NBN Co. to bring superfast broadband around the country is that, if we had allowed the private sector to simply respond, it would have responded in limited parts of the country, the upper income areas where there were most likely to be the greatest returns, and there would have been large parts of the country—in regional Australia but also on outer urban fringes—where people would not have the benefits of this technology. Being very familiar with the nonprovision of broadband in my own electorate in Melbourne's west, I tell him that we would not have seen the kind of provision of broadband to those areas which is necessary to close the digital divide.
If you cared about equity and you cared about Australians getting fair access to broadband, you would endorse the government's plan for the National Broadband Network. If you cared about equity and cared about the tyranny of distance suffered by people who live in regional Australia, you would endorse the government's plan for the National Broadband Network. If you cared about lower prices, faster speeds, greater competition and more choice, you would endorse the government's plan for the National Broadband Network. I think the member for Wentworth is trying to inch his way towards actually endorsing the government's plan in his public statements, but he has been told by the Leader of the Opposition to destroy the NBN as part of the opposition's relentless negativity. I know the member is uncomfortable with that position, but with the current Leader of the Opposition that is the position he finds himself in.
Families
Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (15:16): My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. How is the government delivering on its commitments to families?
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (15:17): I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. She knows that instead of the slurs and stunts that we see from those opposite this government is delivering to Australian families and to senior Australians and that we are also delivering on our election commitments.
In the last fortnight we have delivered legislation through this parliament that will see Australian families and seniors receive the following from 1 July: for seniors, the new work bonus delivered by this government to help Australian pensioners keep more of their pension when they take on some part-time work; new baby bonus payment arrangements so that parents will be able to receive that little bit more money up-front when they need to purchase items like a pram or a cot; more flexible arrangements for families—those receiving family tax benefits will get better advance payment arrangements so that if they face unexpected costs, like needing to fix their car when it breaks down, they will be able to do so; and new requirements of families receiving income support to help make sure that their children get the necessary health checks done before they start school. Also starting on 1 July is the extension to the education tax refund, making sure that we help cover the cost of school uniforms. This too is delivering another election commitment. Through the new A Better Start for Children with a Disability program—
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms MACKLIN: Even this item is interjected on, with more slurs from those opposite. From 1 July, this government will enable those families who have a child with a disability to access up to $12,000 in early intervention funding for their child. All of these election commitments are being delivered by this government.
As I said yesterday in parliament, 1 July is a very significant milestone for our Paid Parental Leave scheme. From 1 July government funded paid parental leave will be delivered by employers for most babies who are born from that date. As we on this side of the parliament know, paid parental leave helps make sure that parents keep connected with their workplaces after they have a new baby. It was never delivered by those opposite, but now 65,000 families are benefiting from our Paid Parental Leave scheme.
Of course it is this government that is also delivering for parents with teenagers. That legislation, too, has gone through the parliament in the last fortnight, and from 1 January next year this government will deliver extra support to families with teenagers. It was never delivered by those opposite. All they want to do is deliver slurs and stunts; we will deliver for Australian families.
MOTIONS
Prime Minister
Censure
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:21): I seek leave to move a motion of censure against the government.
Leave not granted.
Mr ABBOTT: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately:
That this House censures the Prime Minister for her failure to achieve anything of substance in 12 months of government after supplanting her predecessor on the basis that the government had lost its way when it is clear on any assessment that things have just gone from bad to worse.
Mr Speaker, I am seeking to move a motion of censure of this Prime Minister, and she is fleeing the chamber. Let me repeat my motion:
That this House censures the Prime Minister for her failure to achieve anything of substance in 12 months of government after supplanting her predecessor on the basis that the government had lost its way when it is clear on any assessment that things have just gone from bad to worse.
There is no more important step that an opposition could take than to move to censure this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister, rather than listen, has fled this chamber—no doubt for another Tim Tam and cup of tea in the Whip's office. It is one thing to gag the Australian people and it is one thing to muzzle her ministers, but she should not run away from this parliament.
Twelve months on, there is the ghost of a real Prime Minister hovering over this parliament—a real Prime Minister who was actually elected by a majority of the people and who was cut down by a politician who turned out to be very good at executing her party leader but hopeless at actually running the country. That is why this House should move a censure of this Prime Minister and that is why it is necessary to move to suspend standing orders to give us this opportunity.
What has been achieved in 12 months? What has the execution of the member for Griffith achieved? What has the political assassination of an elected Prime Minister achieved? We heard the Prime Minister today struggle and struggle and struggle to name any single measure of substance that had been achieved by this government. It is no wonder that members opposite look so downcast, so deflated, so lost, so flat and so defeated today, because they know that they conspired in the political assassination of an elected Prime Minister—for what? For a government that had lost its way 12 months ago and has just been going from bad to worse ever since and a country that is going from bad to worse because we have a Prime Minister who is both incompetent and utterly untrustworthy.
I do not say for a second that the former Prime Minister was a great Prime Minister, but at least we knew what the former Prime Minister stood for. Yes, he was dictatorial; yes, he was arrogant; yes, he was incompetent—but I tell you what: he had a few convictions and he had a few things that he believed in. He did believe in the 'moral challenge' of climate change. He did believe in the 'education revolution'. He did want to improve educational standards in our country. He did want to improve hospitals in our country. Sure, he did not do it very well. Yes, he blew the budget surplus that had been carefully accumulated over 12 years by his predecessor; yes, he rolled back important economic reforms—but at least he stood for something. All this Prime Minister stands for is herself and her ambition, and that is why she has been such an incompetent, untrustworthy and unworthy Prime Minister over this last 12 months.
When the Prime Minister said 12 months ago that the government had lost its way she nominated three things that she was going to fix. She was not just going to fix these things; she was going to get the whole country back on track. 'I have taken control', she said. Such brazen arrogance—'I have taken control, for precisely that purpose: to get the country back on track.' What has happened to this country and to this Prime Minister's promises in the last 12 months? She was going to sort out border protection, wasn't she? We know what has happened there. First of all, there was the East Timor solution that came to nothing. Then there was the Manus Island solution. I tell you: it helps if you actually speak to foreign governments before you announce things. It helps if you actually talk to the East Timorese government before you announce a processing centre there. It would help to actually get an agreement from the PNG government before announcing a processing centre on Manus Island. And it would help if there actually was a concluded agreement with Malaysia before you announced a people swap with this country.
Over all of this hangs the shadow of the former Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs—the foreign minister who this Prime Minister refuses to involve in any of the serious difficulties now facing this country. This Prime Minister took away her predecessor's' job and now she will not let the foreign minister do his job and help her out of the jams that she has created for herself. Why won't she let the foreign minister sort out the Manus Island detention centre? Why won't she let the foreign minister do something about East Timor? Most of all, why won't she let the foreign minister fix up the unfolding disaster now threatening the whole of Northern Australia with the demise of the live cattle trade? We know what she was doing in there with the foreign minister a few days ago. It was not a polite chitchat over Tim Tams and tea. She was ordering the foreign minister to stay out of the live trade issue. She was banning the foreign minister from travelling to Indonesia to sort out this problem, because she could not bring herself to admit that the man she executed is actually a better politician than she is.
That is why it is necessary to move this suspension. That is why it is necessary that this Prime Minister be censured—because she has been a thoroughly incompetent and untrustworthy Prime Minister. The government had indeed lost its way 12 months ago, but it has got worse—every single day, every single week, every single month—since then, because this Prime Minister is just not up to the job.
Let us come to the Prime Minister's ultimate failure: her total failure to be honest with the Australian people about the carbon tax. We all know she executed her predecessor in part because he had mishandled climate change policy.
The SPEAKER: Order! I gently remind the leader of the context of the suspension of standing and sessional orders.
Mr ABBOTT: It is necessary to suspend standing orders, Mr Speaker, because nothing is more important on this anniversary, on this day which the foreign minister himself has dubbed 'Assassination Day', than the discussion in this chamber of these important issues.
This is a Prime Minister who, having been dishonest with her predecessor, was then utterly dishonest with the Australian people at the last election. She said that there would be a people's convention on climate change. There is not. She said that there would be no carbon price until there was a deep and lasting consensus. There is not. She said, notoriously, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'. Having made that solemn commitment to the Australian people, what have we got? We have got a carbon tax.
This has been the most incompetent, the most deceptive, the most dishonest government in modern Australian history. I tell you what: some people say Gough Whitlam was bad and he was incompetent, but at least he never sold his soul to the Greens. He never deceived the Australian people the way this Prime Minister has. This Prime Minister will not even come into the chamber to face a censure motion. What is wrong with this Prime Minister that she will not come in and face the music in this parliament? What does this Prime Minister stand for? She does not stand for telling the truth. She does not stand for standing up for Australia's national interest. And she does not even stand for honesty in the face of the parliament. Shame on this Prime Minister. She should be censured. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (15:31): I second the motion for the suspension of standing and sessional orders so that this critical debate can occur on the eve of the anniversary of 'Assassination Day', the eve of the anniversary of 'Ascension Day' for the new Prime Minister. Surely, 12 months is an appropriate time for this House and for the Australian people to make a judgment about whether the right choice has been made.
I notice that a survey by Essential Media Communications published today tells us that the Australian people have made a decision about whether they think Australia is a better place since the ascension of this Prime Minister. A whopping 13 per cent of Australians think their country is better off for having had Julia Gillard as their Prime Minister—13 per cent. Fifty-one per cent say they are worse off. How could you come to any other judgment? The report card shows a gigantic F for fail for this Prime Minister. She has failed.
We are a year older, just deeper in debt, if I may misquote Tennessee Ford. A year older and deeper in debt by $50 billion. Every day she has been in office, another $100 million has had to be borrowed to pay for the excess of expenditure over what she has earned. Yet this government has not been short on raising taxes. There are always new ideas, new schemes, to take more money from the Australian people. The Australian people have had enough. The Prime Minister has burnt her own credibility. She has burnt the credibility of the Labor government with the people. Building the Education Revolution, the computers in schools, the boats and the new taxes are all burning holes in the wallets of the Australian people. And, of course, the Home Insulation Program is still burning down the houses. This is the record of this government: failure and burning down houses. This government has no understanding and no appreciation of the pain that it is inflicting on ordinary Australian people. Is it any wonder that they are angry?
The Prime Minister told us that she needed to replace the former Prime Minister because the previous government had lost its way. How many people now think that the government has found the right road under the new Prime Minister? No-one. Indeed, it has lost the compass. She could find the road to the Lodge, but that is about all. She has found no road forward. She has found no way of dealing with the significant issues that our country must address. This was supposed to be a year of delivery and decision. Remember the promises about the mining tax, the illegal boat arrivals and the climate action plan? All of them, one year on, are not resolved.
Look at the mining tax—what a debacle. She inherited this tax from her predecessor and said she would fix it. She had to rely on the Minister for Resources and Energy to try to stitch up a deal that let off all the big miners so they make little or no contribution but put a huge burden on those trying to develop new mines—the future of our country, those who will employ the Australians to keep our economy strong. The mining supertax has been a superdisaster.
Next it was the illegal boat arrivals. She was going to stop them. There have been 89 more boats—5,000 people. Remember the Prime Minister saying there would be no more onshore detention centres for asylum seekers? Within weeks there were three new ones opening up, and then all sorts of other solutions along the way. But now we have the master solution. Five thousand extra people is not enough. We are going to take five for every one that we give away. What sort of a solution is that to the problems?
Then there is the carbon tax—the carbon tax that was categorically ruled out twice. Earlier than that, she said there would be no carbon tax without a consensus. She has achieved a consensus. There is consensus on the carbon tax: we don't want it! Yet she will not listen to the people who surely ought to have the authority in matters like this.
So one year on, deeper in debt, more in trouble than ever before and with broken promises and a litany of disaster and failure, this Prime Minister has failed. She deserves to be censured and she should be censured today, on the anniversary of her ascension. (Time expired)
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:36): I am very pleased to once again be taking a suspension of standing orders by the Leader of the Opposition. I am pleased to be able to do it, but I am a bit disappointed about when I am doing it, because in the sweep that has gone around in the gallery from members of the opposition and members of the government, staff and, indeed, just members of the public, I tipped 2:58. It is beyond me how the Leader of the Opposition has allowed Play School to go ahead without its preamble every day. That was a great tweet yesterday about what time it was from someone who said, 'I think it will be 2:50 and I also think it will be the round window.' They will pick on Play School. I also think it will be the round window. I understand that maybe it was the round window yesterday when there was a bear in there.
But we know what we have opposite is a relentless, negative, political animal who is just engaged in negativity all the way every day, every week, every month and every year. We should not suspend standing orders because we should have the opportunity to ask questions in this House. The questions should be asked, of course, by members of the government and members of the opposition and crossbenchers. Today, members of the government asked questions about Afghanistan, the National Broadband Network, the economy, climate change, mental health and families. They asked questions about the achievements of this government and about the future agenda of this government.
What did those opposite do? They asked a series of questions, all of them out of order under standing order 100(c), that engaged in abuse and engaged in political stunts. We know that the Leader of the Opposition is all stunts and no ideas. He is all opposition and no leader. Remember that on Monday at 10 am he was coming in here to move his bill for the best stunt that he has come up with in terms of its going down in flames everywhere. The fact is that we are now at Thursday, we are nearing the end of the session of this financial year and it still has not been moved. He has not even attempted to move it. All that puff and all those page 1 stories amounted to absolutely nothing, because he could not get past the first hurdle that was that really difficult question he was asked, which was: how will you respond to the result of the plebiscite? It was a real toughie. They workshopped it through, but he just could not bring himself to say yes to anything, because this is someone who is all division and no vision—he is simply engaged in stunts.
The vuvuzela will make an appearance—do not worry about that. The fact is that he has had his staff members writing to members of industry saying things like this:
I hope you are well. I was wondering if any of your members would be happy to host Mr Abbott for a site visit [with media]?
He has been out there writing not that they have any policy concerns with the government—it is more than one; there is a series of them from the office of the Leader of the Opposition—but:
In addition, as we discussed, Mr Abbott is keen to continue to visit industry across Australia as part of his program. We are always keen to add to our list of potential visit locations. Thank you for the opportunity to meet today.
What we have here is members of industry who are meeting with the opposition—and who are getting follow-up emails about site visits with the media—and who regard his tactics with such contempt that they are giving those emails to the government to put out there. That is how pathetic it is. He is just trawling Australia looking for cheap stunts. He is not looking for policy input and he is not looking for policy ideas—he is not interested in any of the big issues.
We have had the visit to Canberra of the failed Liberal Party candidate and we have had the head of the Warringah Club, his chief fundraiser. They are on page 1 of the Australian this week calling for a return to Work Choices, calling for the rights of workers to be ripped out. We know that they are engaged in this massive battle with Peter Reith, who wants to come back to set them straight because he thinks they have gone a bit soft and they should actually tell people that they want to do Work Choices rather than do it after the election.
An article by Tom Arup published in 2010 entitled '"Mad monk" meets Monckton' spoke about the famous meeting between Lord Monckton and those opposite. We know, of course, that Lord Monckton overnight has been exposed with his great plan to expose the world government conspiracy that is climate change and that Professor Garnaut, who is one of Australia's most respected former public servants—
A government member: What did they call him? A Labor Party hack.
Mr ALBANESE: The member for Mackellar calls Professor Garnaut a Labor Party hack. That is better than the Leader of the Nationals, who thinks that anyone who believes in action on climate change is a communist, as he said when I was responding to my question in parliament earlier today.
We know that you can always learn a lot about someone by the company they keep. That was something that I was taught as I was growing up. Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, will be there next week with Lord Monckton, associating himself yet again with these extreme views that someone is an econazi because they believe in climate change, because they believe that climate change is human induced—a complete joke. Meanwhile, we are getting on with our agenda—the agenda of the economy, the agenda that has created 700,000 jobs, the agenda that is bringing the budget back to surplus by 2012-13 and the agenda that today of all days has made such an important advance for the National Broadband Network. We are putting in place critical reform. We have brought in the legislation for the structural separation of Telstra, we have got it through the parliament and we have engaged in negotiations with Telstra and Optus in the interests of the nation. But those opposite cannot even bring themselves to support that.
In education we are engaged with the national curriculum, almost doubling investment. We are engaged in the trade training centres and the skills increases that are out there. We are engaged in national health reform with the GP superclinics and the mental health package that we made space for in the budget. In the work that we have done on infrastructure, we have doubled the roads budget. We have increased the annual rail budget by more than 10 times. We have committed more money to urban public rail than all the governments combined in the previous 107 years since Federation. That is what we have achieved since 2007.
But those opposite are captured by their relentless negativity. The Leader of the Opposition is to political discourse what the vuvuzela was to World Cup soccer. When you first hear him, he does get your attention. But once you realise there is only one note, once you realise he is a one-trick pony, it just becomes annoying, because all you hear is no, no, no, no. That is the only thing he has, because he has absolutely nothing positive to say about Australia's future.
The SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.
Question put:
That the motion (Mr Abbott's) be agreed to.
The House divided. [15:47]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question negatived.
Ms GILLARD: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
BUSINESS
Days and Hours of Meeting
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:53): I indicated to the House earlier today that I would inform the House at this time of where things are at. In spite of my entreaties and, I know, the entreaties of some in the opposition, the Senate chose to deal with private members' business today and still has not commenced any discussion on the budget. It is the intention of the government at this stage to work through until approximately 6.15 to 6.30 and to suspend the sitting until the ringing of the bells at that time. People will be aware that there is an important occasion this evening which will be attended by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: It is the farewell for Angus Houston, which I would have thought was a bit beyond that. We will suspend sittings until the ringing of the bells.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Parliament House Flag
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa—Second Deputy Speaker) (15:55): Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the large Australian flag that flies above Parliament House. When I arrived at Parliament House this morning I noticed that a large strip seemed to have been torn from the flag and that it was flapping in the breeze. At lunchtime it was still in that state. I am wondering if you would draw that to the attention of the department that is responsible for the Australian flag on top of Parliament House and have it replaced as soon as possible, because it does look very bad to see the Australian flag on this Parliament House flying in that state.
The SPEAKER (15:55): I regret to inform the member for Maranoa that I have been aware of the state of the flag above Parliament House for over 24 hours, since yesterday morning. The state of the flag is a result of the weather conditions at the moment. The wind has caused the damage and the wind prevents those who are responsible for going to the top of the pole and replacing the flag from doing so immediately. A new flag is ready to go; it will be put up as soon as it is safe to do so. I thank the member for his question.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (15:56): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms PARKE: Yes, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Ms PARKE: In the Age yesterday and in the Warrnambool Standard today, the member for Dawson is reported to have criticised me for blaming Australian farmers for cruelty to livestock but not saying anything on the question of religion. This is incorrect on both counts. A reading of my speeches on the matter of live exports will reveal that while I have been very critical of the live export industry representative bodies—MLA and LiveCorp—I have made no criticisms of Australian farmers whatsoever. On the matter of religion I have expressly noted that preslaughter stunning is fully accepted as halal by religious authorities in Indonesia and that cruelty to animals is in fact contrary to Islamic law.
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (15:57): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms SAFFIN: Yes, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Ms SAFFIN: In the Age newspaper yesterday and in the Warrnambool Standard today, the member for Dawson is reported, in relation to live exports, to have criticised me, saying that I blamed Australian farmers but did not say anything on the question of religion. This is totally incorrect on both matters. I have spoken in parliament and elsewhere on many occasions on the live export of cattle and a reading of my speeches shows that I have never, ever criticised farmers. I have criticised the MLA and I have, on the other hand, said that religion does not permit cruelty to animals in terms of slaughter practices, notably halal.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Reports Nos 54, 55 and 56 of 2010-11
The SPEAKER: I present the following Auditor-General's audit reports for 2010-2011: No. 54, Financial Statement audit: Interim Phase of the Audit of Financial Statements of Major General Government Sector Agencies for the year ending 30 June 2011; No. 55, Performance audit: Administering the Character Requirements of the Migration Act 1958; and No. 56, Performance audit: Administering the Character Requirements of the Citizenship Act 2007.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER: I present the Selection Committee report No. 26 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:
1. The committee met in private session on 22 June 2011.
2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made—
Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety:
Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Standing Committee on Education and Employment:
Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE: Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—Energy use in the Australian Government's operations—Report for 2008-09.
Industry, Science and Innovation—House of Representatives Standing Committee—Australia's international research collaboration—Government response.
Migration—Joint Standing Committee—Negotiating the maze: Review of arrangements for overseas skills recognition, upgrading and licensing—Government response.
Debate adjourned.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Prime Minister
The SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Prime Minister's failure to govern Australia competently.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (16:00): Today, on the first anniversary of the Prime Minister's ascension to the highest elected job in this country, she has refused to defend her own government's record. Mr Speaker, we tried, as you know, a few moments ago to get the Prime Minister on her feet in this chamber to defend the fact that in the 12 months that she has held the top job of this country nothing of substance has been achieved. You would think that today would be a day of some significance to this Prime Minister because it is not often that a deputy assassinates a leader. You would think that, having done the unprecedented and assassinated a first-term, elected Prime Minister, she would at least think it was important to defend the action that she had taken. You would think that she would at least believe it necessary to give this parliament and, through this parliament, the Australian people an account of her stewardship. But, no, this Prime Minister is so contemptuous of the ordinary decencies of public life, so contemptuous of the Australian people who are represented in this parliament that yet again she has scurried from the chamber rather than face up to the ordinary norms of democratic accountability. Now, having run away from a suspension of standing and sessional orders and having run away from a censure, she is equally running away from a matter of public importance debate.
What do we have to do to get this Prime Minister into this House to give a proper account of herself? Truly, what do members of parliament have to do in this chamber to get this Prime Minister to listen? I am doing my best. I think the Australian public are watching this chamber and watching this Prime Minister and they are marking the complete contempt that she has for the ordinary standards of democratic accountability. John Howard would never have run away from this parliament. Paul Keating would never have run away from this parliament. Bob Hawke would never have run away from this parliament. I have sat in this parliament with prime ministers who were far from perfect, and they did not necessarily like criticism, but they understood that a certain amount of criticism came with the territory, they understood that a certain amount of criticism came with the job and they never shrank from it. They never shrank from hearing it, unlike this Prime Minister.
This is the first birthday of the Prime Minister's premiership and I have to say that it is a very unhappy birthday. What she has demonstrated over the last 12 months is that she is a lesser leader—a lesser Prime Minister—than the man she replaced. It is not that the person she replaced was that good. He was far from good. He was by no standards one of Australia's great prime ministers. But I tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker: he did believe in a few things and he would not run away from this parliament. He would never have run away from this parliament the way his successor has today.
Twelve months ago, as justification for the unprecedented step of assassinating an elected Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister said that the government had lost its way. She nominated three subjects on which the government had lost its way. She said that it had lost its way on border protection, she said that it had lost its way on the mining tax and she said that it had lost its way on climate change. On every single one of those subjects that the Prime Minister nominated as justifying the political assassination of her predecessor, things have gone from bad to worse. The mining tax, which she told us was settled during the election campaign, is far from settled. The reason why it is far from settled is that this Prime Minister did not take the whole of the mining industry into her confidence. She sat down and did a deal with three big multinationals. I have got nothing against BHP, Rio and Xstrata. They are all good companies. They employ tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Australians directly or indirectly and they are vital to our nation's prosperity. But they are not the whole of the mining industry. What this Prime Minister should have done, if she wanted to be a Prime Minister for all Australians—as every Prime Minister must surely aspire to—is to sit down with the smaller miners too, particularly the miners that are uniquely, distinctively and wholly Australian. But, no, that was not good enough for this Prime Minister.
Then we have border protection. This is a Prime Minister who has had 89 boats and almost 5,000 illegal arrivals since she said that her predecessor had mucked it up. Since she said that her predecessor did not know what he was doing and had lost his way, we have had 89 boats and 5,000 arrivals. I tell you what: the people smugglers have not lost their way, have they? The government has lost its way but not the people smugglers under this Prime Minister. First of all, we had the East Timor solution, which sank somewhere in the Timor Sea. We had the Manus Island solution. The only problem with that was that she had not actually bothered to tell the PNG government she was about to make the announcement. Then we had the Malaysian people swap. It is very interesting, isn't it—the justification that the Prime Minister has given for the Malaysian people swap in this parliament? She boasts that the Malaysian people swap is better than Nauru because, she says, the Malaysian people swap is tougher than Nauru. She wants people to be caned—she really does. She wants people to be caned.
But what about the awesome silence of members opposite about this Prime Minister, of members behind this Prime Minister? The Labor Party is the parliamentary party which said for years that the former Prime Minister and the former government were being deeply inhumane for sending boat people to Nauru. 'Costly', 'unsustainable' and wrong in principle I think is what the current Prime Minister said about it. She said that there was no way any boat people would ever be sent to a country that had not signed the UN convention on refugees—yet another lie. It is not just a lie about sending people to countries that had not signed the UN convention but it was a lie when she said she thought that there was something inhumane about Nauru. Nothing could be more inhumane than sending people who have arrived on our shores looking for comfort and succour to a country where they might be exposed to that kind of a legal system. And shame on members opposite for being so silent and having such double standards on this issue. How can members of the Labor Left look at themselves in the mirror anymore? How can they, when they are now giving grudging support to a Prime Minister who wants to treat boat people with far less humanity than ever took place under the former government?
Then of course we get to climate change. Perhaps enough has already been made today of the fact that this Prime Minister has been utterly deceptive on this subject. Let me make this point before I move on to other topics. This issue is, if anything, even more contentious now than it was when the Prime Minister politically assassinated her predecessor. If there is one thing that this Prime Minister has achieved, it is not quite a deep and lasting consensus the way she meant but that she has united this country as rarely before in opposition to the government's climate change policies. That is what she has done.
There is just a monumental incompetence that afflicts this government—whether it be the 260 childcare centres that were stopped after just 38; whether it be the promised 2,650 trade training centres, of which fewer than 100 have been built; whether it be the 38 GP superclinics, of which fewer than a dozen are operating and none of which are operating anything like the 24 hours that would be necessary for them to take the pressure off emergency departments; whether it be the pink batts that famously or notoriously, as the case may be, were put into people's roofs only to catch fire and then have to be taken out; or whether it be the school halls that this government and this Prime Minister have built at a cost which is, frankly, a crime against the taxpayers of this country.
There is no end to the incompetence and the deception of this government and this Prime Minister. There is the baby bonus that was never going to be means tested but has been means tested. There was the private health insurance rebate that was never going to be means tested but has been means tested or at least is proposed to be means tested. There was the childcare benefit that was never going to be means tested but is means tested. There is the surplus. Oh my God, this mythical surplus! Please introduce us to this surplus! What this government has actually done is give us, on its own record and on its own forecasts, not a surplus but $150 billion worth of accumulated deficit in just five years. Members opposite now have the cheek and hide to start talking about a surplus that has not yet been achieved and, on Labor's record, never will be achieved.
Today of course we have the National Broadband Network. Talk about throwing good money after bad. There is $12 billion being handed over not to improve services but to close services down. Decent and competent governments would weep. Every predecessor of this Prime Minister would weep at the record of this government. We have a Prime Minister who does not trust her colleagues. She is now muzzling them from speaking to the media. We have a Prime Minister who does not trust the people. The last thing this Prime Minister would ever be is honest with the Australian people about what she intends. She was not honest with them before the last election about the carbon tax. She wants to sneak the carbon tax through a parliament that has no mandate for it because she does not want it to be an issue at the next election. Try that one—the carbon tax not being an issue at the next election! She does not even trust this parliament, which is why she will not come in and give an account of herself to this parliament.
This Prime Minister survives for one reason and for one reason only: not because she is now the preferred leader of the Labor Party but only because the Independents have indicated that that is the only way this government survives. Perhaps when the Minister for Defence Materiel, at the table, stands up to talk, he might let us know what it is like to be a member of a political party whose leader spends far more time talking to Independent members of parliament, whose leader spends far more time in the electorates of Independent members of parliament and whose leader spends far more time listening to the policy ideas of Independent members of parliament than she does listening to, talking to and visiting with the members of her own party. She has abandoned the members of her own party in favour of the Independents because they are the only people who are keeping this weak and hopeless Prime Minister in office.
It is 12 months on from the bloodiest political assassination in Australia's history. Why did she do it? What has it all been for? It has not been for a great cause. It has not been for a policy achievement. We know what it has been for—nothing but this Prime Minister's ego and ambition. That is all. She was not ambitious for the higher things; she was just ambitious for a higher job. It is 12 months on, but the Australian people still do not have a clue what this Prime Minister really stands for.
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Defence Materiel) (16:15): That is 15 minutes we will never get back. For 15 minutes I waited for something positive; for 15 minutes I waited for one positive idea—I did not hear it. All we got was negativity; all we got was bile and invective. As the Prime Minister said in question time today, it was just 'a mouth full of insults and no ideas.' The people watching in the gallery must be thinking, 'Gee, I wish I could have that 15 minutes back.' It was that bad they must wish they had been watching the Senate for the last 15 minutes. People listening to the broadcast must be thinking, 'I want that 15 minutes back—I could have washed my hair; I could have walked the dog,' because all they got was bile and bluster. They got no ideas, no policy, no vision, just toxic negativity, just Dr No—the man who says no to everything—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CLARE: The man who says no to almost anything. He could not find the positive side to a battery. It is no wonder, because every time he opens his mouth he gets it wrong.
This is an MPI about competence—from a man who could not even competently pull off a political stunt this week. Talk about competence! This is the man who put Barnaby Joyce in charge of finance. That is like putting Homer Simpson in charge of the nuclear power plant. Remember that this is the opposition leader who, on his website, told people to donate to the Liberal Party, not to the people of Queensland, for the flood recovery. This is the Leader of the Opposition who rips his policies off the One Nation website. This is the Leader of the Opposition who ripped $1 billion out of the health system. This is the Leader of the Opposition who said that Australia's circumstances were 'not dire' during the global financial crisis. This is the same man who slept through the divisions to decide whether we were going to stimulate the economy to stop Australia going into recession—it was not just one division; there were five divisions, so it must have been a deep sleep. This is the Leader of the Opposition who, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of Tuesday, 21 December 2010, opposes the NBN because he sees it as 'essentially a video entertainment system'. On all the big calls, it is this Leader of the Opposition who has got it wrong—and he has the gall to come in here with an MPI about competence.
Being Prime Minister of Australia requires more than just the ability to say no. Australia has been made great by people who had the courage to say yes, not those who are too incompetent to do anything other than say no. When you look at the history of Australia, whether it is over the last 12 months or over the last 100 years, it is the Australian Labor Party that has made the big reforms that have made this country what it is. Whether it is the establishment of the old-age pension or workers compensation, whether it is building the foundations of the ANZUS alliance or APEC, whether it is Medicare or native title, whether it is the Racial Discrimination Act or the Sex Discrimination Act or whether it is the big economic reforms responsible for two decades of uninterrupted economic growth such as floating the dollar, competition policy, tariff reform or compulsory superannuation, it is the Labor Party that has done it—more often than not opposed by the Liberal Party. And that is still the case today.
On the last 12 months, it is this Prime Minister who has structurally separated Telstra—something the Liberal Party never had the courage to do; it is this Prime Minister who has negotiated the historic health agreement with the states—something the Liberal Party were incapable of doing; it is this Prime Minister who is helping the people of Queensland to rebuild after the floods—something the Liberal Party are trying to stop us from doing; it is this Prime Minister who has got the big mining companies to agree to pay more tax; it is this Prime Minister who is putting the budget on track for surplus in 2012-13; and it is this Prime Minister who is putting a price on carbon. On every single one of these, the Leader of the Opposition just says no.
He talks in this MPI about competence. The most important job of the Australian government is to keep the economy strong, to keep Australians working. Let us have a look at the Australian government's record. Unemployment today in Australia is 4.9 per cent. Compare that with the United States, where unemployment is 9.1 per cent. In the last three years we created 700,000 jobs. Over the same period in the United States they lost 6.6 million jobs. If the most important job of the Australian government is to keep the economy strong and to keep Australians working, then by any measure this government has been extremely successful. Compare that with the opposition, who opposed the stimulus and who, if we had followed their advice, would have plunged the Australian economy into recession and forced 200,000 Australians onto the dole queue.
But that is not the only thing the opposition have opposed. We are increasing the superannuation of Australian workers, and they oppose it. We are building the National Broadband Network; they want to rip it up. We have increased hospital funding by 50 per cent. When they were in government, they ripped $1 billion out of the hospital system. We are rolling out the biggest funding increase ever for mental health; they would increase funding for mental health by cutting other health services.
We have introduced the biggest pension increase in 100 years—an extra $128 a fortnight for singles and an extra $116 for couples. In 11 years they did nothing to deliver a permanent increase in the pension. We have introduced Australia's first national Paid Parental Leave scheme. It started in January and, in the first five months, 65,000 families have benefited. The Liberal Party are now talking about scrapping their own paid parental leave scheme to pay for their own climate change plan. Let us take education. We have doubled the funding for schools. They might be interested in this one: we built 3,000 libraries in schools; the Liberal Party built 3,000 flagpoles. We are building trade training centres for every high school to train students to become apprentices; the Liberal Party have promised to scrap them.
The difference between the government and the Liberal Party is no clearer than when it comes to climate change. The government is determined to take on this big reform and the Liberal Party, as on most big reforms that have come before, have no ideas, just an increasingly desperate, increasingly unbelievable scare campaign. Have a look at the scare campaign that we have seen over the last few months. In April, the Leader of the Opposition went to Whyalla and said that a carbon tax would wipe Whyalla off the map. It got better. In May, he went to Geelong and said that the carbon tax would be the final nail in the coffin of the motor industry in Australia. He said that it would spell the end for Australia as a First World economy. In the same month, he went to Weet-Bix and said it would kill breakfast. Three weeks ago, he said that it would kill the manufacturing industry in this country. Two weeks ago, he said it would be the death of the coal industry. Last week, he said that the steel industry would disappear. All of it, of course, is just nonsense.
Let us have a look at some of the claims, some of the scare campaign, and a look at some of the facts. First, let us have a look at the claim that it would cause the death of the coal industry. Treasury have modelled the impact of the CPRS on the coal industry and they found that coal industry output would continue to grow by 66 per cent over the next 40 years—so much for the death of the coal industry! Interestingly, the planned investment by the resources sector over the course of the next few years sheds a few more interesting facts on this matter. It shows that the industry does not believe this nonsense either, because there is now $430 billion in resource investment either underway or on the drawing board as at April—up from around $380 billion in October last year. Interestingly, $70 billion of that work is in coal related projects.
Let us have a look at one of the other ridiculous claims. Two weeks ago, in another MPI from the Leader of the Opposition, he came in here and predicted hundreds of thousands of jobs around the country would be lost and the end of Australia as a First World economy. That is interesting again, because Treasury has done some modelling—
Government members interjecting—
Mr CLARE: He did say it—believe it or not. The Hansardrecords it. That modelling shows that a carbon tax of $20 a tonne would not have any impact on the number of jobs created. According to the modelling, in the next nine years there will be 1.6 million more jobs created in Australia, with or without the tax. This is just how ridiculous it gets, because it was not just the coal industry and it was not just the steel industry and it was not just jobs he was talking about. Two weeks ago, he went to Visy in Brisbane, where he said that the carbon tax would cause the cost of beer cartons to go up. This is a serious matter! Unfortunately, on this matter he is right; it would cause the price of beer cartons to go up—
Government members interjecting—
Mr CLARE: I will give you the information. The price will go up by $0.0003, or three one-hundredths of a cent.
Mr Bowen: It's a scandal.
Mr CLARE: It is a scandal. I have done the calculations because I like my beer. Based on the former CPRS, you would have to buy 3,000 beer cartons before it would cost you an extra dollar—a serious scare campaign! I think the people of Australia deserve better than that. I think they deserve better than 15 minutes of bile. They got 25 minutes of bile from the Leader of the Opposition today. They deserve better than the 18 months of incompetence that we have seen from this Leader of the Opposition and they certainly deserve better than another dodgy Liberal scare campaign.
When it comes to the Liberal Party, we know they have form when it comes to dodgy scare campaigns. In the 1950s, it was reds under the bed. In the 1970s, it was China. The Liberal Party said that Whitlam's engagement with China was 'a daemonic game of mahjong'. In the 1980s, the great scare campaign was Medicare. This is what they said at the time about Medicare: 'A total and complete failure; a financial monster; a human nightmare.' That is what the Liberal Party said about Medicare in the 1980s. In the 1990s, it was native title. They said that you would lose your backyard. In the 1990s, it was compulsory superannuation as well. They said that the introduction of compulsory superannuation would destroy the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. On all of these counts, whether it was reds under the bed, China, Medicare, native title or compulsory superannuation, they were wrong, and it is all not so scary anymore. Medicare is now the cornerstone of our health system. Native title did not take anyone's backyard. Superannuation did not destroy jobs; it actually created them. Instead of the 100,000 jobs that the Liberal Party feared would be lost, the superannuation industry created 60,000 jobs. It was one of the most important economic reforms of the 20th century. The same arguments are being made by the Liberal Party now that were made then—that it would destroy the economy, that it would kill jobs. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. On all of the big calls, the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition have got it wrong—yet they have the absolute gall to come into this House and raise a discussion about competency.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:30): Every benchmark of a bad government was set by the Rudd government. Members will recall GroceryWatch and Fuelwatch and pink batts—the list goes on. Now every one of those bad government benchmarks has been exceeded by the Gillard government in 12 months. People will recall that the current Prime Minister was part of the so-called gang of four in the Rudd government—she was one of Prime Minister Rudd's trusted lieutenants and she was the Deputy Prime Minister. So every failing of the Rudd government can be laid at the door of this Prime Minister. And, now, she has her own litany of failures and failings that make this one of the most incompetent governments in the history of Australia.
The Prime Minister has taken incompetence to a new low. After 12 months the Australian people are less confident, they are more concerned and they are understandably confused about the direction Australia is heading under this government. Recently a survey was undertaken by JWS Research asking Australian people to nominate the best governments in the last 30 years and 96 per cent of the people surveyed named any government but the Gillard government. That means that four per cent of those surveyed gave the Gillard government a tick—even fewer people than think Elvis Presley is still alive.
Twelve months ago, on fundamental injustice day, Deputy Prime Minister Gillard betrayed her leader—the man that she said she would support, the leader to whom she pledged loyalty. Twelve months on from fundamental injustice day, you know how badly this government is travelling when the Labor Party starts leaking its own research against its leader. This is what happened to Prime Minister Rudd—they started leaking against him, to undermine his standing. It is happening again with Prime Minister Gillard. Today, on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, an article by Peter Hartcher states:
After a year as Prime Minister, Julia Gillard has failed to establish any sort of positive relationship with the Australian people, according to the Labor Party's own research.
Gillard is seen as cold and untrustworthy, still haunted by the way she took the job by deposing the man to whom she had endlessly pledged loyalty, Kevin Rudd.
By overthrowing Rudd, she created an emotional starting point for public assessment. This was compounded by her broken promise—'there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'—to entrench a dominant image of dishonesty.
The Prime Minister said that she had to depose Kevin Rudd because the government had lost its way—the government of which she was Deputy Prime Minister; the government of which she was part of the gang of four. But she said it had lost its way, that it had gone off track. With her characteristic arrogance, she said she had to take control. She named three issues—first, the mining tax. You might recall that when the gang of four first announced the resource super profits tax, so little did the then Deputy Prime Minister understand mining companies that she claimed that domestic mining companies paid an effective company tax rate of 17 per cent and overseas companies paid 13 per cent. She said that was not a fair share, and that was why they were moving to introduce the resource super profits tax. She said the reason for the super profits tax was that mining companies were paying 13 per cent and 15 per cent tax, and then she said:
These are the cold, hard facts—the truth.
That was a lie. That was not true. This Prime Minister has form. In fact, Australian Taxation Office statistics show that mining companies pay effectively 30 per cent and 41 per cent when royalties are included, and overseas multinationals pay something like 42 per cent or 43 per cent. So the reason she gave for the mining tax was in fact a lie. Then she did a deal with three of the 3,000 mining companies. But, having done the deal, she then tried to renege on it and say that they would not get the royalties set off against the mining tax. She tried to renege on a deal she did with the people in order to take over from Prime Minister Rudd. Then there is sovereign risk—
Government members interjecting—
Ms JULIE BISHOP: Members are interjecting asking about the mining tax. On page 13 of today's Australian Financial Review we see 'Big miner prefers Africa to Australia'. The article says that the government's mining tax:
… has made Australia a more unpredictable investment destination for coal producers than African countries like Mozambique …
The head of Brazilian miner Vale said:
Australia is becoming harder because you cannot predict what will happen.
In Africa I know what the challenges are …
The article goes on:
He said an unpredictable investment environment in Australia was the 'main risk' …
He cited the minerals resource rent tax and the carbon tax. Who would have thought that sovereign risk and Australia could be said in the same sentence? Under this government sovereign risk is mentioned all the time.
The second issue that the Prime Minister said she had to fix was asylum seekers. The disastrous policy embraced by the Rudd government which has seen the people smugglers back in business was in fact designed by this Prime Minister when she was the opposition spokesperson on border protection and immigration. The Rudd government embraced her policy and we have seen an explosion in the people-smuggling trade. She said she was going to fix this explosion in the people-smuggling trade by having a detention centre in East Timor. Problem: she had not told the East Timorese government about it. Then, when the controversy broke out, she tried to say that she did not mean East Timor after all. She did mean East Timor! No wonder Laurie Oakes called her 'silly and slippery and slimy and shifty'. He summed her up all right.
Do you recall that we could not have the detention centre—paid for by the Australian taxpayers—reopened because Nauru was not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees? This Prime Minister takes the Australian people for mugs. What does she announce? An asylum seeker swap with Malaysia, which is not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees. What a great deal—a five-to-one asylum seeker swap—from the so-called great negotiator. What a deal for Australia! The Malaysian deal, like the East Timor deal, reminds me of Monty Python's parrot—'not dead; just resting'. This Prime Minister could not negotiate a deal with countries in our region because she has shown such arrogance towards them.
The third issue was climate change. Her promise to the Australian people was that a lasting community consensus would be obtained. What did she do? She trashed that immediately. She promised a citizens assembly, and, because it was such a ridiculous idea and she was so embarrassed by it, she ran away from it and made out that she had not announced it at all. In her election policy—and this will ring in the ears of the Australian people for decades to come; this statement has defined this Prime Minister—she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' That has made her one of the most untrustworthy people in Australian public life. She has no mandate to introduce a carbon tax. She has shown no respect for the Australian people in relation to it.
Now we have another debacle in the live cattle trade. By panicking, overreacting and putting in place a total ban, she has managed to offend Indonesia, one of our closest neighbours; she has managed to put the livelihoods of cattle families in the north of Australia at risk; and she has managed to damage one of Australia's most significant exports.
What about the NBN? It is a $50 billion government monopoly that will not give taxpayers value for money. Consumers will not get cheaper broadband and we will not get the benefits of competition between technologies or competition between telecommunications companies.
What about her signature policy, Building the Education Revolution? There have been billions of dollars wasted—sheer incompetence—building canteens that you cannot even fit a pie warmer into.
Then there is the state of the budget. The Labor Party inherited zero government debt. The Rudd government ran it up. The Gillard government have taken government debt to over $100 billion. As for the surplus, they have never delivered a surplus and they will not deliver a surplus. Over four budgets, the cumulative deficit is $150 billion.
This government is defined by panic, indecision, incompetence and untrustworthiness. No wonder the Prime Minister has imposed a gag order on the ministers, when ministers say things like:
"Kevin's polling wasn't as bad as Julia's is right now and I think a lot of Australians still love him. They probably think he was hard done by. Let's face it, we could do worse and we are."
(Time expired)
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (16:40): Before I start, I must give a big shout out to the students of Glenmore Park Public School, as their local member has asked me to. It is a pity they had to witness that performance. But we know why this matter of public importance is up today: it is to hide the incompetence of the opposition. They are trying to put up whatever smoke and mirrors they can to hide their incompetence, because not only did the Leader of the Opposition show this week that he was not fit for public office—he showed clearly that he was not fit for public office when we had a Prime Minister visiting from another country—but also he showed that he is incompetent at conducting a good stunt.
This week we saw the Leader of the Opposition ready to go out to try and conduct a stunt. He thought: 'What could we do now? What would be a good stunt? We'll leak it to the papers that we'll have a plebiscite—a non-binding plebiscite—on the carbon tax. Yeah, we'll leak that to the papers.' Then what happened? The Leader of the Opposition probably should have thought about this. He was asked on radio whether or not he would abide by the result of a plebiscite, and he could not say yes. He could not say that he would listen to the people on his own proposed plebiscite. So, while it was probably in theory a good stunt, it was very, very poorly executed.
That is unfortunately what we have seen from the Leader of the Opposition. Interestingly enough, we have not heard any more about the national plebiscite in the days since it became clear that it was a stunt, but he is trying a number of other stunts, trying what he can—coming in here and being incredibly negative and incredibly disorderly. From what we saw before, he is really just trying to have a joke, trying to deliver a few one-liners—that is all the Leader of the Opposition is indeed capable of—on a day when we have seen a momentous agreement to facilitate the rollout of the National Broadband Network.
When we talk about incompetence, we only have to cast our minds back to the previous Howard government. They tried to fix broadband, but they did not try very well. They had 18—I think it actually got up to 20 but on the record I will say 18—failed broadband plans. In my electorate, where many people are on pair gains and many people cannot access broadband and are on dial-up, people were waiting for the previous government to do something. The first plan came—failure. The second plan came—failure. The third plan came—failure. Then there was the OPEL contract which the previous government put in. They said, 'This will cover 98 per cent of Australia.' After a bit of work, they said, 'Oh, whoops; it will only cover 72 per cent of Australia.'
There were these constant failed broadband plans. And they have the cheek—I think that is the right word—to come into this place and criticise our National Broadband Network. I have got news for the Leader of the Opposition: people in Australia are pleased with our progress on the National Broadband Network. They welcome the National Broadband Network. For the first time, they are seeing a real solution. People in my seat of Kingston could have told the previous government that the structural separation of Telstra would be very important to facilitate competition. They knew it. Unfortunately, the previous government did not know it. This government and this Prime Minister have forged ahead and are delivering the National Broadband Network. This government is delivering for Australians, no matter where they live, a good fast broadband service because good broadband is important for our economy. I know that the Leader of the Opposition does not think that. I know he thinks that the National Broadband Network will be just a national entertainment system. He is clearly not listening to small businesses in my electorate. Small businesses and the business associations in my electorate see the lack of broadband as the No. 1 impediment to expanding their businesses. If the Leader of the Opposition really wanted to be a leader for small business, not just for his Liberal Party mates who end up on the front page of the newspaper, he would step out of the way of our National Broadband Network.
But we know that with this Leader of the Opposition it is always no and it is always hysteria. We have seen this when it comes to putting a price on carbon. We have seen the hysteria as he runs around to different factories and other places claiming gloom and doom will come from the carbon tax. Quite frankly, I have noticed that when the Leader of the Opposition goes to different places he never mentions his own policy, and I have wondered why. He says that the sky is going to fall in with the carbon tax, but he does not mention his policy. I think the reason he does not mention his policy is that no-one else supports it. There is no economist around who has come out and said: 'Yes, let's tax the Australian people more and subsidise big polluters. That's the answer.' No economist is saying that, and people who believe in a market mechanism to price carbon, like the member for Wentworth, are not saying that. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has said: 'No, we're not going to let the market decide. We're not going to believe in market principles. What we're going to do is pick some winners and plant some more trees and that will fix climate change.' Unfortunately for the Leader of the Opposition, no-one believes him when he says that. Quite famously, he has stated before that he is a weathervane on this issue. In fact, I am sure that when he goes off to one of the conferences he is going to attend with Lord Monckton he will ask Lord Monckton for endorsement of his policy. But I do not even think that Lord Monckton will endorse his policy of direct action, because it is not a credible policy at all.
We also know that when it comes to a strong economy the Leader of the Opposition has a very big credibility gap, because our government has put the fundamentals in place to manage the mining boom and spread its benefits to the whole country. We know that the previous government, incompetently, did not manage the first mining boom; in fact, they wasted and squandered the benefits of that mining boom. An extra $100 billion of revenue was squandered by the previous government. But we in this government are determined to make sure that we spread the benefits and use this opportunity to invest in our future and ensure that this country is on the right track. That is what the Australian people are looking for. They are looking for a Prime Minister, and a government, who acts in the national interest, and that is the Prime Minister we have. When we look at the opposition leader all we see is a leader who is obsessed with his personal ambition, with himself and with his political stunts.
We saw that quite clearly in his budget-in-reply speech. When the Treasurer was outlining where we might go in the future in this new Asian century, the Leader of the Opposition provided no credible alternative economic plan. Instead, we got quite a few jokes, quite a few one-liners and the playing up of slogans to the gallery. We got no credible economic plan. Instead, we got: 'I'll refer to our costings from the election. That's what we're falling back on.' The problem with the costings that he was referring to from the last election is that there was an $11 billion black hole. While the Leader of the Opposition was running around suggesting that perhaps he was a more credible economic manager, what we saw was a big $11 billion black hole. I am not sure what you think, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think an $11 billion black hole is an incredible position to have. The Leader of the Opposition should have used his budget-in-reply speech to correct the record—to actually do his costings and come up with an alternative plan. He did not do it; there was nothing in it.
We also saw that type of performance when it came to dealing with the Queensland floods. This government was getting on with rebuilding Queensland and working with the Queensland government, but from the Leader of the Opposition we just saw opposition, carping, three-word slogans and no real plan. He put a bit in: he thought he would use some One Nation emails and cut some of the aid budget and a few other things. But he had no credible economic plan for the future. While this government gets on with the job, the Leader of the Opposition can run around and do all the stunts he wants— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Before I call the Leader of the Nationals, I would encourage all members to read the provisions of standing order 89 regarding offensive words. The standing order says:
A Member must not use offensive words against:
(a) either House of the Parliament or a Member of the Parliament—
and it then goes on to talk about the judiciary. House of Representatives Practice says on page 501:
An accusation that a Member has lied or deliberately misled is clearly an imputation of an improper motive.
I believe that in the debate that is underway there has been some use of inappropriate words and I would counsel all members to ensure that there is not a repetition.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (16:51): The last 12 months have been a shameful chapter in the governance of this country's affairs. It has been a period punctuated by stuff-ups, complete incompetence and contempt for the Australian people. Tomorrow's first anniversary of the Prime Minister's reign is bathed in the blood of her predecessor, a stain that lingers with the Labor Party as well as the consciousness of all Australians. The litany of abuses since the Prime Minister seized power, most profoundly abuses against the trust of Australian voters, mark this occasion and are forever etched in the psyche of Australians.
It is regional Australia that has been dudded the most. Labor does not care about people who live outside the capital cities. The Prime Minister is a city girl and she has made little effort to acquaint herself with the hopes and aspirations of regional Australians—so much so that at the last election we had the 'new paradigm' touted by the Independents that handed government to Labor. But it has failed abysmally. Labor has not even honoured the promises that they made to the Independents—so much so that the Independent member for Kennedy has declared publicly that the Independents have failed to deliver anything for regional Australians. And he is absolutely right: they, like all people in regional Australia, have been dudded. The Gillard government record, sadly, speaks for itself.
The mining tax hangs like a sword over the heads of entire regional communities. The uncertainty and the confusion caused by the government's chopping and changing has already deterred investment and circumvented sound business decision making. Jobs in regional areas will go. Our international competitiveness will be diminished. It is a kick in the teeth for regional Australia. And the funding announced for the regional projects that are supposed to come from the 2011-12 federal budget is conditional on the revenue from the proposed mining tax. So the deal done with the Independents to provide them with an $800 million regional fund is conditional on passing a tax. That is a lose-lose situation for the regions. If the tax does not pass through the parliament, the regional projects will not proceed. If it does, regional communities will lose jobs and economic prosperity created by mining developments and mineral processing. It is a sell-out.
A further example of the sell-out was the incredible announcement that, of the $800 million to be provided over the forward estimates for regional Australia, $450 million is allocated to the roads around Perth Airport—hardly what I would call regional Australia. Indeed, the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government confirmed last week that it was the government's intention to spend the majority of the regional fund on this Perth road project, and once more he said that they will be spending more money in the cities. So the Independents are backing a government on the basis of an $800 million commitment for regional projects, most of which is going to be spent in the cities. It is completely dishonest.
When we look at the carbon tax, we are forever reminded of its impact on regional Australia. For example, research by the Australian Farm Institute exposes that an average grain farm in Western Australia will be up to $37,000 a year worse off under a carbon price of $36 a tonne—and that is even if agriculture is excluded from the carbon regime. This research confirms what farmers and their communities have instinctively known: that even the indirect costs will make many farms unviable. Farmers and regional people will have to pay a bigger share of this carbon tax than those who live in the cities, because they have to travel further and their costs will therefore be compounded by this additional imposition.
Farmers drive $155 billion a year in production and $32 billion in annual exports and support 1.6 million jobs. That is a lot to sacrifice on the altar of a carbon tax. And the Prime Minister said she would not have one. 'There'll be no carbon tax under a government I lead. I rule out a carbon tax,' she said. Those words will live in infamy and will haunt this government to its electoral grave.
Labor's NBN is another fiasco and setback for regional Australians—$50 billion spent with no cost-benefit analysis and taxpayers now forced to foot the bill so Telstra can scrap its copper network. The government is boasting today that it is going to pay $12 billion to Optus and Telstra to close down their network. How is that a good investment in infrastructure in this country? Ironically, if there had not been a Labor government elected, most regional Australians would now have access to high-speed broadband through the Opel contract—and, once more, at speeds greater than those Labor is offering. Bear in mind that Labor has specifically excluded people who live in regional areas from its commitment to high-speed broadband. Seven per cent of the population is going to have to depend on wireless or in some cases satellite. This is Labor again developing a two-speed economy: one speed for their mates in the city but, for people who live in regional Australia, a second-class service.
I now want to turn to the live export trade, another example of policy failure by this government. The bungling of the live cattle export issue is simply another example of Labor's incompetence. It ignored the warnings and then was panicked into a decision without any plan for the future. This is ironically a case where the minister originally made the right decision—to ban exports to abattoirs that do not meet appropriate standards. But then the Prime Minister and others came over the top and introduced a total ban, including a ban on world-class abattoirs, abattoirs that exceed world standards. Indeed, I have referred on a number of occasions to the classic example of the 1,937 cattle that were, at that time, being held in an AQIS certified holding yard in Port Hedland. They are all NLIS tagged. They are Australian cattle, owned by an Australian company. They are ready to be transported on an Australian owned and operated livestock carrier with full AMSA accreditation. They are to be delivered to an Australian owned and operated feedlot. There is a full set of quality assurance procedures that are independently audited by an international company. The cattle will then be sent, after 80 to 100 days in the feedlot, to an Australian owned and operated abattoir and processing facility. There are many Australian staff in this facility. It has HACCP and ISO 9001 accreditation. You may be interested to know that the Indonesian version of MasterChef is currently being filmed in that very abattoir. That abattoir is being shown to all the Indonesian people, with MasterChef being filmed in that facility, but it is not good enough for Australian cattle. It is good enough for the television crews but it is not good enough for Australian cattle.
Why has the government banned good practice? Why has it destroyed the incentive to do the right thing? It should be making sure that this trade begins as immediately as it can. There are tagged cattle. There are closed loops that would enable cattle to get moving quite quickly. It is absolutely urgent that the Prime Minister send the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Rudd, to Indonesia to try and patch up some of the diplomatic damage that has been done as a result of the government's bungling of this issue. This has turned into a diplomatic gaffe, and it is standing in the way of this trade re-commencing.
There are thousands of Australian jobs at risk. The Indonesians are not going to simply stand by; they are already searching for other countries to deliver them live animals so that they can provide the food that their people need. The minister's visit to Indonesia was a debacle. He failed to achieve anything worth while. Indeed, the poisonous nature of the current relationship simply needs to be addressed. It is time that the Prime Minister was prepared to admit that the government got it wrong, eat a bit of humble pie and send the foreign minister to Indonesia to try and mend some of the bridges. Let us hope that somehow or other our friendship with Indonesia, which is very important to our country, can be restored.
Then we need to have a comprehensive program of upgrading animal welfare practices in countries like Indonesia. If it matters to Australians that their own cattle are cared for humanely, surely that is important also for Indonesian cattle and the cattle from other countries that are going to take our place in that market. This is another example of policy failure. The cattlemen of Northern Australia are in great distress, and this government has no plan whatsoever to help them through this crisis. This is an example of a government that has failed all Australians and particularly has failed regional Australians. (Time expired)
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon) (17:01): The carping that we have heard today is, indeed, what we have heard for the last 12 months from an opposition who know nothing but opposition. I think that is the key to understanding their psyche: they are in opposition. They do not like being in opposition. They have not accepted the result from the Australian people at the last election. They do not like it. They cannot grow up and move on. And they have a leader who can offer little example except in negativity. There is no creativity in the Leader of the Opposition except in the creation of slogans, except in the creation of more negativity and except in the creation of stunts, and even those stunts do not work.
This week there was a classic example of a stunt, starting off with a great deal of fanfare. He could not even bring it into this House at the right time because he did not even know when the parliament was sitting. Of course, he had the flagship of the opposition, the Australian newspaper, beating this stuff up, and he could not even bring it into this House as legislation. Then it got shot down in flames in the other house, and we did not hear any more about the so-called plebiscite in this place. The week started off with the raging headlines about a plebiscite: 'Take the Australian people to a plebiscite so they can make their decision.' What happened to it? It died an undignified death in here—they could not even get it in the place—and in the Senate it got what it deserved; that is, a contemptuous response. That is the sum total of the opposition this week—that and the constant carping that we have heard from this mob for 12 months.
In fact, if you take the time to look at the facts and look at the record of this government over the last 12 months and before, it is a record of substance. It is a constructive, successful and progressive record. What has it achieved? Contrary to what those on the other side would have had—and contrary to their flagship, the Australian newspaper, and other News Ltd paraphernalia—what we have is a strong economy, a sustainable environment and an ongoing fair society. And, with all that, we are delivering our election commitments. As I said, we have been constructive, we have been progressive and we have been successful. Those on the other side are about slogans, negativity and stunts.
If you went out to the streets and asked, 'What are the major policies of the opposition?' the only policies you would ever hear about are no, no, no. There is no body of policy. There is no platform of policy except carping, negativity—no—and stunts, and when they do the stunts they do not work. So what do the opposition stand for? I think the Australian people would tell you, 'They might stand for bringing back Work Choices.' When you ask people out there, 'What is their policy for dealing with climate change?' they do not have a clue, except that some, who might have been doing some reading—you would not want to read the Australian newspaper to find this out because they do not even analyse it—might say, 'I think they want to subsidise polluters with taxpayers' money and let the taxpayer pay for those polluters.' They might say that, but apart from that they know nothing about this opposition except the negativity and the carping. I have had the pleasure of looking through our record over the last few years and what a terrific record it is. We have much to be proud of. First and foremost—and you would never believe it if you listen to those on the other side—this country, along with the rest of the world, went through a financial global crisis and this country came through relatively better—indeed, comparatively better—than just about every other economy. Is that recognised on the other side? No.
Government members interjecting—
Mr SIDEBOTTOM: Indeed, as my colleagues say, not only that, it was slept through by the Leader of the Opposition. I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, and I might not have the most bouffant hair in the parliament, but I have more interest in economics than the Leader of the Opposition. I can tell you that much.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: He has a degree in it.
Mr SIDEBOTTOM: Oh, he has a degree in it.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Have you?
Mr SIDEBOTTOM: No, no, I do not have a degree in economics. I have three others, thanks very much. I have enough on my plate. The Leader of the Opposition does not like economics and gets so bored by economics that he stays asleep while we are going through the legislation to do something about it. Then he gets his PR merchants opposite to carp away there. I can see them standing up in a minute and doing their contribution. I do not think so.
Let us have a look at our record. First and foremost, we have had strong economic management by acting decisively to keep us out of the recession. They can laugh all they like on the other side. If we had followed their views, we would have been deep in recession. Without the government's decisive action to keep our economy strong, around 200,000 jobs would have been lost.
Some opposite are supposed to be responsible for the financial policies of the opposition with an $11 billion or $12 billion black hole in your figures. When you went to present the figures in front of the media, we had the advisers on the other side saying to those opposite, 'Slit, slit, cut.' We do not know what we are talking about here. You could not even account for your own budget figures. Can you believe that those opposite would have the gall to attack us on economic credibility? That is unbelievable stuff. One of them is in the House now and still confused.
We will return to surplus. When we presented the budget this year, did the Leader of the Opposition present a budget? No. Was there a budget reply? No. Was there an alternative to the budget? No. Because they do not know how to construct a constructive budget. The member opposite, the member for Goldstein, is one of those with a record of economic incompetence himself, but he does not want to know about it. Just go and read the papers about your debacle during the election and your figures—an $11 billion black hole, cobber. Go and have a look. Do you know what it means? Of course you do not. You have no idea.
Not only that but we have supported jobs, with unemployment in Australia among the lowest in the world, with almost 750,000 more Australians in work since we came into office in November 2007, and real wage increases have occurred for that work. That is a good record in very difficult times. We have helped those that needed the help the most. We helped pensioners. We drove an increase of around $115 a fortnight for single pensioners and around $97 a fortnight for pensioner couples combined.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Only after we shamed you into it.
Mr SIDEBOTTOM: You can get your pension a little bit later. You just wait. I think it was the first one in 100 years. You had 13 years to do something about pensioners except talk about yourself and pensioners. You did nothing. Well, we did something and it is indexed, so we have got the record. We did it, we constructively did it; you did nothing. What we did do was get rid of your nasty, mean, miserable Work Choices.
A government member: Which they want to bring back.
Mr SIDEBOTTOM: And you want to bring it back because you are mean, you are nasty and miserable. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): I remind the member for Braddon in future to address his remarks through the chair, not at the chair.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (17:12): I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. There has been a global financial crisis and six million jobs have been demolished worldwide. The first test of any government is to withstand economic recession, withstand the gale force winds coming internationally, and provide jobs and economic growth for this country. This Prime Minister is delivering on jobs. The importance of this is that we know a job is the best insurance for a person's prosperity and the best chance to meet the cost of living. It is the best chance for them to withstand the rigours of the modern world.
This government protected over 200,000 jobs during a time when the rest of the world was going backwards and suffering unemployment. If we look at our nearest neighbour, New Zealand, 6.8 per cent unemployment—and that was Tony Abbott's model. The United Kingdom has 7.8 per cent. The US and Europe have unemployment rates in excess of nine per cent and Canada, which has a resource-rich economy just like our own, has an unemployment rate of 7.8 per cent.
Australia, unique around the world, has created jobs. This government has created over 740,000 jobs since coming to office and just in the last two months we have seen 7,800 new jobs created. What is projected by Treasury is a further 500,000 jobs. That means that our unemployment rate, unique in the world at 4.9 per cent, will drop in mid-2013 to 4.5 per cent.
That is the key indicator of whether or not a prime minister delivers to the country. Jobs are the key indicator. For my constituents, it is literally the difference between getting by or really suffering poverty. It is the difference between being able to buy a house or being able to afford the rent or being able to feed the family. It is a critical indicator. It is the only indicator in the end that really matters. But this Prime Minister is doing so much more because, if you saw the recent budget, the member for Lalor is setting up a jobs and skills escalator for people in my electorate and electorates all over this country. We know that jobs are the key to creating wealth and helping families meet the cost of living, but skills are the guarantee of job security, higher pay and higher national productivity. It is skills that make all the difference to people. It is skills that insulate people from economic recession and job insecurity. It is skills through apprenticeships that give young people a future and it is skills which build the economy.
When we came to power in 2007 the biggest problem employers would tell me about is that they could not find skilled employees. They could not find job ready employees. It was a tragedy because there were long-term unemployed people in my electorate who had been ignored through a decade of the previous government. This government is going to spend $3 billion on skills over six years—apprenticeships, industry assistance, industry led involvement and degrees. We are not degree snobs. The old government used to talk about job snobs. We are not degree snobs. We think people getting degrees is a good idea. We think people who have worked in trades who later go to university is a good thing. We think learning is for life and we think skills are important. They are important to individuals, they are important to families and they are important to this economy.
We have Australia working and we see that the parliament is also working. There have been 135 pieces of legislation, none defeated and not a single amendment carried without government support. Australians are working, the parliament is working and the Prime Minister is working. That is the important thing.
One of the most contentious issues of this era, unauthorised maritime arrivals, is a problem which bedevils the world. You have only to look at Europe and America—which does not have unauthorised maritime arrivals but obviously they have border issues— to see that. It is a most difficult issue for nation-states to deal with. We have a Prime Minister who has approached it with security and integrity in mind. That is what we have—a package of domestic laws to combat people smugglers, progress through the Bali arrangements and cooperation with our neighbouring countries, like Indonesia. Finally, Indonesia has domestic laws which combat people smuggling. We have an agreement with Malaysia and the UNHCR. That basically means that we have security and integrity, and that means that we will get long-term results and not the sort of results where people go off to Nauru for an extended stay before they come to Australia. We are not going to have those sorts of temporary and expensive arrangements.
Climate change is an existential threat to the world. It is a big problem, despite what Lord Monckton and others say. It is the biggest international issue of our time. We—the government and the Prime Minister—are working to build a domestic political consensus with this parliament, which was elected by the Australian people, where no party has a majority. The expectation of the Australian people was that we would work together. The Prime Minister held out the hand of bipartisanship and offered a place on the climate change committee to the opposition and they refused to take it. It is a worldwide problem and five of our top trading partners—Japan, China, the US, Korea and India—have implemented or are piloting carbon trading or other schemes to combat climate change. Europe has had a trading scheme since 2005. The Prime Minister is providing leadership and the opposition are sitting out, carping and saying no.
It is like this on so many other issues—the NBN, schools, superannuation. On all of those issues the government is making progress and the opposition is just opposing and saying, 'No, no, no, no.' They are refusing to acknowledge that there are any positives in more superannuation. They are refusing to acknowledge that there are any positives in having computers in schools. It seems incredible that you would oppose putting computers in schools, but they do.
The most important thing the Prime Minister has done is abolish Work Choices. She has protected job security in this country and she has protected people's conditions of employment, such as their penalty rates. The next most important thing to having a job is having a well-paid job and having some dignity when you work and not being pushed around and having your penalty rates changed. The Prime Minister has safeguarded Australian values and ensured that Australian companies take a high-wage, high-skill path rather than a race to the bottom where we compete with low-wage countries.
It is worth looking at the alternative. We know that they will return to Work Choices. The members for Kooyong, Mayo, Moncrieff and Higgins—the young guns of the party—want to knock Mr Robb, the member for Goldstein, who is here, off the front bench. Let us be honest about it. These young guns are champing at the bit, all advocating for industrial relations reform. That is what they want. They want a position on the front bench. We know this from Barry O'Farrell. He said nothing about industrial relations before the election. As soon as he was elected, the first thing he did was get stuck into workers.
We know the alternative on climate is direct subsidy, this orgy of taxpayers' money—$20 billion in the short term and $18 billion a year in the future. That is what it will cost this country to subsidise polluters if the full range of carbon cuts come in. That is what it would end up costing this country. Then we look at who this opposition leader listens to. We know he was granted a meeting last year with Lord Monckton. We wonder what kind of government he would lead. Maybe there would be a big phone on the Prime Minister's desk with a big 'M' on it. Every time I see Lord Monckton he reminds me of that character out of Austin Powers, Dr Evil. We could have the member for Warringah as the character Number 2. The member for Flinders could be Mini-Me. Perhaps the member for Longman could be Scott Evil. I will not even talk about who might play Frau Farbissina. The member for Dawson might be wearing a kilt and speaking with a Scottish accent.
The thing about it is that it is a farce. The opposition leader seeks to turn this country into a farce. He seeks to use this parliament as an incense burner to his own vanity. He seeks to make the whole thing a big joke. That is what he does when he meets and shares a platform with Lord Monckton, who is an extremist and beyond the pale. Even today, when he compared good Australians to Nazis, what did the opposition leader say? He said, 'Oh, he went a bit over the top.' The problem with this Leader of the Opposition is that he will share a platform with anybody and do anything to seek power in this country. He is prepared to dance with the very devil himself to do it.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (17:22): I have listened—'with interest ' would be the wrong words—to the nonsense coming from the other side of the chamber. I think it is time that we iterated what the problem is with this government. The problem with the government is that it is an illegitimate government. It has no legitimacy at all. You had 12 months ago the assassination of Kevin Rudd at the hand of 'Lady Macbeth', otherwise known as Julia Gillard, who did him in, took the job and became—
Mr Albanese: Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Mackellar knows full well she must refer to members by their title.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): I call the member for Mackellar. She will refer to members in the chamber by their seat or their title.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: So we had the Prime Minister of this day assassinate the previous Prime Minister, the member for Griffith, 12 months ago and usurp his position, announcing at the time that she would ask the Governor-General permission to hold an election so that she could in fact have a mandate in her own name in order to govern. We went to that election and there was no outcome. The Prime Minister was not elected. The opposition won the majority of primary votes. We saw that there was then a frenzied attempt to stitch up a deal, just as there had been a deal struck up 12 months ago. This time we had the performance of the various Independents, who were strutting their stuff in their moment of grandeur. They finally agreed that they would back up the Prime Minister for the purposes of allowing the budget to pass and that they would not support a no confidence motion.
That does not make the government legitimate. It does not make the Prime Minister legitimate. It means that she is floundering every day and every week, having to consult with the Independents about what it is that they want, to see how she can serve their needs, to see how they can be accommodated. In the meantime, ordinary members of the Labor Party are left to flounder because their needs come second to appeasing the demands of the Independents. It does not matter what the issue is. It does not matter whether it is suddenly having to deal with the difficult issue of the live export of cattle, where the original decision that was taken by the minister was the correct one. Because she was once again leant on by an Independent who wanted something, the whole of the policy was overturned and a complete ban was put in place. There was no consideration at all—none—for those people whose livelihoods were at stake. There was no consideration about their families, about their aspirations. It was simply: 'How can I appease one of the Independents so that I can cling to power?' That is all she cares about—clinging to power.
Mr Chester: And the Greens.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: The Greens are always going to vote for the Labor Party. It does not matter whether she has to appease them in this chamber. Of course, in the Senate after 1 July we will start to see the Greens exercising their power and insisting that they get their way on so many things. We have the prospect of Lee Rhiannon coming into the Senate, who has great form when we see her track record in the New South Wales upper house. We remember that it was her parents who founded the Communist Party and, when the split occurred, they stuck with Stalin despite the dreadful record of what Stalin was doing to the Russian people. We have a great venue for conflict coming up in the Senate when we look at that behaviour and the squabbling that will occur between the Greens.
In this matter of public importance discussion we are looking at the failure of this stitched-up deal, with the Prime Minister attempting to govern and failing to govern competently for the simple reason that she is not legitimately in that position. If we look at the carbon tax issue, it is a classic. Six days before the election, it was: 'There will be no carbon tax by any government I lead.' It was, categorically, 'Believe me, Australian people, I am telling you the truth.' That was Julia telling us, 'Trust me, I will not do this to you.' When she got in, of course that was overturned and we are to have this great big carbon tax.
Even in question time today the Prime Minister could not tell the truth. She was asked a question and she insisted that she was in surplus. We are promised one for 2013, but we certainly have not got one now. At every instance in her answers today, we saw a complete miasma of lies—a virus, if you like.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar will withdraw that reflection on the Prime Minister.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Miasma?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, lies.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: I think the Manager of Government Business does not know what a miasma is, so I will withdraw it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you used the word 'lies'.
Mr Albanese: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is an outrageous abuse that the member for Mackellar, when asked to withdraw by you, has chosen not to do so. She clearly did not withdraw what you specifically asked her to withdraw. She should do so. She should do so unconditionally. I know that she thinks parliament is sitting on 24 December, but she should get this right.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mackellar, I did require you to withdraw those comments. You used the word 'lies' and that is what I ask you to withdraw.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: I thought you said that I was reflecting on someone. I was reflecting that there was a miasma.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I asked you to withdraw the word 'lies'.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: I will withdraw it if you wish, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not if I wish. I do ask you to withdraw the use of the word 'lies'.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: I withdraw it. But I am curious about the poor old Manager of Government Business over there; in question time today he was talking about the year being 2010. He is getting all sorts of things mixed up. We will go back to talking about the lack of legitimacy of this government and the carbon tax. This is a tax which the Labor Party has wished to liken to the GST. The difference with the GST was that we in fact repealed and abolished the wholesale sales tax and then we went to the people with the proposition that we should have a GST, because we previously said there would not be one. We went to the election and we were successful in that election and that came about.
The carbon tax is the Labor Party's Work Choices. Just as the Labor Party repealed Work Choices, we will repeal their carbon tax if they are successful in passing it. They showed it was quite clearly a 'can be done'. Just as they said they would repeal it, we will—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.
BILLS
Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011
Report from Main Committee
Bill returned from Main Committee for further consideration.
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (17:30): I thank those members who contributed to this debate in the Main Committee. This received support from all the members who spoke to it. It has, of course, taken a Labor government to introduce this important legislation.
One of the greatest threats to the marine environment is a major oil spill. This bill continues the government's persistent efforts to protect the marine environment by setting out measures to be adopted when oil being carried as cargo is transferred between oil tankers. While such transfers are rare in Australian waters, they are likely to be more frequent in future. So it is important that they be carried out in a responsible manner.
The most common reason for transferring oil between oil tankers in Australian waters would be where crude oil is being carried on a tanker that is too big to enter a port where an oil refinery is located. In such a case the oil is transferred to smaller tankers. The amendments in this bill reflect international best practice as developed by the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited—an international not-for-profit organisation which assists in all aspects of preparing for and responding to spills from ships of oil, chemicals and other substances.
An oil tanker involved in a transfer will be required to have on board an approved ship-to-ship operations plan in accordance with which the tanker will have the equipment and qualified crew to ensure that a transfer occurs without a significant risk to the marine environment. Coastal states will be required to be notified in advance of any proposed transfers which allow them to be prepared to respond in case of any spills occurring during a transfer. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr ALBANESE: by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011
Report from Main Committee
Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments; Administrator's message recommending an appropriation reported; certified copy of bill presented and schedule of amendments presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Main Committee ' s amendments—
(1) Schedule 2, item 3, page 4 (lines 20 to 24), omit the item, substitute:
3 At the end of section 52
Add:
(3) An instruction is not a legislative instrument.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr DREYFUS: by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (17:35): I rise to speak on the Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011. The purpose of this bill is to repeal 39 redundant special appropriations relating to the Commonwealth's financial framework. This would include the abolition of 39 special appropriations, including the repeal of one statutory special account and 25 redundant acts in their entirety. It is essentially a government housekeeping bill and has no material consequence in relation to the provision of government programs, funding or new policy.
The government committed to regular stocktakes of special appropriation vehicles in response to the Operation Sunlight: overhauling budgetary transparency report released in December 2008. The bill is part of an ongoing bipartisan commitment to clean up the statute books, as has occurred through five previous financial framework legislation amendment acts between 2005 and 2010 and a Statute Stocktake (Regulatory and Other Laws) Act 2009. Examples of the types of redundant legislation that this bill seeks to repeal include Papua New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Act 1974,which related to the Commonwealth's guarantee of a loan that PNG took out with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This loan has since been repaid, so the act is redundant. Second, the State Grant (Special Assistance to South Australia) Act 1960, which granted financial assistance to South Australia during the 1959-60 financial year. That appropriation has been long spent. While this bill is non-controversial in nature, it poses a question of how many other redundant pieces of legislation remain on the statute book. The government is drawing an extremely long bow in its promotion of this bill as part of its commitment to reducing red tape, at least within the government's own administration. But what it really does, in my view, is remind us of the failures of this government when it comes to reducing red tape and easing the regulatory burden on Australian businesses. Many sectors of our economy are choking in unnecessary red tape, regulations and reporting requirements. I think there has been a cultural shift over many years, and it has been accelerated most significantly in the last four years, where regulation has become a very major cost burden across so many areas of organisations and businesses. It is human nature to want to grow your business and bureaucrats are no different. They want to grow their business, and their business is regulation. They are very good at growing their business. In fact, they are expert at growing their business.
In 2007 the Rudd-Gillard government made a big pitch to business based on their commitment to cutting red tape. Labor promised to make life easier for business by pursuing a 'one in, one out' rule for new regulation. They got a lot of mileage out of the one in, one out rule for new regulation. No new law was supposed to be introduced unless an existing one was taken off the books, but instead let's look at the record. Labor have imposed 220 new regulations for each one that they have removed—220 for one, not one for one. It is a huge disparity. The more regulation that government puts on business, the more time, money and effort business people have to divert from real work to filling in forms for bureaucrats in Canberra. The corporate reporting requirements have massively increased across so many areas. Excess red tape and regulation benefits no-one. It only means more costs for business. It stops new jobs, stifles investment, lowers innovation, lessens productivity and ultimately creates a lower standard of living for Australians. The morale of hundreds of thousands of small business people in particular is lowered immeasurably by the significant growth of regulation.
The coalition will always be a pro-business party. We have demonstrated that in opposition with the policies we have put forward for small business and the stance we have taken against job-destroying new taxes. The carbon tax and mining tax will undermine our competitive advantage. The carbon tax, which will morph into an ETS, an emissions trading scheme, will be the most bureaucratic scheme you could possibly devise. The eventual emissions trading scheme will not be one scheme; it will be 1,000 schemes because there will be 1,000 Australian companies involved. Already most of those companies have spent in excess of $1 million, some of them several million dollars, seeking to start to comply with the set-up arrangements that are required for this scheme. Thousands of bureaucrats are crawling all over these 1,000 companies, and think of the regulation, intervention and involvement of bureaucracy when you get $10 billion of tax to recycle and churn.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will give you an example of regulation gone mad under this government's watch. Last year the Australian Securities and Investments Commission sent a secret directive to our top financial services companies requiring them to complete an 800-question audit—800 questions. It is breathtaking. And if they make a mistake in that document the next thing is they will be hauled before the courts. These are things that people do not see day to day, but think of the costs, the burden and the nonsense—and the arrogance, for that matter—associated with thinking that they can impose an 800-question audit on all of our financial services companies and expect them to welcome this, to be able to do it without incurring some major costs. Of course, these companies are liable before the courts if they unwittingly get something wrong in that 800-question audit.
We have also heard that the Taxation Office has been signalling to many companies and accountants that it will be using its extraordinary investigative powers to sit in and monitor in real time business deals taking place, under the guise of live auditing. If that is so, does the government support such a practice? The fact is that a culture has developed under this government where different organisations—the tax office, ASIC and others—feel that they can now interfere with critical, market sensitive, confidential material and, furthermore, interfere with established corporate governance practices and actually sit at the table when mergers and acquisitions are taking place. This is bizarre, but it is an example of the way in which regulation has gone mad under this government's watch.
The coalition is not just going to talk about reducing red tape and regulation; we are going to do something about it, unlike this government, and we are going to do something substantial. For starters, the Leader of the Opposition has announced that for the first time at a federal level we are going to develop a model to put a value on the cost to business of the regulations that are managed by each federal department. Then we are going to take an axe to red tape to the value of $1 billion a year. Our commitment to this $1 billion a year reduction follows the successful adoption of annual dollar based red tape reduction targets by the Victorian government. Victoria's approach to regulatory reform is highly regarded by business. They topped the Business Council of Australia's scorecard of red tape reform in 2007 and 2010, and the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry is supportive of Victoria's dedicated regulation reduction program. The coalition will recognise the proven success of this deregulation policy and will adapt and refine it. Federal departments will be required to inform a coalition government how many hours small business will spend filling in government paperwork and how much it will cost. This will include things like new software, advice from accountants, training and time spent away from work to learn any new requirements. Departments and bureaucrats will also have to explain how many businesses will be impacted by regulatory changes and how much they will have to do to comply. Any cost provided will need to be examined by the Productivity Commission and it will be transparent and included in departmental annual reports.
So the weight of regulation in each department will be assessed for how much it costs typical businesses in a sector, and it will be extended to identify the costs across a sector. With this information in hand, departments will then be set targets for reducing the costs to business of their regulations and the targets will add up to at least $1 billion per annum. It will be a transparent system that will enable a coalition government to properly assess the ability of departments to reduce the costs of their regulations. I think for the first time many of those in the departments will start to consider the cost implications of their regulations. They are looking to increase and extend the nature of their regulatory operations, but this time they will be forced to see the implications of those regulations.
Today we are here repealing redundant legislation. In that vein we should be repealing the volumes of legislation and regulations introduced to cover up the activities of the National Broadband Network. The NBN marks an ugly new chapter in government intervention. Australia is the only country in the world that is re-nationalising its telecommunications sector. It is an irony that we are here today repealing redundant and unnecessary legislation when on the same day the government has signed a deal to require Telstra to decommission their fixed copper network to give NBN Co. unfettered, sole access to their pits and ducts and to migrate all of their fixed line customers to the NBN. Telstra will not be able to deliver broadband over their HFC network which currently passes about 2.2 million of Australia's 7.5 million households.
To achieve this deal the government has engaged in extortion and blackmail as part of a relentless and sustained attack on one of Australia's great companies. A government monopoly is being created, with all of its attendant inefficiencies. It is being done through more regulation and by removing the transparency that should apply to even a normal corporation. We should be repealing that redundant legislation today because it is being imposed on the most dynamic and innovative sector in our economy.
Despite this bill and other legislation today being debated in the Main Committee to also improve the efficiency of legislation, we have seen this government snub its nose at good government, at transparency, at the competitive free enterprise culture in Australia and at its responsibility to efficiently manage taxpayers' dollars by holding a gun to the head of one of our major companies in order to deliver a political outcome for a desperate, dysfunctional government. Remember that this was conceived by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy on an aircraft travelling from Melbourne to Brisbane. This $50 billion investment was conceived without consulting cabinet and getting its approval. It was conceived by two people who were facing the ignominy of a failed $4.7 billion program that they had promised would solve all the problems of the world. This was a decision made for political advantage and not for the advantage of the Australian taxpayer or the telecommunications sector. This was a political decision.
Dr Leigh: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order by drawing your attention to standing order 75 relating to irrelevance and tedious repetition. The member for Goldstein is giving the same speech he gave on an unrelated matter in the Main Committee earlier today.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): There is no point of order.
Mr ROBB: We just saw another example of the embarrassment that is being caused by the government's announcement today. I thank the member for intervening because all he really did was make my case. This is a bill about repealing redundant legislation and the NBN legislation should certainly be in here.
In conclusion, mark my words: we will be back in this chamber at some point in the future to repeal the failed, dangerous and highly wasteful NBN legislation.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (17:50): I am very pleased to associate myself with the Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011 because it is a very good piece of housekeeping for the statute books. It maintains the very sound practice of this government to eliminate regulation that has become outdated or unnecessary by amending and/or repealing certain legislation, in this case over 30 pieces of legislation. As a former legal practitioner, like the good parliamentary secretary sitting at the table, it was always annoying to be confronted with outdated legislation, especially when giving advice and opinions. The reason we have this legislation before us is that this government responded to the recommendations of the Murray review. The government accepted that it should conduct a housekeeping exercise by repealing standing appropriations that are redundant and that at least annually the Department of Finance and Deregulation should undertake a review of these appropriations and report to the parliament about whether there is a continuing need for the appropriations or the legislation that is relevant to them.
I said that there are over 30 pieces of legislation being amended or repealed in this bill, but I want to highlight a few of them. There is a lovely synergy in some of the pieces of legislation that are being amended or repealed. I particularly point to the AUSSAT Repeal Act 1991, the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997 and Telecommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1997. What links these pieces of legislation? Regarding the first act, AUSSAT was the former government satellite provider. In 1991, under the Hawke Labor government, we began 20 years of very well managed telecommunications liberalisation. We went from a managed duopoly to an oligopoly to what we have today—full competition in telecommunications markets. We started out in discrete areas of services. First we liberalised international services and then long distance. When mobile came into effect we had the duopoly and then we had the entry of other carriers in order to provide competition. The result was that in some areas of our telecommunications sector we did have a very strong regulator and we enabled competition to develop and flourish.
I now turn to the Telecommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act, which in 1997 formed the basis of what became the 1997 reforms, but of course had its genesis yet again in the reformist Hawke-Keating years. They took on the idea that we should not have competition in the telecommunications sector. They actually opened up competition in the form in which we have now, with open carrier licences and carriers and carriage service providers basically being able to operate and compete in every single facet of our telecommunications system.
Finally, there is the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act. What links all of these three things? It is a lovely synergy that on this of all days we are looking at this legislation, because we had the announcement of the deal between the government and Telstra that facilitates the structural separation of Telstra and opens up for the first time broadband services and infrastructure in Australia to proper competition. What does the Snowy Hydro act have to do with it? The NBN is the biggest infrastructure development in Australia since the Snowy Mountains Scheme.
The entry into the definitive agreements and the paving of the way for the structural separation of Telstra achieves something that was not achieved by the Howard government. They attempted to deal with it. I lost count of the number of times we would go to conferences and talk about the sticking points for competition to develop telecommunications and particularly to develop new services such as broadband, and I am sure I heard the member for Bradfield give these exact speeches on this topic on many occasions. On how many occasions were we confronted with the inability of the market to deliver affordable and accessible broadband throughout Australia?
It is a tremendous day today as we have the definitive agreements being entered into with NBN Co. to give them immediate access to Telstra infrastructure—the pits and pipes—to support the rollout of second-release sites on the mainland. Why is this so important? The reason is that it goes to the fundamental 'telco 101' of why we have infrastructure investment and how this leads to competition at the retail level for the benefit of consumers.
As someone who represents an area that is a second-release site on the mainland—and in fact the first Sydney metro rollout will be occurring in Riverstone, in my electorate—this is very welcome news. It means that NBN Co. will be able to use the existing pits, ducts and pipes that are already in place. Having this agreement in place means that we can get on with the job of delivering the NBN with certainty for investors and for NBN Co.
It is interesting to point out that this access to infrastructure is over a minimum 35-year period, reducing duplications and enabling efficient use of existing facilities. Under the agreement Telstra is going to provide much of the infrastructure needed to build the network. As I said in my first speech, it really does establish for the first time 'a national piece of telecommunications utility infrastructure' by enabling the wholesale layer of the network to be ubiquitous and capable of being regulated in a way that ensures all retail service providers have not only equivalent access but also equivalent price irrespective of whether you live in regional or rural or outer metro seats, such as mine. It will mean that competition will flourish, because you effectively 'disinfect' the wholesale layer of the network.
We heard the member for Wentworth talking today, with his same old rhetoric. He has not been able to get a question up on the NBN in question time until today. I have been able to get far more questions up on the NBN and I am just a humble backbencher. The member for Wentworth keeps banging on about how this is a raw deal for Australians and for Telstra and everyone else involved. I think we need to look at the facts. Telstra has entered into this agreement of its own free will and, secondly, we are entering into this and building the NBN because the market has failed. When it came to broadband accessibility and affordability in Australia the market failed and when markets fail we on this side of the House step in and regulate to the extent necessary in order to ensure certain equitable social outcomes. That is what makes us different. We were not so different some time ago. Those opposite once believed in markets, but it seems they do not believe in markets when it comes to some aspects of policy and of law.
I sympathise with the member for Wentworth. He ran a really good dial-up company so he would know a lot about this. Harking back to the consideration in detail on the NBN legislation earlier in the week the member for Wentworth talked about how the issue of access to broadband is about poverty. What would this bloke know about poverty? In 12 years under the Howard government there were 20 or so failed plans and they delivered absolutely nothing. They did not even recognise that the market had failed and yet they have the hide to come in here with no knowledge, by the way. But that does not stop them from having an opinion on something they know nothing about. They have no knowledge at all about what it is like to be representing areas that have suffered for too long from a lack of access to high-speed and ubiquitous broadband, and they have the hide to come in here and say that they oppose the NBN. For so many years they did absolutely nothing and they will stand condemned for it. The coalition should get out into the community a bit, where they are not asking why we are getting the NBN but when we are getting the NBN.
To conclude, I want to talk about one other aspect of some of the laws that are being amended by this statute-book cleanup. They relate to a couple of superannuation acts, some of them a bit more obscure than others, but it does give me an opportunity to talk about superannuation, another area that was defined by the visionary Hawke-Keating government, which identified that superannuation and our ageing population were going to be a massive issue in years to come. I do want to mention on the issue of superannuation how the coalition went to the last election with a so-called plan for action—just like they had a plan for action on telecommunications, which actually advocated using a copper network. They were so concerned about superannuation, guess how many dot points they could muster up on superannuation—four dot points and less than two pages in their plan for action on a very critical area of public policy. Only last night we heard the shadow Treasurer confirm the coalition's opposition to this government's plan to increase the retirement savings of Australians by lifting the superannuation guarantee rate from nine to 12 per cent. The opposition is simply committed to standing in the way of sensible reform that has received ample support from the Australian population, including the superannuation industry itself. This increase from nine to12 per cent is sound and has the support of key industry groups such as the FSC, the AIST and ASFA. Let us not forget, when those opposite were in government they were obsessed with tinkering with the superannuation system. It is those opposite who riddled the superannuation industry with the superannuation surcharge tax, which was an additional tax on superannuation contributions between August 1996 and July 2005, when they finally bowed to industry pressure to abolish what they had so foolishly introduced. To this day, superannuation providers, retirees and the Taxation Office are still grappling with the disastrous legacy left behind by the superannuation surcharge tax.
This government is committed to the superannuation industry. We are committed to making a positive difference in the retirement savings of Australians, as set out by the Assistant Treasurer in his statement only last night. That is why this government is working with the industry to make the most of the recommendations of the Cooper review and to ensure that we prosecute the case for the superannuation guarantee rate to be lifted from nine to 12 per cent. This legislation is very timely in terms of the beautiful synergy we have today, where everybody else in Australia other than those opposite is happy that the NBN is taking one more step towards being developed on the mainland, and that cannot come soon enough for the residents of Riverstone—the site of the first Sydney metro roll-out site and an area that I represent.
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (18:02): The House is actually debating the Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011, but superannuation and statute and stocktake all start with the same letter so I suppose that is the link. I thank the member for Greenway for her spirited contribution about deregulation and about how red tape will be made so much easier in the telco sector by a government that has used taxpayers' money to wipe out the competitors. And Labor has the hide to say it is interested in markets—have you ever heard such utter nonsense in all of your life? They are so committed to telecommunications, they are going to wipe out all of the competition. That will reduce red tape! No-one will have to worry about considering options or about consumer outcomes—the government will just use taxpayers' money to take out the competitors. That is a very interesting approach to markets, and that perhaps identifies why a cost-benefit analysis on the NBN project has not been done. It would have highlighted that there were so many better ways of going about this project. Like everything else that seems to happen in this place, it is all about Labor playing the political game and putting good public policy way, way, way down the priority list.
The Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) affects 36 acts—it amends 11 acts and repeals 25 others. It repeals 39 redundant special appropriations relating to the Commonwealth's financial framework, including one statutory special account, and 25 redundant acts in their entirety. The bill has no potential impact that we can observe, and certainly the coalition will not oppose it. What we wish, though, is that this housecleaning of statutes actually transforms into a genuine deregulation agenda. It seems there is no problem that this Rudd-Gillard government or Gillard-Rudd government—we will see, in time—thinks cannot be fixed with more regulation. They used to think there was no problem that could not be solved by spending billions of taxpayers' dollars, but those days are gone. We are borrowing $135 million a day to keep the place ticking over, and that throw-money-at-it strategy is certainly putting strains on the fiscal circumstances of the Commonwealth and putting upward pressure on interest rates, making it hard for small businesses to access funds. They cannot spend money like that now, so the option is to regulate the wazoo out of it and that will somehow solve the problem.
Whilst this Statute Stocktake Bill does some housecleaning and removes some legislation that no longer serves any useful purpose, it does not go to what is really required and what I hope the parliament will increasingly turn its focus to, and that is a genuine effort to lift the regulatory burden and make sure we remove pointless and needless and overly prescriptive regulation that serves no positive outcome for the nation and its citizens. It is an enormous drain on the economy. It displaces resources. It has been estimated that each year compliance with regulation costs around $80 billion, so it is not surprising that the broader community, particularly the small business community, is completely disbelieving of Labor claims that they will do something about deregulation.
We have heard that deregulation in telecommunications means using taxpayers' money to wipe out the competitors and to buy out their assets and their customers and then make sure you shut down the hybrid fibre coax network that is already placed to deliver about 100 megahertz to 3,000,000 households. You just buy that out so there is no competition. That is a very interesting form of deregulation.
The objective of this Statute Stocktake Bill is to do some housework. We saw some housework when the Labor government committed to implement BAS Easy to ease the GST compliance burden—a way of completing quarterly BASs in minutes was the claim. Dr Emerson made that claim, amongst many. Labor estimated that its GST plan would apply to about 1.4 million small businesses, with turnover from $50,000 down to around $2 million. However, the housecleaning that was involved with that particular measure was simply to sweep it under the carpet. The government quietly revoked its promise to implement BAS Easy and reneged on its promise to simplify goods and services tax paperwork for small business. It is a pity that initiative was not captured and in the spirit of the bill before the chamber.
There was another commitment made, one which is also not captured in any statutory sense, certainly not in the Statute Stocktake (No. 1) Bill, and that was the promise of one in, one out. Remember that promise? What a great idea that was. I know the Labor Party was quite pleased when it made the promise before the 2007 election that that would be its approach to regulation—one in, one out. Yet the statistics tell a different story. The actual outcomes, the stats provided by the Commonwealth's own ComLaw register, are quite damning and reveal an abysmal performance by the Labor government against its own one in, one out commitment. Between 2008 and 2010, the Commonwealth's own ComLaw register revealed that federal Labor introduced 12,835 new regulations. On the one in, one out basis—and I am prepared to cut the government a bit of slack—even 10,000, 11,000 or 12,000 would have been close to that but, no, there have been 12,835 new regulations and only 58 repealed. To quote Maxwell Smart in Get Smart, 'missed by that much'. What an abysmal performance: 12,835 new regulations in, 58 only repealed. So much for the one in, one out commitment. That rounds out to about 220 new regulations for each one they have removed, way off anything that would be a respectable performance.
Who can forget the Gillard government's desire—in fact, they spruiked about it today—as of 1 July to make small businesses the 'pay clerk' for the Gillard government's paid parental leave scheme? I am all for parents getting paid parental leave. In fact the coalition's policy is very much superior in that regard. What I am not for is the government coming in with its deficient scheme and imposing on small employers the red tape and cost burden of being the pay clerk for the government's own deficient scheme. That is not helping. That is not a cleaning out of excessive red tape. That is adding more burden. That is the kind of measure I would have liked to have seen in this bill. In fact it did not even need to be in this bill—the private member's bill I introduced to achieve that objective was defeated in this chamber by the government and the Independents, and they stand condemned for that insensitivity to the regulatory burden on time- and cash-scarce small businesses.
It goes further. Look at the Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten. He is very keen and probably wondering, a year out since the last change of leader, whether maybe he is due. That may be what he is thinking. It is hard to know. When we highlighted the government's plan inspired by secret union meetings to undertake a coordinated attack on independent contractors and self-employed people he said, 'No, I won't do anything; I won't even make life harder for any independent contractors.' That was his promise but again there was another broken promise, as we saw in this budget—not a relieving of regulation but new regulatory burdens being imposed on businesses that engage independent contractors, in addition to the stalking and the terrorising that is going on of independent contractors and self-employed people through the tax office, Fair Work Australia and the Australian Building and Construction Commission, all of whom should have more pressing and high-priority tasks to pursue rather than hound and harass people out of independent contracting.
Who else can remember the Office of Best Practice Regulation and the annual reports which come out each year, only to discover that this government and the host office of the Office of Best Practice Regulation systematically ignore the advice on major decisions which then had significant implications particularly for small businesses and family enterprises. That effort to tidy up the regulatory process, to get some rigour and commitment to best practice regulation, rightsizing regulation—not excessive, punishing regulation that serves no good public policy purpose—could have been in this Statute Stocktake bill(No 1). That would have been worth while but again that is not in the bill either.
Then you wonder what about the minister, Senator Sherry, the Marcel Marceau of the frontbench. You never hear from him. He never speaks up for small business. Instead, he is the prophet of doom for booksellers around Australia at a time they are doing a terrific job in a difficult retail environment made worse by this incompetent government. What does Senator Sherry have to say? He was asked why, when almost half of everyone employed in the private sector is employed in a small business, the Rudd or the Gillard government will not have the small business minister in cabinet, to keep an eye on regulatory overreach and disproportionate burden being imposed on small businesses and family enterprises. He is responsible—and I quote with some 'clarity':
Whether or not I'm in cabinet, frankly, hmmm, I don't think is a great deal of help to small business.
As a minister ever been damned so comprehensively by his own words? He is not sure he can make a difference. He is certainly not making one now. He seems to imply that even if he were in Cabinet he still would not make a contribution. This in part explains why 300,000 jobs have been lost from small business since the election of the Labor government.
So who is on the beat checking out the regulatory burdens that are being imposed? Who is feeding into what I hoped would have been a much more substantial bill which really looked at deregulation systematically and more seriously? Thank goodness the coalition is focusing on that. The question of genuine concern confronting time-poor small businesses is: who is doing that work? Our commitment is that the coalition will do that work. Small businesses are time poor; they are increasingly tied up in red tape which reflects the sense that federal Labor has talked a good game but simply not delivered when it comes to red tape reduction.
Small business rightly recognises that time and effort spent on red tape comes at a cost. It is in the coalition's DNA to help small business get ahead and to help small businesses who have been forgotten by Labor and are suffering in a patchwork economy that, for small business, is threadbare. The coalition is determined to ensure that the government makes it easier and not harder for small business to prosper and grow. Excess red tape and regulation benefits no-one. It only means more costs for businesses, stops new jobs, stifles investment, obstructs innovation, impedes productivity and ultimately reduces the standard of living and opportunities available to Australians. The amount of regulation being imposed sees small businesses not waving goodbye to regulation but drowning under the weight of it as they are in a difficult economic climate being made worse by this incompetent government. Consolidation of new regulations into one instrument can be little more than window dressing where one does not properly evaluate the cost and effort of complying with the regulatory obligations. Fewer words do not necessarily amount to reduced red-tape burdens and compliance costs. In fact, that might require small businesses to go out and get advice and interpretation. There might be fewer words and fewer passages but the burden, the cost and the impost may be much greater than if clearly articulated, right-sized, small business sensitive regulation had been developed in the first instance. Poor quality efforts at 'harmonisation' may be a bonus for big corporations operating in multiple jurisdictions while disadvantaging small business operators located in a single state where specific and familiar requirements are replaced with new and inappropriate 'one size fits all' rules. Small business costs and compliance impacts are clearly not a priority for this Labor government.
My friend and colleague the member for Goldstein, Mr Robb, has outlined a comprehensive coalition commitment to reduce red tape, the cost and the weight of the regulatory impost and to actually hold ministers and departments accountable for these outcomes. A coalition government would reduce the burden of red tape by at least $1 billion every year. It would do that by making bureaucrats tell us how many hours small businesses are spending filling out government paperwork and how much this costs. It would include things like what new software is required, advice from accountants, training and time spent, the actual cost, and effort required in meeting the compliance obligation being imposed upon them. This would involve obliging departments and bureaucrats to explain how many businesses will be impacted and what they will actually have to do to comply and then getting proper metrics from the Productivity Commission about what all this effort actually amounts to and reporting outcomes in departmental reports. It is about adopting a principle of minimum effective regulation for proposals to amend or extend compliance burdens to small business once being satisfied that the best and most effective and most justified public policy response is a regulatory one rather than other public policy options. It is about being fair dinkum about one in, one out.
These are issues I would have liked to have seen in this Statute Stocktake Bill—a comprehensive, fair dinkum commitment to actually deliver red-tape reductions. We have a real target and a practical action plan to achieve the removal of at least $1 billion in red-tape costs each and every year. Coalition ministers and their departments will have to meet targets and they will be held to account. We understand that for small business men and women less paperwork means a chance to earn better profits, boost sales, create opportunities for their community and, critically, spend more time with their families—because small business people are people too. (Time expired)
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (18:17): I thank all those who have contributed to the debate on the Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011 and, in particular, on the matter of the National Broadband Network, that having been raised by the member for Goldstein. I thank the member for Greenway for her excellent contribution on the announcement of the National Broadband Network deal today. It is, of course, a network that is going to confer lasting benefits on all of the people of Australia.
The Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011 seeks to reduce red tape by amending legislation across a range of portfolios to repeal redundant special appropriations and a statutory special account. This is consistent with the government's response to the report Operation Sunlight: Overhauling Budgetary Transparency. The bill, if passed, would abolish 39 special appropriations, including a statutory special account, by repealing redundant provisions in 11 acts and repealing 25 acts in their entirety. This reflects the government's commitment to enhance transparency and accountability in the Commonwealth's financial framework.
Finally, I would like to particularly acknowledge the efforts of those officials, from across the Commonwealth, who assisted in preparing this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr DREYFUS: by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Sitting suspended from 18:20 to 21:26
Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (21:27): Mr Speaker, it is great to see you and the whole chamber here to hear about what a rotten piece of legislation we have before us right now. Colleagues might recall that it was some time back in November when our side of the chamber introduced a price-signalling bill to deal with the gap in the competition law. The Treasurer was repeatedly warned year after year in petrol inquiries and in decisions on mergers and acquisitions and on areas of concern in other parts of the economy, where the ACCC was saying to the Treasurer, 'Please give us some price signalling powers to tackle that near-collusive conduct that cannot be addressed by Australia's competition laws.' It took the coalition to implement a private member's bill. It was like a cattle prod in the side of the Treasurer, who had to do something.
Despite the coalition not having the resources of the Commonwealth and not having the resources of lawyers and tens of thousands of public servants we got the job done and developed a new piece of competition law that tackled anti-competitive price signalling. I emphasise anti-competitive price signalling, because any members in this place who have ever had any interest whatsoever in competition law will know that price signalling can sometimes be advantageous to consumers and pro-competition; it can deliver better results for consumers and better results for the economy. There is no blanket evil on price signalling. It can be positive or it can be negative. What was required was carefully crafted legislation to take out and deal with the anti-competitive price signalling that may occur and may damage competition in our economy and is detrimental to the interests of consumers. That was what was needed, not the ham-fisted, 'mine is bigger than yours' approach we ended up seeing from the Treasurer. After the introduction of the coalition's private member's bill the government came out and said yes, despite the government and the Treasurer being asleep at the wheel, despite there being no minister for competition. Do you know, competition policy has been relegated to the unnaturally handsome, but still parliamentary secretary, David Bradbury, the extra on Sea Patrol—so close to his election, so close to his political death he ends up as an extra on Sea Patrol. He is a lovely man but he ain't no minister. He may be one day, when there is a future Labor government. When he is in his fifties or something like that he may be a minister. They do not even have a minister for competition law. What they have is a Treasurer, a Treasurer not known for his economic policy nous but for his self-opinion as a political heavy-hitter. The Treasurer is pretty keen on engaging in combative political debate that vaguely has some relevance to the economy. What he is not is somebody with a commitment to sound economic policy to support the wellbeing and prosperity of our country.
So what does the Treasurer do? The Treasurer sits back, realises he should have acted years ago after ignoring the pleas from the ACCC. He sees that the coalition has managed to develop a very credible and sound price-signalling bill and he thinks, 'Golly, I'd better do something; we'd better do something.' He comes out with this idea, months after the coalition has released its private member's bill, with an exposure draft. Even with all those resources, they drop out an exposure draft. But it takes a very special gift to be so incompetent and disengaged, as our Treasurer is, to drop out an exposure draft that lets loose with a tsunami of criticism from competition lawyers, and to then be able to ignore all of that advice and bring legislation into the chamber that is still deficient and less competent than the opposition's private member's bill. What kind of a gift does that take! Our Treasurer has managed to do that.
After all of the legwork that has been done for him by the coalition and after a process of asking people for their input, the Treasurer in a gifted way ignored all of that input and all of the processes that should be there to help collaboratively develop a piece of competition law that needs to be carefully thought through. What do we get from the Treasurer? There is a common position where both sides of parliament think this needs to be addressed and there is a collaborative and cooperative opposition that does the legwork for him, an opposition that works with the Selection Committee to get a parliamentary inquiry to examine this carefully, because getting it wrong could have very substantial consequences for our economy. All of that goodwill, all of that legwork, all of that competent public policy work, and our Treasurer still manages to mess it up!
The Treasurer then takes his effort at the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill, the exposure draft, and brings a bill into this chamber—and what does he manage to do? He manages to ignore some of the most recognised and competent competition academics in the country. He manages to ignore some of the most expert competition lawyers in the major law firms. He manages to ignore all the international best practice about how to deal with price signalling with facilitating concerted practices that may be anti-collusive. But the Treasurer manages to ignore all that wisdom and bring in here an undercooked, underdone, underdeveloped bill that deserves to be rejected by this parliament.
But on top of that, we put in place a parliamentary inquiry to examine our private member's bill. And the government is keen to allow months for that to happen. We are even blessed with a visit from our excellent colleagues from the ACCC, on a very short leash about what they can actually say. They came along, we had the Bankers Association calmed a little bit—because they were apoplectic about what the government was doing. They had seen this exposure draft but not the government's final product, so they came along. It was all about everyone wanting to have a look at the coalition's private member's bill. And then what happens? The government brings in its bill. Do you know how many people got to appear before the committee on the government's bill? Zero! Not one person was given the courtesy of being heard by the House of Representatives Economics Committee.
And how many exchanges with those same policy experts, so available to examine my private member's bill, were made available to the committee to look at the government's bill? An egg: a big zero; nobody. So within a period of days the Treasurer comes in and goes, 'Here's my bill.' The business community was given about five days to deal with the Treasurer's finished product on changing the competition laws in our economy. Everyone works their tails off. They put in a submission. I get to look at them when? A couple of days ago. And what do we find? All of the wise counsel and the advice, the cautionary tales, the stories about how exemptions are not going to work—what happens with all that advice? The government ignores it. What a gift: the Treasurer takes a common position of a need to improve the competition law. The Treasurer takes the legwork of the coalition, that actually got the process going and prompted the government to do something quite belatedly. The Treasurer takes the collaborative willingness of this side of the House to work through these bills through the government controlled House economics committee.
And then what does the Treasurer do, with a special kind of gift? He manages to come up with a divergent pathway. He is entitled to do that. But then he comes up with a completely divisive approach to trying to tackle this challenge and produces defective legislation that fails any economic public policy and competition law test. And then he diminishes this parliament by saying, 'Well, the House economics committee can have a red hot crack at Billson's bill, but we won't let them get anywhere near the government's bill.'
The government should be condemned for the way it has handled this issue. It risks damage to the economy, it risks damage to the economic wellbeing of Australia—and the only upside is all of a sudden I have 21 more minutes to keep going! There is some upside to what is happening tonight!
What we have is a very poor piece of legislation. The government's bill before the House has two key categories in it. One is what is called a per se liability. That per se liability basically says: you do this stuff, you've broken the law. And it is justified on the basis that those offences have no redeeming quality whatsoever, that they should be a blanket prohibition and you have broken the law. That is the argument. But on these per se provisions, that are so clear-cut, so demonstrably evil in the eyes of the government, they have then come up with a shopping list of exemptions. Most people are thinking, 'Hang on, if it's so clear-cut that you should introduce a per se liability for conduct that might both be procompetitive and anticompetitive, we don't care.' The government say it is so evil you will immediately have committed an offence if you do any of those things. And what do the government also say? 'We don't care if it does or doesn't damage competition. We don't care if you did or didn't mean it.' That is what a per se liability is. If this bill passes we will have the rare of distinction of being the only jurisdiction in the world that has taken an area of near collusive behaviour that can both be procompetitive and anticompetitive, proconsumer and anticonsumer, and we have decided it is all bad. What a moronic way of drafting this legislation! All of this could have been overcome if the government were not so arrogant, so pigheaded, so politically motivated and if their mine-is-bigger-than-yours approach to this change to competition law had not driven them to this point now where we have a defective bill that should not pass this parliament. There is no way this bill should pass the parliament.
Mr Bradbury interjecting—
Mr BILLSON: My friend, the extra from Sea Patrol, interjects—I hear a seagull in the background and the waves! He asks me, 'What about the amendment?' He has an amendment on one issue, and this per se area of prohibition deals with private communication. If you have a distressed business or a household that is insolvent and it owes money to more than one bank, do you know what happens? The banks have to talk to each other. They say, 'Hey, Bank, how much do they owe you?' And they say, 'They owe us this much. How much do they owe you?' They try and work out some way through this financially distressed or insolvent position to get that person out of the circumstances they are in. Under the government's original bill, they would have broken the law—a very standard business practice. That area, they realised belatedly, was something that should be addressed.
What happened yesterday? We got an amendment dropped on us. This bill was so magnificent that it did not even need to be reviewed, and we got an amendment dropped on us. What is that amendment? It partly goes towards dealing with one of a dozen problems with the bill. What about the other 11? Are we just going to let those go? What about issues of syndicated loans? What about issues of joint ventures that go beyond a project or an enterprise to joint venture or the joint acquisition of assets and goods? They have not managed to come up with those things. I want to share this with the parliament because I am sure everyone is absolutely gripped by this topic! Let me share with you an assessment. This is how one of the leading competition law experts in Australia characterised the government's bill:
The CCA Bill does not resolve the fundamental problems with the Exposure Draft.
They go on to say:
The CCA Bill is highly unsatisfactory and should not be enacted.
My particular favourite is the assessment that this bill is world's worst practice in dealing with price signalling and facilitating practices. Is that the hallmark of a good piece of legislation?
Mr Speaker, I look up at the clock and I see I have 16½ minutes to go—it is a beautiful thing! On the basis of 16½ minutes to go, I do seek leave to continue my remarks. I am pretty certain I could make some useful contribution in the 16 minutes that appear to be still available to me.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 5) Bill 2011
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Remuneration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate ' s amendments—
(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 14 (lines 14 and 15), omit paragraph (d) of the definition of parliamentary allowance in subsection 4(1), substitute:
(d) parliamentary base salary (within the meaning of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973), less any portion determined under subsection 7(1A) of that Act.
(2) Schedule 2, item 6, page 15 (lines 24 and 25), omit paragraph (b) of the definition of parliamentary allowance in section 3, substitute:
(b) parliamentary base salary (within the meaning of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973).
(3) Schedule 2, item 14, page 16 (lines 20 to 23), omit the definition of parliamentary allowance in clause 1A of Schedule3, substitute:
parliamentary allowance means parliamentary base salary (within the meaning of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973).
(4) Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 2), before item 17, insert:
16A Subsection 3(1)
Insert:
parliamentary base salary means so much of the allowances determined under subsection 7(1) as:
(a) represents the annual allowance payable for the purposes of section 48 of the Constitution; and
(b) is identified in the determination as base salary.
(5) Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 4), after item 17, insert:
17A After subsection 7(1)
Insert:
(1A) The Tribunal may determine that a portion of parliamentary base salary is not parliamentary allowance for the purposes of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948.
(6) Schedule 2, item 19, page 17 (line 14), after "subsection(1)", insert ", (1A)".
(7) Schedule 2, item 20, page 17 (line 25), after "subsection 7(1)", insert ", (1A)".
Mr ALBANESE: I move
That the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 21:43
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 09:30.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 09:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Dawson Electorate: Hydeaway Bay
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (09:30): I rise to highlight the plight of residents in Hydeaway Bay in my electorate of Dawson. The threat to life and property from the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi has passed, and life goes on smoothly for most. But that is not the case for the residents of Hydeaway Bay. They were very lucky that no-one was killed or seriously injured when, after the deluge of rain we got in the north in the months following Cyclone Yasi, tonnes of mud and rock slid down the side of the mountain earlier this year, narrowly missing homes and forcing the evacuation of dozens of families from the area. I have since had several meetings with residents of Hydeaway Bay who have emotional tales of fear and uncertainty that continue today.
They heard the terrible roar as mud and rocks as big as small cars crashed through trees, swept through their yards and passed their homes. It happened again and again during those few days. They know it can happen again even now, but they do not know when or where. Any noise in the night makes them ask, 'Is this the one?' Residents of Hydeaway Bay now know that landslides have happened there before. They have been told that a council engineer advised that the hill was unstable and should not be developed, but it was developed. People bought blocks of land unaware of the history of the site or the potential for landslides. These residents formed an action group in a bid to fix the problem. They have requested a geotechnical survey to determine the extent of the problem and they want stabilising work to be carried out. If the area cannot be made safe they want the local government to buy back properties, as has been the case in other areas.
For my part, I sought to secure disaster relief payments for residents who had to evacuate their homes because of the landslide, which was essentially caused by heavy rain. Sadly my request was denied by the Attorney-General this month for reasons I could not really work out, but the biggest hurdle to my efforts and the efforts of the local action group is the local mayor, Mike Brunker, who has swept residents' concerns aside and actively derided attempts to secure disaster relief payments. In doing so, he has basically signalled that he thinks the residents of Hydeaway Bay were better off after this landslide than some of the people in the town of Bowen who had no electricity for two days after Cyclone Yasi hit and yet received disaster relief payments. I can assure Mr Brunker that the events at Hydeaway Bay were very different. They were life-threatening and will continue to be life-threatening until something is done. I have seen damaged properties, including one with probably more than $10,000 worth of damage. Immediately after the event, Mr Brunker was quoted in the Townsville Bulletin as saying:
I'm worried about the people living there and they are worried as well.
Two weeks later he changed his tune when talking to the ABC and said that the event was not significant enough to activate the funding because:
… no-one's been in hardship, so no payments will be required.
Is this a backflip brought on by recognition of negligence on the local government's part? Either way, Mr Brunker has proved that he is in no way capable of representing ordinary people. I have written to the Queensland recovery authority and Major General Mick Slater to request a site visit and request that the authority advise the state government or force the council to rectify the problem.
Australia-New Zealand Relationship
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (09:33): In light of the visit this week by the Rt Hon. John Key, Prime Minister of New Zealand, I wish to make some comments on Australia's close relationship with our neighbour New Zealand. My electorate has a special connection with New Zealand given that according to statistics provided by the City of Casey there are approximately 5,000 residents of the local population who were born in New Zealand and who are now living in my electorate of Holt.
New Zealand residents in the electorate of Holt have enriched our local community and have definitely brought their rich culture to the fore. The New Zealand residents in my local community have also brought with them, somewhat disconcertingly, their passion for rugby to suburbs like Hampton Park, Doveton, Cranbourne and Narre Warren, as many residents are now diehard Melbourne Storm fans, which again concerns me, and are also looking forward to following the Rugby World Cup that starts on 9 September this year in New Zealand. I understand that even our local Mayor of the City of Casey, Councillor Shar Balmes, has New Zealand heritage. In recent times the thoughts of this community and the local community generally have been with New Zealand as our close neighbour across the Tasman has experienced a profound series of tragedies in recent months. The first was when an explosion ripped through the Pike River mine in November last year. Obviously, Australia was quick to respond and offer assistance by sending our specialists, experts and machinery to assist with the recovery effort. Unfortunately, as we know, 29 brave individuals died as a result of this tragedy, including two Australians, and our thoughts are with them and their friends and family. Following this tragedy the city of Christchurch, which had already experienced a 7.1-magnitude earthquake in September 2010, suffered a more severe 6.3-magnitude earthquake closer to the surface on 22 February 2011. This earthquake caused widespread damage across Christchurch, particularly in the central city and eastern suburbs, with damage exacerbated by buildings and infrastructure already weakened by the 4 September earthquake and its aftershocks.
Significant liquefaction affected the eastern suburbs of the city, producing around 200,000 tonnes of silt. In total, 181 people were killed in the earthquake, making the earthquake the second-deadliest natural disaster recorded in New Zealand. Following the earthquake 300 members of the Australian police, as the New Zealand Prime Minister and our Australian Prime Minister have said, arrived in Christchurch to a spontaneous standing ovation—emphasising the ties between our two countries. The damage is of the order of NZ$15-16 billion, making it New Zealand's costliest natural disaster. Given the loss of life and the profound suffering experienced by those in Christchurch and New Zealand and particularly given the number of people in my electorate who have New Zealand heritage and background, it has been a very difficult time for them but I reassure them that our thoughts are with them at this very difficult time and I note there have been some aftershocks subsequently and even recently. These people make a significant contribution to the life in our multicultural community and they are a significant part and a good part of that community. (Time expired)
Hinkler Electorate: Bruce Highway
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (09:36): The LNP Bruce Highway group's fight to get more funding for the highway has been bolstered by the RACQ's recent Unroadworthy Roads survey, which reports its entire length as being amongst the top 10 worst state and national road networks in Queensland. Our highway group will be redoubling efforts to get serious funding for improvements such as road resurfacing and widening, as well as more overtaking lanes and additional maintenance. I already have a number of highway black spots in my electorate and I would like to see them fixed as a matter of priority. As a member of the group, I will be asking local residents to put forward their own nominations for repair and rehabilitation.
Every member of the LNP's lobby group knows the importance of fixing the highway, and we are committed to seeing billions going into improvements and upgrades over the coming years. I ache when I see waste by some government departments while the vital arterial roads which service Queensland struggle for funding. So I make no apology for keeping up judicious pressure. Having said that, I am not churlish so I recognise that work is now well advanced on the Isis River Bridge at a site that is not only dangerous in its own right but a major bottleneck at flood time
Under Labor, our nation's finances have been in such an appalling state that the 2011-12 budget did not contain one additional dollar towards fixing the Bruce Highway. In fact, the only announcement of any significance for the next 12 months was the reinstatement of five previously deferred upgrades. That is nowhere near good enough. The RACQ's survey mirrors my own concerns about the government's failure to get serious about the highway and it also highlights state and federal Labor's neglect of regional and local roads which are vital as part of our investment profile. A prime example is Old Toogoom Road in my electorate, which has been the subject of two coalition election pledges, whilst Labor has studiously ignored it. In fact, it was listed in the top five worst individual roads in Queensland; whereas I have pledged $1 million towards fixing it at two elections, Labor has consistently failed to match that. It must be said that the Old Toogoom Road had to be 'named' and Labor 'shamed' to get any action on it. I hope that it, along with the Urraween extension and River Heads Road in the Hervey Bay area will be seriously considered by the federal government as being in areas where an expanding community needs additional support.
Isaacs Electorate: Take a Break Occasional Childcare Program
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (09:39): The Victorian Liberal government is set to scrap an important childcare program called Take a Break from September this year. I want to clear up some misinformation put out by the Baillieu government. Take a Break program operates from our neighbourhood and community centres and provides respite for parents and carers of children up to the age of six, enabling them to participate in recreational and social activities or undertake volunteer or part-time work that would otherwise not be possible. It is disappointing that the new Liberal government has decided to cut the $1.9 million needed for the Take a Break program. The Baillieu government has also cut $480 million from the Victorian education department's budget.
The decision to cease funding of this program will impact on hundreds of families and leave many childcare staff across neighbourhood houses in Victoria with uncertain futures. The Baillieu government had promised to continue funding the program until the end of this year, but has reneged on this agreement also. Wendy Lovell, the Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development said in the Victorian parliament on 14 June that occasional care providers are required to deliver at least three months of the program from 1 July 2011 and can use the remaining three months of funding for transitional arrangements. This means that the Take a Break program is likely to end prematurely in September 2011 as centres are forced to meet the cost of redundancy payments to staff.
Previously this important program was funded by the state and federal governments. In July 2010, the federal government agreed to provide an additional $210.6 million over five years for the Victorian government to support preschools. In acknowledging the substantial increase in funding for early childhood education, the previous state Labor government agreed to fully fund the Take a Break program. The significant funding boost delivered by the federal government for early childhood education and childcare in Victoria is part of the Commonwealth's $20 million reform process that will see areas that were previously funded solely by state and territory governments receiving significant additional investment from the Commonwealth over the next four years.
On Monday many concerned mums, dads, grandparents and carers joined together across Victoria to express their disappointment at the decision by the Baillieu government to axe this program and called for the Baillieu government to commit to funding this program. Tomorrow I will meet with parents and carers at Chelsea Occasional Childcare Centre to discuss how beneficial the Take a Break program has been and how the decision by the Baillieu government to slash the program will impact on their families, staff and neighbourhood houses. I have written to state Liberal representatives Wendy Lovell, the minister, as well as to Lorraine Wreford, the Liberal member for Mordialloc, Donna Bauer, the Liberal member for Carrum and Inga Peulich, the Liberal member for South East Metropolitan Region in the state Legislative Council calling on them to demand that Mr Baillieu immediately restore the funding for this very important program.
Hasluck Electorate: Schools
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (09:42): I normally do not rise in a negative mood, but today I highlight the misleading advertising being produced by the Labor Party in my electorate of Hasluck. This week, half-page advertisements in some local papers by Senator Pratt stated that the Gillard government is delivering the biggest investments ever into WA schools. The advertisements also claim that Labor is helping families balance the budget. These points are misleading and an attempt by the Prime Minister to stop the bleeding of her credibility in my electorate. Just last week, for example, coalition senators stopped Labor from axing the childcare rebate, hardly the position of a government that is helping the family budget to balance. In contrast, this is the first budget delivered by a federal government in eight years that is not providing tax cuts for everyday Australians. In fact, Labor is stripping away $2 billion in support for families and imposing $6 billion worth of new and higher taxes.
As for Hasluck schools, Labor's waste gets worse. The computers in schools program has blown out by a further $200 million, taking the total cost up to $1.4 billion. Add to this $11.6 million extra in waste spending by the Gillard Labor government to clean up the mess left behind by the Building the Education Revolution. These vast sums of money are just numbers to Labor governments which rely so heavily on tax and spend instead of being fiscally responsible with my constituents' money.
My office receives calls and emails every day from constituents concerned about Labor's failed border protection policies. It has lost control of Australia's borders and the cost of maintaining asylum seekers has bloated to $1.75 billion since last year's budget. The so-called Malaysian solution alone is approaching $300 million. That is $2 billion wasted by this reckless alliance of the Greens, Independents and Labor members. Just imagine for a minute what $2 billion would do for schools, local government and the broader families in Australia. But thanks to Labor this $2 billion will never be spent on Australian citizens. Finally, the biggest hypocrisy of the misleading advertisements is the failure to mention the impact of the carbon tax on local families and businesses. Details are scant from this Labor government and this is creating uncertainty across many industries. What we do know is that, under the Gillard-Brown carbon tax, at a carbon price of $26 a tonne, average power bills will rise by $300 a year, petrol prices will increase by 6.5c a litre and grocery prices will increase by five per cent. What the final carbon price will be, though, is hard to determine at this point. Some Green politicians have talked about making it $100 a tonne. This would drive prices sky-high when times are already hard on the families of Hasluck. I call on the Labor government to inject some honesty into its advertisements and I reject the misleading claims made by the Prime Minister and Senator Pratt in this advertisement. (Time expired)
National Broadband Network
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services) (09:46): I want to talk about the electorate of Franklin today, particularly about the National Broadband Network. One of the suburbs in my electorate, Kingston Beach, is about to receive construction of stage 2 of the NBN rollout in Tasmania. For those on the other side, who do not appear to be aware of just how this NBN rollout is going across the country, in Tasmania we have already had our three stage 1 communities—that is, Midway Point, Scottsdale and Smithton—connected to the NBN. Stage 2 construction at Kingston Beach in my electorate is commencing in coming weeks.
When advertisements for development applications appeared in the local papers a couple of months ago, my electorate office was overwhelmed by people from Kingston Beach contacting my office to find more information about how they could connect to the National Broadband Network. Kingston Beach obviously is one of the first areas in Australia to be connected to the service and we know that it will deliver practical benefits for the households there.
In Tasmania we are also looking forward to stage 3 of the rollout, which will happen immediately after stage 2 is complete. Stage 3 will connect 90,000 homes and businesses in Tasmania. At the end of that stage more than 100,000 Tasmanians will be connected to the National Broadband Network. At a statewide level, we know what services this will provide to Tasmania as those 100,000 homes and businesses are connected. We have seen from some of the implementation trials the benefits to aged care, rural health and education services as the NBN better connects regional and rural Tasmania to mainland Australia and the rest of the world.
I have also been contacted by many local businesses that are currently outside the stage 1 and 2 rollout areas and they are very, very keen to be connected to the NBN. They want to know when they can be connected to the National Broadband Network. We know from the ABS statistics about internet activity that Australians are participating more strongly in the online digital economy than ever before. There is an increasing desire for more speed and more bandwidth but, as we all know, it is not just about speed in homes. It is about delivery of government services, delivery of community services and improved outcomes for people in their homes and businesses.
Tasmanian homes and businesses are becoming increasingly reliant on internet services as they go about their daily business. People are doing their banking, doing university courses, even working from home using existing broadband technology, but they know that that needs to increase. One of the issues with wireless that I am aware of is that it does not work that well in Tasmania because of the topography. Wireless is seen by the opposition as a solution—they should get down to Tasmania and see how it works. (Time expired)
Higgins Electorate: Education
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (09:49): Like my good friend the member for Hasluck, I rise to speak about the issue of education, first to congratulate the recipients of the Premier's VCE Awards in my electorate of Higgins: Jessica Ginberg of Korowa Anglican Girls School, Marisa Lucente from Lauriston Girls School, Diana Jackobson of Loreto Mandeville Hall, Mary An Nguyen of Loreto Mandeville Hall and Olena Stepko of the Malvern Russian Community School. From Melbourne High School, recipients were Taqi Ali, Axel Almet, Minto Feliz, Paul Khoo, Vinay Sastry, Rohan Singh, Shiamalan Thanaskanda, Aneesh Tiwary, Ashwin Sharma Umakantha Sarma, Ross Unger, Matthew Wilbraham and John Wong; from Sacre Coeur, Stephanie Lightfoot; from St Catherine's School, Amelia Hamer, Mimi Horman and Jessica Sutherland; from St Kevin's College, Keenan Chiu; and from the King David School, Bryan Ladowsky. It is wonderful that all of these students have achieved such a high standard and have been recognised for that wonderful achievement. For that we pay tribute, as well, to their fellow students, their parents, their peers and to the teachers at the school. It is right to be celebrating excellence and achievement. It is because of the importance of recognising the good work that is done within these schools, I have instituted the Higgins Medal to recognise leadership and service.
But there is a threat to excellence at our schools and, in particular, the schools in Higgins. There is a threat by this government to the funding of those schools and their being able to continue delivering this excellence. It will be a threat because this government has not said that it will not consider another Latham-Gillard style hit list again on our schools. When I look to the indexation funding of our schools, it is not guaranteed beyond 2013. This will have a dramatic impact on 19 out of 42 schools in my electorate of Higgins. I want to briefly mention them: St Mary's school will have a total shortfall by 2017 of $824,473; St Joseph's Primary School, $776,313; the Kurrajong school, $217,946; the Holy Eucharist School, $503,166; Korowa Anglican Girls' School $909,156; Lauriston Girls' School, $1,045,693; Loreto Mandeville Hall $3,476,687; Our Lady of Lourdes School, $273,147; Our Lady of Victories Parish School, $204,860; Presentation College $22,582,329; St Anthony's Primary School, $539,106; St Catherine's School, $617,548 and the list goes on. (Time expired)
Carbon Pricing
Ms KING (Ballarat—Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport and Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) (09:52): We all know the important role the Australian government plays in addressing climate change and in reducing our nation's carbon footprint. Government members believe that climate change is real, and we are taking action because we want Australia's 1,000 largest polluting companies to pay for producing carbon. Those opposite want to let our nation's largest polluters off the hook. We know that a carbon price will provide an incentive for the big polluters to reduce their carbon footprint. Making polluters pay is the most effective way to cut pollution and drive investment in the clean energy future at the least cost to the economy. We will provide households with assistance where those opposite will be making households pay over $700 a year to subsidise the polluters. The government have committed that all revenue from a carbon price will go to providing households with fair and generous assistance to support jobs in the most affected industries and to invest in clean energy and climate change programs.
It was back in September 2009 that the Leader of the Opposition visited Beaufort near my electorate and told the local Liberal Party faithful that 'climate change is absolute crap' and went onto announce that he was a climate change sceptic. Nothing has changed. While those opposite continue spruiking to their Liberal Party colleagues about how crap climate change is, we on this side have got on with the business of tackling it. We believe climate change is real. Those opposite deny it. As part of our plan to tackle climate change, we are also looking to renewable energy. Renewable energy generation is playing an important role in reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, and the Australian government has introduced a number of initiatives that will significantly increase investment in renewable energies. We have seen great support in the community for tackling climate change and for renewable energies through the 100 per cent renewable energy campaign. I want to recognise and commend the work of my local community organisation, BREAZE, who have been working very hard to spread this message, doorknocking some 600 households in my electorate to talk about renewable energy and to garner support for renewable energy being part of the government's carbon pricing.
The government have acted on renewable energies. We have set a renewable energy target of 20 per cent for Australia's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. The RET includes incentives to help Australian households, businesses and communities to do their bit on climate change. We are also investing $5 billion in the Clean Energy Initiative, which provides a comprehensive range of measures to support development, demonstration and introduction of low-emission technologies that are not yet commercially competitive in Australia's electricity sector. Only last week we announced funding to build the largest power station in the world as part of the government's $1.5 billion Solar Flagships program. We are also investing $1.8 billion in the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships program. Including a price on carbon is fundamental to the long-term sustainability of our nation's environment and to our economy, and we are complementing our plan for a carbon price with our strong support for renewable energy. (Time expired)
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
Dr STONE (Murray) (09:55): There are massive increases proposed for Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service packing shed registration charges. This is an extraordinary increase in cost to our packing shed operators. It is so substantial that a lot of our growers and packers are saying: 'The job is too hard. We will have to walk away.' Growers currently pay $330 per annum to register packing sheds and to comply with the import requirements of all the overseas countries that buy Australian fresh fruit and vegetables. Under the proposed new charges and following the removal of the 40 per cent government rebate on costs and charges, AQIS expects growers to pay over $12,300. That is a 3,700 per cent increase in the charge for packing sheds. The charge does not add value and there is nothing different; it is just a fee that is to be applied. With that charge you get the approval registration so you can export to markets like Thailand, Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, the USA and New Zealand.
Given the seasonal nature of Australian fruit and vegetable exports, the sheds in my area pack for only two or three months of the year. The 3,700 per cent increase in these registration charges is just extraordinary. Such a huge cost of business would not be tolerated by any other sector, I propose. Is this just a cash grab from the government, which we know is cash-strapped and which each day puts us further in debt? Is it to do with their deficit? There is absolutely no way you can account for the extraordinary increase in costs as a result of increasing inspecting, registering and actual costs for salaries, vehicle fuel or anything else. It is impossible to justify it in any way.
This may be a reason for the fire blight protocols that are now proposed. We are told AQIS is just going to allow New Zealand to use its local domestic protocols for the importation of fresh New Zealand fruit. There will be no new specially export orientated protocols to keep fresh fruit with fire blight out of Australia. Perhaps because this government is cash-strapped and deeply in debt this is being allowed and will happen from 4 July. It is our farmers who are going to pay.
Any government organisation which thinks it can get away with increasing a fee from $330 to $12,300 per annum really must imagine it is not in a parliamentary democracy. We have to challenge this; we have to say it cannot be tolerated if we do, in fact, want to continue to produce food for both our domestic markets and globally. Farmers and their fruit packers, quite simply, cannot take such a hit. It is just not possible. (Time expired)
Richardson, Professor Jack, AO
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (09:58): I rise to speak on the life and death of Professor Jack Richardson, the first Commonwealth Ombudsman. Professor Jack Richardson was a distinguished law academic and the inaugural Commonwealth Ombudsman. He died on 13 June 2011, aged 90. Professor Richardson was a renowned expert in trade practices law, air and space law and Australian federalism, publishing in the vicinity of 60 books on these subjects. Educated at Geelong College and Melbourne University, Professor Richardson practised as a barrister for many years before becoming secretary of the joint parliamentary committee that reviewed the Australian Constitution in the late 1950s. He joined the Australian National University in 1961 as Dean of the Faculty of Law and in 1977 was appointed emeritus professor. In the same year he became Australia's first Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Before the establishment of the ombudsman's office, it was recognised that existing avenues of redress for complaints with administrative actions and decisions were complex, expensive and difficult for many Australians. The establishment of the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in 1977 was an important innovation in how government deals with concerns and grievances of individual citizens. It would provide the citizen with a legitimate complaint about official action with access to any impartial investigator to inquire into that matter. The establishment and development of this challenging role clearly required an individual of exceptional character to perform it. On 17 March 1977, Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser announced the appointment, saying Professor Richardson was 'a distinguished academic of high Australian and international standing who will bring to this office the qualities and experience which are necessary to perform this challenging role.'
In July 1977 Professor Richardson established the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office in Canberra, with five staff members overseeing the first critical years and guidance of the office through the substantial changes and growth in jurisdiction and case load. He developed the office's reputation for intellectual rigour and a robust approach to public administration. He fostered effective relationships with the department heads, though many took exception to his 1982 milk carton advertising campaign in Canberra with the slogan 'Bamboozled by the bureaucracy? Call the Ombudsman.' With the cooperation of agencies, the Ombudsman began conducting more informal complaint inquiries to achieve faster resolution of less complex complaints. During his tenure he established offices across the country in order to improve access to this important service. He retired as Commonwealth Ombudsman on 23 September 1985. Professor Richardson felt his greatest contribution to the role was to introduce a comprehensive oral complaint mechanism which led to significant increases in complaints. Towards the end of his time as Ombudsman, the total number of approaches the office had received exceeded 20,000.
Professor Richardson was recognised for his contribution to the field. In 1984 he was awarded the Officer of the Order of Australia and in 2002 the Ombudsman's office established the Jack Richardson Prize in Administrative Law at the ANU in recognition of the contributions that he had made. This prize is awarded for the best essay by an undergraduate student in administrative law. The Commonwealth Ombudsman is now a key national integrity agency with over 140 staff. While its function and role have expanded, its core activities and value to the community have changed little, thanks to the great contribution made by Professor Richardson in its formative years.
We acknowledge Jack Richardson and the contribution that he has made to the integrity of Australian government and public administration.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (10:02): I rise to speak on the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011. This bill seeks to amend eight acts across five portfolios as part of an ongoing commitment to update and clarify the Commonwealth's financial framework and to amend and improve the governance and financial arrangements of existing government bodies.
The timing of this contribution is highly ironic, given that there has been signed today, we understand, what is called a 'definitive agreement' between the NBN Co. and Telstra for Telstra's participation in the rollout of the National Broadband Network. Here we are debating sensible changes to the government's financial framework, yet on the same day we have an announcement which is the result of what could be considered none other than blackmail by this government of one of our major commercial operations, Telstra. Telstra have been forced into this agreement to hand over billions of dollars of their infrastructure, much of which will ultimately be duplicated and forced to be made redundant. Therefore, this action today is party to the further sovereign risk that this government has turned into an art form over the last four years. It is another example of where the great free enterprise culture and reputation of Australia is taking a huge hit. This government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our lives since, or even including, the Whitlam government. We have seen Australia as the only country in the world which reregulated its labour market in the middle of the global financial crisis. We are the only country which has sought to introduce what must be considered the most bureaucratic, the most socialist, interventionist way of putting a price on carbon that could be considered—an approach which is going to massively increase taxation and massively increase the involvement of bureaucracy in the running of a thousand companies around Australia, in addition to the tax that is being added. We have got a government that has in so many respects sought to make decisions on behalf of the community. And now we are the only country in the world that I know of that is renationalising its telecommunications system—this is on a day when we are discussing improving the financial arrangements for the Australian government.
Specifically, this bill seeks to improve the readability of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 by transferring the detail relating to the corporate plans of government business enterprises into the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Regulations 1997. It also seeks to improve the readability of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 by clarifying its interaction with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. Amendments are also proposed to six other acts in line with further improving the Commonwealth's financial framework and are said to reflect best practice. These include making consequential amendments to the Legislative Instruments Act as a result of the FMA Act changes outlined earlier. It involves updating the Wheat Export Marketing Act 2008. It involves amending the Wine Australia Corporation Act 1980. It involves updating a reference in the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. And it involves repealing a redundant paragraph to the Science and Industry Research Act 1949.
This bill is the eighth financial framework legislation amendment bill since 2004. It is part of an ongoing commitment to address financial framework issues as they arise as related to financial management provisions, governance structures and legislative anomalies. Given what has happened today in terms of the blackmail by this government of Telstra in forcing them into an agreement which is being signed today—at great cost to the taxpayer, I might add—it shows that there is a long way to go yet with governance structures and financial management provisions within this government's framework. The bill reflects a commitment to ongoing maintenance and reform of the Commonwealth's financial framework as it applies across government and related entities such as government business enterprises. I understand the government intends to move an amendment to address a drafting error in schedule 2 of the bill.
The explanatory memorandum of this bill states that these amendments will have no financial impact, which we accept. It goes on to say the changes may lead to productivity gains, which the coalition would of course welcome. But, again, it stands in stark contrast to the creation of a massive monopoly in the telecommunications area which will militate against productivity improvements in this economy in a most significant way.
Schedule 1 of this bill deals with the content requirements of a GBE's corporate plan which will see these specified in regulations. While the bill does not touch on issues around corporate plans and riding instructions to the CEOs of GBEs, it is housekeeping in nature. The government says this bill will make a contribution to improving governance arrangements for our GBEs. It is a very small incremental step.
I would have thought the bill might have provided some opportunity to make some serious efforts to address widespread concern about the corporate governance and financial arrangements surrounding the operation of NBN Co. While there are some specific proposals which will go to improving the efficiency and the operation and governance of entities such as Wheat Exports Australia, albeit in a small way, NBN Co. is the one GBE where proper government oversight is sadly lacking, in the coalition's view. The lack of transparency to date has been an absolute disgrace. The inability for the parliament, much less the community, to be given advice as to what is happening, how it is happening, what decisions are being taken, the normal governance requirements and the normal provisions of any corporate structure that are required by law in this country have all been overridden by legislation designed to maintain a secretive shroud around the operations of NBN Co., a GBE which this bill suggests the government is improving the financial arrangements of.
It is not good enough. The NBN Co. annual report states that the company regularly reports to its shareholder ministers. What that means we have no idea. What are they reporting? What is being said? Why can the parliament not see some of the normal reporting requirements provided for and required of other government instrumentalities, and certainly of every corporate structure in the country? I would like to think the minister for finance as a joint shareholder minister has a very close watching brief over its activities. However, I am not confident that this is the case. This entity will churn through taxpayers' dollars at an alarming rate. It is already doing so.
Today we learned that the deal between NBN Co. and Telstra has been formalised. The blackmail has now been signed off. It has now been legitimised; it has now been swept under the carpet in the murky way in which the government has gone about forcing the hand of one of our largest corporate entities into a deal which is grubby in the extreme. This deal will cost taxpayers $11 billion for the government to embark upon what was undoubtedly a political exercise from the outset. Having failed to find a way of introducing the $4.7 billion proposal that they took to the 2007 election and the embarrassment of their failure after 18 months or two years to find a workable way of introducing a broadband network with their original proposal, the government hatched this proposal during an aircraft flight from Melbourne to Brisbane—we are told. It was hatched in a conversation between the Prime Minister and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. It did not even go to the cabinet for a decision.
This is a $50 billion infrastructure decision. This is a GBE. This is a government organisation which goes contrary to all that we are seeing in this bill today. This is tokenism, compared with what has happened. To have a situation where this structure can be created in this anti-competitive way will send another sovereign risk message, along with the mining tax, the carbon tax, the flood tax, all of the changes to industrial relations, many of which are now creating enormous uncertainty out there, and the many other sovereign risks that have been imposed—the fact that the ink was not even dry on the PBS deal, done with all the big pharmaceuticals, and the government was breaking that deal.
These are sovereign risk issues. We are now getting a reputation that we have never had. We have never been a risky place for investment. We are now seen in New York, London, Hong Kong and other financial markets as a country that involves enormous risk. This government should be putting in place regulations and laws that create certainty about investment not create great uncertainty among all those investors. We are a country that has always relied on foreign investment and always will rely on foreign investment, yet that is being compromised in the extreme. So we see an organisation where already $7 billion of contracts have been signed. Who knows if these contracts will produce value for money? There has been no cost-benefit analysis. There has been no public scrutiny of the use of this money and the prospect of this money generating value for money. What real incentive is there for this company to achieve value for money?
My contacts in the telecommunications sector tell me that this NBN Co. is spending money like there is no tomorrow and that there is no discipline—someone else is signing the cheque. Much of what they are buying is at full tote odds plus 20 per cent because they are a government enterprise with a blank cheque that they can have signed. Someone else is responsible—we are. As taxpayers, we are all paying for this and we are doing so without any knowledge of what is really going on.
This proposal is a political whim of this government. It was never given any decent scrutiny—no scrutiny, not even by cabinet. It is a total disgrace. It will, in the future, be seen as one of the biggest mistakes of this government and one of the most glaring examples of its incompetence. It will be a symbol of this government's incompetence and inability to govern in the interests of this country. It will be hung around the neck of this government in future as a great symbol of its incompetence and its capacity to discourage others around the world from investing in this country. The government should hang its head in shame.
At the same time as this government is bringing in bills that, in a small incremental way, are looking at various governance issues, it is allowing this absolute debacle to be visited upon the Australian community. Under this government, there is no pressure on the NBN Co. to run a tight ship. The government has itself set a dreadful example to any GBE when it comes to achieving value for money for taxpayers. What leadership is being shown? None. How well is this government demonstrating to GBEs that it is serious about the proper operation and use of taxpayers' money? Not at all. This is a quite damaging, debilitating and irresponsible way in which to govern this country. The community will pay in a very big way for such lack of leadership.
It is quite extraordinary that not one but two finance ministers could endorse taxpayer funded spending of this scale without a cost-benefit analysis. I suspect Lindsay Tanner left this place because he could not live with these sorts of decisions. That is my feeling. Here is a man who spent so many years looking to get into government but who, after three years as Minister for Finance and Deregulation, did not, you could tell, have his heart in it in many cases. He was being overridden. The gang of four, we now hear, would meet and then one would leave—Lindsay Tanner—and the gang of three would modify the decisions. In this case, with the NBN Co., there was not even a gang of four; it was a gain of one plus the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—and it never went to cabinet. What a disgrace.
This is a day on which we should all hang our heads in shame, a day when we are supposedly debating, discussing and supporting the introduction of some improvements to governance while, on the same day, a decision is being endorsed where there was blackmail by this government to ensure that it could go ahead with what is the biggest disgrace of government involvement in business enterprise in this nation's history.
The fact that this is being permitted to happen under the existing financial framework, which we are discussing today, does indeed sound alarm bells. With a government such as this one, I suspect it would not matter how tight the framework was; it would still do as it pleases. That is what we have seen. This is a company that, as it stands, generates no profits, delivers few services and has next to no customers. We all remember the fanfare surrounding the switch-on of services at one of the test sites in Armidale. Millions were spent and how many customers were there? There were seven. There are only 22 million to go. Despite this, NBN Co. had 656 employees as of 31 January and will have more than 1,000 by the end of this financial year—only a couple of weeks away. In its 2010 financial report, NBN Co. revealed that 75 per cent of staff—at that time, 34—were getting paid between $300,000 and $400,000. I mentioned the way in which money was being thrown around by this new government enterprise. That in itself is evidence enough, quite apart from what we are hearing through the trade about the billions of dollars being spent in other ways with great question marks over them. By the next election NBN Co. will have generated revenues of $205 million, if it is lucky, and will have paid out much more in staff wages and entitlements. They have been in the field now for two years and what are we seeing for it?
Who can forget the appointment of the infamous Mike Kaiser on a package of $450,000 as head of government relations and external affairs. I do not know anyone around this place who, in the year and a half this man has been employed, has ever seen him, yet he is responsible for government relations. He should be the man who is informing the opposition and the crossbenchers and the public, but he has done nothing but get $450,000 as head of government relations and external affairs. This is another symbol of the incompetence, waste and in-house boys' club—jobs for the boys. A failed, discredited member of the Queensland government and the Queensland Labor Party ends up with $450,000 for a job of government relations but no-one has seen him in 18 months. What is going on in this organisation? It is a GBE, where we are supposed to have some decent governance requirements. It would be interesting to know what Mr Kaiser has been doing to earn that type of money.
From next month the NBN Co. will be subject to FOI laws but exempted from any request that encapsulates any of its commercial activities. How convenient that is! All of the normal processes that corporations are required to participate in, their continuous disclosure requirements—not for this organisation, not on your nelly! This is an organisation which the government has shrouded in secrecy, in rules and regulations which apply to no-one else. It is being protected from any scrutiny, and why? Because the government is so embarrassed about the way in which they have gone about this, about the waste of taxpayers' money, that they want to ensure there is no capacity for any proper scrutiny of this organisation now or into the future. We are being saddled with the biggest white elephant conceivable, by an investment which is sending such poor signals to investors around the world. Given that its entire business model is based on the NBN being a commercial venture, this exemption from any scrutiny, from any capacity to see some of the consequences of their commercial activities, or how their investment measures up against their returns, will arguably cover every request made of NBN Co.
While the coalition is not opposing this bill, the bill must surely act as a powerful wake-up call about the inadequacy of the government's financial framework. If the National Broadband Network, the largest government backed business enterprise in Australia's history, can present such an enormous risk to the taxpayer and reintroduce all of the worst features of a monopoly to the most dynamic sector in this economy—this is the nonsense that is going on in the most dynamic sector of this and every economy around the world, the area that is changing almost monthly in terms of new technology. The power of competition is exciting and is leading to extraordinary developments, changes and improvements to people's lives. While all that is going on, we are heading back to the PMG days, where we had the culture of a bureaucracy. You can smell it already in the arrogant way in which Senate estimates are being treated by this organisation. Compare the first hearings of NBN Co. before the Senate estimates with the last lot of hearings. They have gone from people who were looking to be receptive to the arrogance of a government monopoly, an unaccountable monopoly which is not going to face any scrutiny of any consequence. We are seeing it now with the failure of their $450,000 government affairs person to ever make himself available to ensure that those who are not in the government, the opposition, the crossbenchers and the public generally are informed.
The financial framework is not working. We have got no concern about the changes, the tinkering that is in this bill. We were prominently reminded today that the blackmail is now being brought to fruition with the deal struck with Telstra. If that deal can occur on the same day, the financial framework of this government is not working.
No wonder people are starting to be confused. No wonder savings have gone from minus one to 11½ per cent. People are anxious. They are anxious and they are not prepared to spend money because they do not feel that there is any direction in this government. There is no direction. They have a Prime Minister who has no authority, no direction and a government which is floundering. All they are doing is seeking to intervene and to cover up the decisions that have been taken.
No wonder people are anxious. No wonder savings are going through the roof. There is a problem in the retail sector because people are not spending. Tens of billions of dollars more have been saved in this last 12 months than would normally be saved. Retail is on its knees because of this government's incompetence, the failure of any direction, the failure to have people feel that this government knows what it is doing. The only thing it knows how to do is to inveigle itself into the lives and the decision-making of Australians. It is building infrastructure and organisations like the NBN Co., which are not accountable and which run against the great free enterprise culture that both sides of politics in the past have contributed to.
It is a highly dysfunctional, highly dangerous cowboy-style government that we are now witnessing. Whilst we are happy to support this bill, I do want to place very firmly on the record that the financial framework that this government is working to has failed. It can get away with gross mismanagement and gross incompetence. It can get away with snubbing its nose to proper practice, to proper governance, to proper scrutiny and to responsible government but the chickens are now coming home to roost. Business is concerned, anxious and uncertain. Households are concerned, anxious and uncertain. Australia is running into the sand. This government today has proved itself to be totally incompetent and they must go.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (10:28): I was trying to think, as I was listening to the confected outrage of the member for Goldstein, where I last heard so much passion for such low stakes. I realised it was in the current debate over the Liberal Party presidency. I know the member for Goldstein is an Alan Stockdale man and I am sure he would also have views on some of this overblown, overheated debate that has been going on in the public arena. Peter Reith is the policy candidate, isn't he?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): I remind the member that we are debating the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011 and he ought to be relevant to the bill.
Dr LEIGH: As you rightly point out, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are focusing today on a piece of legislation which is the eighth financial framework legislation amendment bill since 2004. It is part of an ongoing program whereby the government will address financial framework issues as they arise, taking a whole-of-government approach. This bill, if passed, would amend a number of different acts. It would amend the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, updating arrangements regarding the corporate plan for a government business enterprise to enable the content requirements of corporate GBE plans to be specified in regulations, rather than in the act. It would amend the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 to clarify the legal status of determinations, instructions and guidelines issued under the act. It would also clarify specific provisions and make consequential amendments in these two acts and a further six acts, updating the Commonwealth's financial framework and improving the governance arrangements for several Commonwealth agencies and bodies.
I was struck by the member for Goldstein's aspersions cast on the former member for Melbourne, Mr Lindsay Tanner. They particularly surprised me given that the member for Goldstein has been admirably open about the relationship between his own personal life and his job, given some of the real challenges we face here. So I found it somewhat disappointing that he would reflect on Lindsay Tanner's stated decision to resign to spend more time with his wife and children and cast aspersions on Mr Tanner, suggesting that his decision to leave the parliament was in some way policy related. I would like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to Lindsay Tanner for his extraordinary work as the minister for finance in the last term of government and commend him on his recent book Sideshow, which has opened up an important debate about how we deepen policy discussion in this country.
When we think about the financial framework of the Commonwealth it naturally draws us into appropriate levels of Commonwealth borrowing. It is useful to use this opportunity to dispel a few myths which have been out in the community—sometimes written on bunting surrounding polling booths—about the level of government debt. According to the 2011-12 Budget Paper No. 1, net debt is forecast to peak in 2011-12 at 7.2 per cent of GDP. It will fall to 5.8 per cent of GDP in 2014-15. It is extremely low by international standards. Average net debt levels in the major economies measured for all levels of government are projected to be around 80 per cent of GDP in 2011. So Australia's net debt will peak at less than one-tenth of that of major advanced economies.
What have we bought for this debt? We have two things. Firstly, we put in place substantial fiscal stimulus during the global financial crisis, stimulus which was timely, targeted and temporary and which saved around 200,000 jobs. But, of course, those opposite would have had us do something much worse. Most of the rise in government debt is a result of the fact that revenue is written down in a downturn. Corporate profits in particular fall substantially. By taking a no-debt position those opposite would have had the federal government cut spending in the global financial crisis. There is a precedent for this. During the time of the Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover cut spending as the slump began. It is generally regarded as one of the worst macroeconomic decisions in history—and that is the approach that those opposite would have had the Australian government take. A no-debt approach suggests not only a no-stimulus approach; it actually suggests that when downturns come governments should cut spending. There could be no clearer definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
The billions that have been wiped off budget revenues and the hit on the budget as a result of recent natural disasters have meant that it has been necessary to increase the government borrowing limit a little earlier than anticipated. That increase to $250 billion has been supported by one of the many predecessors of the member for Goldstein as shadow finance minister. Senator Barnaby Joyce has said that the National Party will responsibly support this amendment, but the member for Goldstein rails against it, instead shouting about 'sovereign risk', an argument that is the last refuge of a shadow finance minister who has run out of every other idea. The Commonwealth government borrowing limit is lower than would have been the case under the projections in the period of the global financial crisis. In the 2009-10 budget, gross debt was expected to reach more than $300 billion. The $250 billion limit is, of course, noticeably lower than that.
It is useful to put Australia's debt levels into perspective. One way of thinking about this is to think about an individual earning $100,000 per year who owes $7,200. That is substantially below what the typical Australian household owes, for example, on their home, and it looks more like the kind of loan one might take out to purchase a modest hatchback car. In fact, many Australians carry credit card debt of more than $7,200. They probably should not, but it is certainly an indication that the Commonwealth debt levels are extremely modest compared to household debt levels. They are also extremely modest compared to debt levels in other countries. For example, US net debt will hit 85.7 per cent of GDP in 2016, UK net debt will peak at 79.5 per cent of GDP in 2013 and Japanese net debt will hit 163.9 per cent of GDP in 2016. The Australian government's financial positions have been backed by the RBA, whose statement of monetary policy has said that 'with the budget projected to return to surplus over the next few years, the impact of fiscal policy will be contractionary'. Compared with Australian households and compared with other developed economies, Australia's net debt levels are low and manageable.
Global rating agencies and the IMF take exactly the same position. Standard and Poor's said recently that Australia has 'exceptionally strong public sector finances' underpinned by 'low public debt and strong fiscal discipline'. In response to the budget, S&P noted the 'sound profile of Australia's public finances, which remain among the strongest of its peer group'. Net debt will return to surplus in the next budget and to zero in 2019-20.
It is important to recognise that the government borrowing limit not only takes into account net debt but also takes into account investments the government makes for policy purposes on which we need to borrow to fund, such as, for example, the National Broadband Network. The member for Goldstein would have Australians remain in the slow lane of the information superhighway.
We on this side of the House see superfast broadband as being a key infrastructure investment in the future. It is a network which will transform the way in which we deliver education, health and the jobs of the future.
Opposition members interjecting—
Dr LEIGH: Those opposite are happy to interject, to rail against the investments of the future, but one wonders what they will say in their dotage when their grandchildren ask them: 'Why is it that Australia was left behind? Why did Australia not invest when other countries were investing?' That is the position they take on many other debates as well: 'Australia should not try to clean up its economy; Australia should not make the investments in the infrastructure of the future; Australia should not make investments in the education of the future.' The increase in the government debt level is required to make productive investments like the National Broadband Network. It is also required for other instances in which the Commonwealth borrows money in order to make important policy investments—for example, HELP, where government makes loans to young Australians to go to university; which students will of course pay back. The HELP policy is supported by both sides of this House. One would naturally expect that as more students go to university there are more HELP debts and it would be necessary for the Commonwealth to factor this in when thinking about our borrowing limit. We have invested in the residential mortgage backed securities market. We have a small stake in the IMF, and that too necessitates an increase in the borrowing limit.
The utter lack of understanding by those opposite of the importance of government borrowing has a long history. It is not just something that those opposite are misunderstanding now; it is something that they misunderstood while in government. In 2002 the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, made an ill-fated attempt to shut down the government bond markets, suggesting that it would be appropriate to retire all government bonds. On The 7.30 Report on 30 October, 2002, Ken Farrow, from the Australian Financial Markets Association, pointed out:
What's at stake is the fundamentals of the financial market of this country. We have a zero, risk-free, curve that the Government bond market creates. Off the back of that curve, most other financial products are priced. Our futures market is priced off that bond curve, and our derivatives market.
Mr Farrow pointed out in the same interview:
… if you remove the government bond market, we'll see an increase in interest rates.
Peter Costello eventually backed off that attempt to shut down the government bond market, but those opposite have clearly learned nothing from that episode. Clearly, they misunderstand the many roles that the government borrowing limit plays.
There has been a quite sensible proposal made that, instead of the government borrowing limit being expressed in dollar terms, it should instead be expressed as a share of GDP. That proposal is presently being considered by the government. Naturally, as the size of GDP and the size of government proportionately increases, one might expect that the government borrowing limit would need to increase. That is a proposal that is on the table at the moment. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (10:42): I thank all members who contributed to the debate on the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011. This bill, if enacted, will clarify specific provisions in eight acts across five portfolios, reflecting an ongoing commitment to ensuring that financial framework laws remain clear and up to date. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message received from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (10:43): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move government amendment (1), as circulated:
(1) Schedule 2, item 3, page 4 (lines 20 to 24), omit the item, substitute:
3 At the end of section 52
Add:
(3) An instruction is not a legislative instrument.
The amendment to the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011 will amend item 3 of schedule 2 of the bill in relation to the status of chief executive's instructions made under section 52 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. The amendment would ensure that chief executive's instructions will continue to be considered as not being legislative instruments. Schedules 2 and 3 of the bill currently aim to improve the interaction of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 regarding three types of instruments: special account determinations, guidelines such as those dealing with procurement, and chief executive's instruments.
Special accounts and guidelines have always been treated as legislative instruments and have been registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. That will continue to be the case under the bill. By contrast, chief executive's instructions are an integral management tool that, since their inception, have not been treated as legislative instruments and have not been registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments by the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing within the Attorney-General's Department. This amendment would ensure that chief executives' instructions continue to be treated this way through definitive statement that they are not legislative instruments. Indeed, the view of the Attorney-General's Department is that this amendment to the bill is declaratory of the current law.
I commend the amendment to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with an amendment.
Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (10:45): I join the debate on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011. I say from the outset that the coalition regards this as a non-controversial piece of legislation and we will be supporting the bill in its passage through the parliament. I also acknowledge my good friend the Leader of the Nationals, who is the shadow minister for infrastructure and transport and indeed a former minister in this place. He is unable to join the debate today, but he would like me to highlight that the coalition has a strong record of public policy with regard to these matters. It is certainly an area where I believe the wider community expects us as members to ensure that there are appropriate environmental safeguards for this type of activity. Obviously, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker Livermore, in your electorate of Capricornia you are blessed with some extraordinary marine biodiversity and the community values it very highly. To take appropriate measures in providing sensible safeguards and sensible reforms to accommodate activities in the marine environment is something that the coalition does support.
Australia has been a member of the International Maritime Organisation since its establishment in 1948 and we have played an active role in the development of conventions and treaties over many years. As I said, the coalition and the current government—which I commend for it—have a long history of supporting sensible reforms. This bill amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to implement amendments to annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL, to prevent marine pollution during ship-to-ship oil transfer operations. These requirements entered into force internationally on 1 January 2011, and this bill will bring Australia's legislation into line with this scheme.
The bill requires that all oil tankers with 150 gross tonnage and above involved in ship-to-ship oil transfers have an operations plan prescribing how to conduct those transfers. It is designed to ensure that consideration has been given to the processes involved in the ship-to-ship transfer and that hazard prevention safeguards are in place to prevent an oil spill. These plans will be checked by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to ensure they meet with their requirements. As you would expect, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the bill also stipulates that ship-to-ship transfers must be undertaken in accordance with the approved operations plan and that ship-to-ship transfers must be overseen by the master of a ship involved or a suitably qualified person.
I believe that that is an important safeguard. The master of an oil tanker involved in such a transfer will be required to notify the administration of the country in whose waters the transfer will take place at least 48 hours prior to the oil transfer operations to ensure that response equipment is available in case of an oil spill during the transfer. That is a very reasonable consideration. We need to ensure that, in what it is fair to say would be the unlikely event of a spill occurring, it is conducted in a proper and correct manner with the appropriate safeguards. But, in any case, we need to ensure that the appropriate equipment is available on the mainland to deal with any unfortunate or unforeseen events. A record of such transfers needs to be provided at least 48 hours prior to the transfer to ensure that the Australian authorities are in a position to respond. Whilst the measures in this bill are important, it should be noted that, to date, there has been only one ship-to-ship transfer, which I am aware of, in Australian waters. In March this year, Caltex conducted a successful transfer off the coast of Sydney. I note from the minister's second reading speech an expectation that, in the future, this will become a more common event, particularly in the sense that Australian ports will not be able to cope with the supertankers that are becoming more commonplace and so there will be a need to provide these transfers to smaller vessels that can access Australian ports. Quite simply, it does not really matter how much we do in terms of dredging some of our ports they will not be able to cope with these vessels of enormous capacity, so these ship-to-ship transfers will become more frequent in the future.
I understand that Caltex operates using world best practice standards and carried out the transfer earlier this year in compliance with the requirements of the MARPOL convention even though it had not been officially enacted in Australia at that point. I understand that the transfer was carefully planned and carried out in close consultation with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and it is my understanding that it was a well-conducted operation. Whilst at this point ship-to-ship transfers of this type are not commonplace in Australia, as I have said, I think it is reasonable and prudent of the government to adopt this amendment to the MARPOL convention into Australian law.
I am pleased to support the bill to implement the amendments to the MARPOL convention annex 1 in Australia. It is important that we take these measures to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place to protect our environment when undertaking these potentially hazardous operations. I thank the House.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (10:52): This Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011 amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 so as to give effect to the amendments to annex 1 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, adopted in July 2009. The new chapter 8 included in the annex deals with the prevention of pollution during transfer of oil cargo between oil tankers at sea. The International Maritime Organisation, of which Australia is a member and which oversees the relevant shipping conventions, is a United Nations agency established in 1948 and is responsible for the safety and security of shipping and for the prevention of pollution by ships.
The bill demonstrates the government's ongoing commitment to protecting Australia's marine environment. Australia depends almost exclusively on shipping to move its exports and imports. Australia has the fifth largest shipping task in the world in terms of tonnes of cargo shipped and kilometres travelled. Our oceans do not only drive our economy; they are also home to over 30,000 plant and animal species. Australia has some of the most unique and diverse oceans in the world and it is important that we do whatever we can to protect them. From obsolete sea vessels to dangerous uranium and other toxic chemicals, our oceans have been a convenient dumping ground for mankind for too long. Industrial and household waste are commonly dumped into our oceans. The environmental damage caused is immeasurable, but what is out of sight is out of mind for many and, regrettably, serious damage has been done to many ocean areas.
Of course, not all ocean pollution is deliberate—accidents do occur. To date, one of the greatest threats to the marine environment has been oil spills. Since coming to office in 2007, the government has significantly improved the protection of Australia's marine environment with legislation regarding civil liability for bunker oil pollution damage; the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Regulations; the Protection of the Sea (Oil Pollution Compensation Fund) Regulations; and the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, which dealt with sulphur oxides.
This amendment bill will add another layer of protection for our marine environment. Under the traditional law of the sea, ships have the right of 'innocent passage' when transiting territorial and international waters. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states that passage is innocent as long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. Consistent with this right, a system of global regulation has been implemented to ensure ships are subject to uniform pollution standards whether they are on the high seas, in territorial waters or in port. Generally, shipping is an environmentally friendly mode of transport. Ships are the least energy intensive of all modes of transport. Shipping currently contributes just four per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from the Australian freight transport sector but carries a quarter of domestic freight.
As an IMO member, Australia has adopted several international conventions, including the International Convention on the Control of Harmful and Anti-fouling Systems on Ships 2001; the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001; the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1992; the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1992; the Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969; the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships; the Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Cooperation to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances 2000; the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation 1990 and the protocol to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution.
The intention of the amendments associated with this bill is to prevent marine pollution during ship-to-ship oil transfer operations between oil tankers. The new requirements apply to oil tankers of 150 gross tonnage and above. The bill will require such tankers involved in ship-to-ship oil transfer operations to have on board a ship-to-ship operations plan, and for transfers to be carried out in accordance with that plan. The decision to adopt international conventions was taken after extensive consultation with all parties involved, including the oil and shipping industries, state authorities and interested Commonwealth departments
The most common reason for transferring oil between oil tankers is where crude oil is being carried on a tanker that is too big to enter a port where an oil refinery is located. With the new super-size carriers, this is becoming a reasonably common occurrence. When this is the case, the oil is transferred to smaller tankers. This does not yet happen too often in Australian waters. The first and, to this point, only such transfer was successfully carried out off the New South Wales coast in March of this year. When it does happen, it is important that it is done in a responsible manner. The new previsions will apply from 1 April 2012 and substantial penalties may be applied where breaches occur. For example, failure to carry out a ship-to-ship operations plan risks a penalty of 500 penalty units, or $55,000. If the oil cargo transfer is not done in accordance with the ship's operations plan, the master of the subject oil tanker would risk a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units, or $22,000.
The amendments in this bill reflect international best practice as developed by International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Ltd, an international not-for-profit organisation which assists in all aspects of preparing for and responding to spills from ships of oil, chemicals and other substances. Coastal states will be required to be notified in advance of any proposed transfers, which means that they will be able to be prepared to respond in case of any spills occurring during a transfer. The risk of oil spills and other risks associated with shipping increases as Australian ships continue to be replaced with foreign-flagged, substandard vessels crewed with poorly trained seamen. Australian registered shipping numbers have almost halved from 75 in 1996 to 39 in 2010. Australian ships have negligible international trade business and are increasingly losing domestic trade to foreign competition.
A quick scan of shipping accidents on the Australian coastline will expose the poor record of foreign-flagged ships when compared to Australian vessels. It should come as no surprise. Poorly maintained vessels with untrained or low-paid crews inevitably result in disaster.
Supporting an Australian shipping industry would not only reduce the risk of environmental damage but also be good for the Australian economy. Australia's growing resource export trade will mean more ships going to and from Australia. It makes good economic sense, therefore, to see more of those ships registered and crewed in Australia. That would also minimise the likelihood of our sea waters being polluted by accidents. It is clear that there is a very strong relationship between the good record of ships crewed by Australian crews, registered here in Australia, and the incidence of damage that conversely occurs when foreign flagged ships are being used.
It is also of concern that, given that we are likely to see more shipping trade in this country as a result of our resources export trade, foreign-flagged ships will have a clear effect on our economy. Many of these foreign-flagged ships, which are often registered in tax haven countries, are in effect denying the Australian economy of income that should properly be coming back to Australia. It is also of concern that many of these foreign-flagged ships are quite often exploiting their own crews. There have been a number of incidents in recent years in Australian waters of foreign crews being exploited by the masters of their ships.
These are matters that should be of concern to this parliament. On the one hand we have an opportunity to increase the shipping trade for Australia, we have an opportunity to increase employment for Australian seamen and we have an opportunity to ensure that we minimise the risks to the ocean waters around this country but, on the other hand, at the very same time we are seeing an increase in the number of foreign-owned ships carrying out the legitimate business of Australian commodities shipping.
The regulations in this bill quite properly need to be imposed, and I believe they will help minimise the risks associated with ship-to-ship oil transfers. However, I believe there is a bigger issue at stake here and that is to ensure that more of that ship-to-ship trade is managed by Australian shipping organisations. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (11:03): I support the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011. By way of background, Australia has been a member of the IMO since its establishment in 1948 and has played an extremely active role in the developing of conventions and treaties over many years. One of the good things about our engagement through the IMO is that it has always had bipartisan support in this parliament. The Marpol has six annexes which deal with different aspects of marine pollution, and all six have been implemented by Labor and coalition governments over time.
Relevant to this bill, annex 1 relates to the prevention of pollution by oil, and it entered into force internationally on 2 October 1983 and in Australia on 14 January 1988. Its introduction received bipartisan support, as I said before, and in 2004 the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO adopted a revised version of annex 1 which entered into force in Australia and internationally in 2007. The current amendments to annex 1 were adopted by the MEPC of the IMO on 17 July 2009 and came into force internationally on 1 January 2011. They recognise the potential for pollution damage resulting from oil spills during ship-to-ship oil transfer operations. Amendments to other annexes of Marpol have consistently received bipartisan support. Most recently the coalition has supported bills which update liability provisions for oil spills, in 2008, and which implement improved air pollution standards for ships, in 2006. The most distressing things that I ever see on our televisions in our marine environment are large-scale oil spills. Whether they have come from submerged rig blow-outs or indeed from grounding of ships, the environmental damage they do is extreme, costly and of benefit to no-one. This bill seeks to put into place plans for ships above 150 gross tonnage to develop and submit an approved plan prior to any ship-to-ship operation. It also means that there is a responsibility of the master. Just by way of background, as far as I understand, there are only two people in this parliament that have held levels of ships master certificates and they are Senator Nigel Scullion and me. I have now rescinded my ticket because I had an inability—working in this place—to keep up my sea time. It was very disappointing.
I have been around boats and vessels for a period of years. Making sure that situations on boats are environmentally managed is extremely important. What is also important is that we have in place measures so that, if such spills do occur, they are addressed as rapidly as possible. Making sure that plans are adequate is a position that is coveted by the Maritime Safety Authority to make sure they meet their minimum requirements. As I said, this then becomes the responsibility of the master of the vessel. The master of the vessel can delegate that to a suitably qualified position but, as always, it is the master of the vessel that is responsible for the operations of their vessel.
Why do we need this bill to be in place given there has only been one, as I can recollect, ship-to-ship transfer? I think that was by Caltex vessels. It is because the increase in size of the tankers moving oil and fuels in and around our coastline may require a debunkering into smaller vessels to be able to access smaller ports as we see more growth into smaller regions. That said, it is important that this government, through its actions, is proactive in these measures. There is no point in waiting until an incident has occurred to work out what is going to be done.
One of the important things about being in and around the sea—as I said, I have spent a number of hours, days and weeks out on the water—is the people who help make sure that our seas remain safe. I would like, as I speak to this bill, to also recognise the work and support work that happens through organisations such as the volunteer marine rescue services. In my area at Nelson Bay and through areas in the Great Lakes, Foster, Newcastle and Lemon Tree Passage, volunteers support the marine environment through Marine Rescue NSW. Marine Rescue NSW is a newly merged body of all the various marine rescue organisations in New South Wales. One of the important things they do is maintain a radio watch 24 hours a day. They work with AMSA and other organisations to make sure the quality of the service they are providing, albeit a volunteer service, is up to scratch.
Having been out at sea, sometimes in less than favourable conditions as I have been doing delivery voyages and things like that, it is always refreshing to know that when you put out a radio call, even checking in your daily position, there are people there to receive those radio calls and acknowledge that you are there. It is all part of our maritime safety regime we have in Australia. In fact there are 56 unit bases along the east coast from Eden to Point Danger which provide that great service. A couple of weeks ago, on 5 June, I had the honour to attend a recognition ceremony for the volunteers from Marine Rescue Australia.I would like to point out to this chamber that these people are volunteers who will go to sea in the roughest of weather to save other individuals. The key point here is that they are volunteers, usually in their senior years, who are putting their lives on the line in atrocious conditions to provide safety at sea for others when most people should be at home in bed. They do it and they get away with what they do because they are highly-trained individuals dedicated to the pursuit of survival at sea.
In recognising these volunteers, some who have provided decades of service, I would like to put their names on the record in the Hansard. From the Lemon Tree Passage unit there was Ray Conibear and Alan Ford who both joined in 2001, Dianne Wilson who has been volunteering since 1995 and Richard Osborne who entered the unit back in 1982. From the Nelson Bay unit, Brian and Maureen Wheatley signed up in March 2001, Heather Harmer, June Toms, Colin Bain and Patrick Johnson have been members since 2000, Marshall Britts, George Lawson, David Fairless, Malcolm Milliken, Nigel Waters, Geoffrey Moore, Joe Kolossa, Louise Moore, Eryl Thomas and Arthur Heiler joined in 1999, Ken Ross-Sampson, James Benson, Yvonne and John Almgren joined in 1998, Barry Hayes and Ramon Calvert joined in 1996, Kevin Lanyon, Bruce Shade and Alvin Kemp joined in 1994, John Smith joined in 1993, Shirley Clark and Lloyd Cropper joined up in 1991, Peter Phillipson and Rod Reeson joined in 1987, Harold Gibson joined in 1985, Mary Penny joined in 1983, Kevin Clark and Peter Shevlin joined in 1982 and last but by no means least John Thompson, who has been helping keep people safe on our waterways since 1968. That is more than four decades of volunteering service.
I quite often say to Thommo, 'Mate, you've got to get a life.' But he is typical of all those people in Marine Rescue who put their lives on the line regularly, going out to save people who are in distressed vessels off our coastline. Quite frankly an oil spill coming from a yacht, a fishing boat or a large cruiser can be equally as damaging as a small spill from a ship. Even though one might be pumping crude and the others have pure dieseline or petrol they can equally be damaging.
These are the people who have an absolute commitment to our community. I will give you an example. In 2009 our local marine rescue unit performed 140 maritime rescues. That is 140 times; not all of them in bad and atrocious weather—the boat might have broken down on a perfectly sunny day. I have sat around and talked to these guys. They inherited a boat that was given to them called the Daniel Kane which came out of England and was a lifeboat there. It is a fully enclosed boat where the people who work on it are all below decks and strapped in and it will go out in absolutely atrocious conditions.
Our region is no stranger to ship disasters, and I would remind this chamber of the fate of the Pasha Bulker. It was only by sheer good fortune when she was beached in that massive storm that there was no massive oil spill. I know that besides the professionals there and the tugboat drivers it was the volunteers like the Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service who got people onto the ship and evacuated the ship. It was people like our Marine Rescue units who were standing by ready to help in case they were needed.
Protecting our seas is important and that is why this legislation is another pathway forward to protecting that marine environment. We can remember things such as the Exxon Valdez and the devastation that that created up in the north Pacific. We can remember the Gulf of Mexico, that is only a year on, and the devastation on a very broad scope that had on the southern states of the USA. It was not just that the oils and crude got washed up in the rivers, it went all the way up through into the Everglades area and it affected the marine nurseries and the financial liabilities of those towns. That is why in conclusion it is critical to be proactive. It is critical to have plans that are evaluated by professionals independently and, as always with the master of the vessel, it is critical to hold the master of the vessel responsible for the operations and safety of the vessel. The coalition commends this bill before the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): That was a lovely tribute to those volunteer organisations right around our coastline.
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (11:15): I rise to speak on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011. This bill will certainly assist in protecting one of our most important national and international natural resources: our ocean. I have heard it said that roughly 80 per cent of Australians live within 80 miles—to use the old measure—of the sea, and half of our houses are within 15 kilometres of the ocean. Such an ocean-looking nation we are, quite different from the images of the Red Centre that we so often see that typify Australia. We are also famous for our beaches and we want to keep it that way.
It is no wonder that the ocean is a treasured part of Australia's heritage. It has provided many generations with a living and the ability to raise a family, right back to the very first Australians. As a parliament, it is imperative that we are proactive in ensuring that such an important component of our livelihood and heritage is protected. This bill aims to do that.
This bill is concerned with the transfer of oil between oil tankers carrying crude oil for cargo purposes. These ship-to-ship transfers of oil occur when an oil tanker carrying crude oil is too large to dock in a port where an oil refinery is located. So ship-to-ship transfers are actually a necessary event. Those ship-to-ship transfers are currently very rare and, to the best of my knowledge, only one has occurred this year—in March. So they are rare circumstances. But one mistake is one too many. This legislation is needed because it is absolutely vital that ship-to-ship transfers, if they occur, are carried out in a responsible manner. Our ocean is just far too important to allow risk to be a part of the equation out there.
Additionally, with a growing international economy, there is a chance that ship-to-ship transfers of crude oil will become more necessary into the future. It is therefore imperative that this parliament respond, and appropriately regulate such transfers to ensure that they are carried out successfully. As I understand it, responsibility for the safe regulation of domestic New South Wales coastal trade is a responsibility shared between the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments. New South Wales is generally responsible for intrastate voyages. Trading vessels that operate on interstate voyages or are recarrying domestic cargo are part of an international voyage and are regulated by the Commonwealth.
All trading vessels operating in Australian waters are required to comply with the Commonwealth and state marine pollution legislation. Trading vessels arriving at and departing from overseas destinations have to comply with a number of Commonwealth laws. They have a requirement to exchange ballast water en route to prevent marine pest incursions, as happened quite infamously in the 1990s with the Japanese starfish which devastated the Tasmanian scallop fishery. So these regulations are very, very significant and highly practical in their impact.
These are important threats, but perhaps the threat we fear most as a coastal nation is the threat of serious pollution from ships. Maritime oil spills are one of the greatest possible threats to our marine ecosystem that we can imagine. In protecting marine ecosystems it is absolutely vital that we do all we can to prevent maritime oil spills, because the cost of a cure far outweighs any cost of prevention. The cost of any regulation and prevention measure really is naturally much less than the overall cost of cleaning up a maritime oil spill. The economic and social costs of such a catastrophic event are just too high even to contemplate. Indeed, communities in Alaska are still bearing the repercussions of the Exxon Valdez having run aground in Prince William Sound so many years ago. Many in this parliament represent these coastal electorates. We understand the immense importance of coastal environments. The electorate of Robertson contains many beautiful beaches and other coastal environments, many of which have become national landmarks. This was demonstrated with the great public interest generated by the scuttling of the former HMAS Adelaide in the seat of Robertson. Additionally, the beaches on the Central Coast have attracted holidaymakers for generations. Living in a coastal area, you understand the importance of beaches to our local communities. Indeed, it is part of our national character. It is for these reasons that it is important, in representing the people of Robertson, that I support this fundamental piece of legislation.
Every bill passed by this parliament is of national significance and this bill is certainly no exception. Indeed, any bill that aims to prevent an environmental catastrophe that would potentially have irreversible effects should be of national significance. Last Saturday, I was privileged to participate in the Five Lands Walk, an annual event aimed at increasing awareness of the spiritual importance of the natural environment. Having participated in the event for several years, I am heartened by the connection that the participants in the Five Lands Walk have with our local environment. This type of spiritual connection is indeed the type of connection that the very first Australians had for millennia. This is the environment that we need to protect and it is the role of this parliament to pass appropriate legislation to achieve these ends.
Saturday was the sixth annual walk and it has become a tradition that young, local Indigenous dancers call in the whales. This is the time of year that the whales are migrating up the eastern seaboard of New South Wales. On the weekend of the winter solstice, while others are making merry in the hinterland—I know there is a big festival up in the Blue Mountains—the whales are passing right by our coast. They passed Tudibaring Headland and Bulbaring Headland, to use the Indigenous names for those areas, on Saturday at exactly the time the girls did their dance. That is something that has happened every year. This intimate connection with our environment is something we should never underplay and this bill is a reflection of that deep understanding of our connection with our environment.
This legislation is constructed to ensure a very practical end—that the transfer of crude oil between ships in Australian waters reflects international best practice. As stated in the minister's second reading speech, these standards are contained in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation, recognising risks associated with ship-to-ship transfer, adopted this international convention. It is important that as a nation we take our responsibility and adopt those same standards.
An example of a new provision contained in this bill is that proposed in section 11B. The proposed section requires that, if a ship-to-ship transfer occurs, it must be carried out in accordance with the ship-to-ship operations plan. The plan is the critical element. This means that a ship-to-ship transfer of crude oil must commence with a planning phase and both ships have to comply with that plan. If they fail to do so, they will be subject to criminal sanction. Additionally, under the proposed section 11E, a master of an Australian oil tanker—and I was quite surprised to hear about the level of expertise here in the House, as mentioned by the previous speaker—involved in a ship-to-ship oil transfer will be subject to criminal sanction if the master fails to make a record of the transfer as soon as practicable. So there is planning and reporting. Subsection 11F(1) also provides that the master of a tanker which has been involved in a ship-to-ship oil transfer operation in Australian waters will have committed a criminal offence if the master has failed to notify a prescribed officer of the transfer at least 48 hours before the transfer began. The regulations of this bill therefore ensure that such transfers of oil are carried out with appropriate notice and in accordance with a plan and that they are recorded once completed successfully. This is vital considering the amount of oil that ship-to-ship transfers involve. These transfers typically do occur in accordance with very strict guidelines and practices which cargo ships abide by. Despite this it is vital that we legislate to ensure standards are high and complied with when these transfers occur in Australian waters or when involving Australian ships. This government has ensured that the standards set down in this bill do reflect best international practice. It is worth noting that the standards embedded in the key elements included in this bill were developed initially by the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Ltd. This is an international not-for-profit service organisation that, throughout its history, has been predominantly concerned with the administration of compensation schemes. Not surprisingly the ITOPF has quite naturally developed an important role in providing advice in regard to the response to oil spill incidents. In addition it has a keen interest in preventing such spills.
We need only cast our minds back to the devastating oil spill that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico last year to observe the absolute devastation of an entire marine environment. In addition there was the terrible economic impact that flowed on from that environmental devastation. We have seen what oil can do when it is not carefully managed and when preventative action is not properly managed. I hope that throughout my lifetime this nation never has to deal with a major oil spill of such magnitude.
This government since being elected has been committed to ensuring that safety at sea and the safety of our environment is ensured. I am proud to support a government that has significantly improved the protection and sustainability of Australia's marine environment. This is demonstrated by our legislative record with the passing of legislation regarding civil liability for bunker oil pollution damage. Also this government has been proactive in enacting regulations including the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Regulations and Protection of the Sea (Oil Pollution Compensation Fund) Regulations.
Such legislative activity is rarely commented upon by our news media. I am sure that if some oil spilled we would all hear about it, and there would be so much blame apportioned and so much regret. Prevention is less engaging for the media, but is a vital part of good governance and that is what is happening here today. Often preventative legislation is regarded as unexciting in comparison to other matters being debated in the parliament or sometimes unexciting simply to debate or for the entertainment that it provides. But we in this place are in the business of governing, not in the business of entertaining. This legislation is a fair reflection of that.
I assert most forcefully that the prevention of major oil spills is vitally important in securing our environmental and economic future as a coastal nation. Whilst ship-to-ship transfers of crude oil rarely occur in Australian waters, when they do happen they must occur under appropriate regulation that meets the world standard. Anything less would incur far too great a risk of environmental tragedy. The ocean is one of our most treasured and important environmental assets.
In representing my electorate of Robertson I will always think of our sparkling eastern seaboard. I think of the people who enjoy it for fishing, for swimming, for surfing, for boogie boarding, for sailing and even for those new things where you stand up and paddle; I see them all the time at Avoca. We have wonderfully innovative ways of enjoying the ocean. We need to have legislation that is preventative and innovates and moves us to a safer place. I commend the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011 to the House.
WYATT ROY (Longman) (11:29): I rise to speak to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011. The intent of this bill is to ensure that amendments to annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships are implemented in Australia. The amendments have been made in recognition of the potential for pollution to occur when oil is being transferred from one ship to another. Whilst this happens rarely in Australia it is important that all reasonable measures be taken to reduce the risk of an oil spill when these types of transfers occur at sea. Under this legislation oil tankers with 150 gross tonnage and above that are involved in ship-to-ship oil transfers must have a ship-to-ship operations plan that details how such transfers are to be managed. Australian oil tanker operation plans will be checked by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and approved if they comply with the provisions of the legislation. Importantly, the master of an oil tanker that will be undertaking the ship-to-ship transfer is required to notify the administration of the country in which the transfer is to take place at least 48 hours before the operation in order to ensure the presence of the right equipment to clean up an oil spill should it occur. That way, serious damage to waterways and coastlines might be prevented by early intervention. It is my understanding that ship-to-ship transfers of oil have occurred in Australian waters on only one occasion, off the coast of Sydney, by Caltex. Caltex have advised that they are already compliant with the provisions of this legislation.
I have a personal interest in this legislation. Honourable members will be aware of what has become widely known as the Queensland summer of disasters, during which our beautiful region suffered through the worst season of natural disasters in the state's history. We were buffeted by floods and cyclones all through the summer, and these have done untold damage to our state and have robbed us of too many lives. However, in March 2009 Queensland suffered from one of its worst man-made disasters, when the container ship Pacific Adventurer spilled approximately 270,000 litres of oil into Moreton Bay. The oil spill affected 20 kilometres of pristine coastline from Cape Moreton to Blue Lagoon in South-East Queensland. It was a shock to my community when, on Thursday, 12 March 2009, the Premier declared Moreton Island, Bribie Island and more southern parts of the Sunshine Coast a disaster zone. Bribie Island, in my own electorate, was one of the worst-affected areas. Queensland beaches are famous all over the world and the tourism industry was seriously threatened by the oil that was spilled. Community safety was compromised and our precious beaches and waterways were closed. This caused untold distress and economic damage to the region, its people and its wildlife. Some of Queensland's major tourist attractions along the Sunshine Coast were affected, together with Moreton Island and Bribie Island.
This legislation will require that all transfers of oil are carried out in accordance with an oil tanker's ship-to-ship operation plan. This will apply when the transfer occurs in the sea near a state or territory in Australia's exclusive economic zone, or when the supertanker is involved in Australia and the transfer occurs while the tanker is outside the Australian exclusive economic zone. Most of the oil that was spilled into Moreton Bay polluted our sandy beaches, but when the oil spill occurred the weather was terrible. This resulted in a lot of the oil that had been buried in the sand being deposited back on the beaches by the rough seas. Without exception, all the areas affected have tourism as one of their major industries, so the clean-up effort was huge and aimed to ensure that people's expectation of Queensland's fabled beaches were met. Clean we did, for two months. Up to 2,500 people were involved in the clean-up and, reflective of the true Queensland spirit we saw this summer, volunteers came from everywhere: from the community, from agencies, from interstate and from the oil industry. At times during the response there were up to 400 people working on Moreton Island. During the cleanup approximately 3,000 tonnes of oil-soaked sand was removed from Moreton Island. It was backbreaking work but mostly done manually, using shovels and rakes to fill about 8,000 bags each day. Fortunately, the affected areas are now back to their pristine condition.
As recently as April of last year, the Shen Neng 1 ran aground near Great Keppel Island on the Great Barrier Reef. In this instance there were serious concerns that the ship would break up, spilling its 975 tonnes of oil into the fragile environment of the Great Barrier Reef. As it was, some oil was spilled, requiring the use of chemical dispersants to break up the oil slick, which measured 3,000 metres by 100 metres. It was very fortunate that the skills of the salvage effort ensured that only a minimal amount of oil was spilled and that the ship was prevented from breaking up. Nonetheless, the incident serves as a stark reminder that we need to do all we can to protect our valuable and fragile marine environment. There is not a lot we can do to prevent rain and cyclones; however, it is our responsibility to do what we can to prevent man-made disasters, such as oil spills, from damaging our coast and waterways. In this context, the coalition supports this legislation.
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (11:34): I support the provisions being put forward in the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill. This legislation derives from changes internationally through the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL, which commenced in 1983 and itself derives from UN activity through the International Maritime Organisation, established in 1948.
As many speakers will indicate, there is a very real reason for trying to avoid oil spillages at sea. Obviously for this country there would be a threat to our tourism industry and to fishing, but more particularly there is the impact on wildlife, particularly birds but also whales, otters et cetera. Those impacts include hypothermia, the poisoning of animals and birds as they try to clean themselves, the effect on reproduction, the problem of blinding which makes them vulnerable to predators, many birds become too heavy to fly, oil bubbles in the fur of some animals lead to their inability to float, and whales' blowholes become plugged so they basically cannot breathe. That is another reason why we should be very vigilant and very active in this area. We hear people denigrating international activity and international cooperation through organisations such as the UN, but the fact is that trying to overcome national self-interest and corporate power to reach agreements such as this and have parallel legislation in countries is a worthwhile human endeavour.
Perhaps the most extreme example of what can occur is demonstrated by the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident. A quarter of a million birds are believed to have perished as a result of that leakage—it was more than a leakage; 25 olympic pools of oil were lost, spreading over 28,000 kilometres. This case was also indicative of corporate power in the world, because in one of the most infamous examples of corporate power and doubts arising over the US Supreme Court, the initial penalties resulting from the Exxon Valdez were reduced from $2.5 billion to $500 million, and court cases were stretched out over a decade. Despite efforts by the US Congress to ensure there were measures to counter disregard, disinterest and negligence by corporations in regard to the carriage of oil, we had an example where the political nature of members of the US Supreme Court led to a massive reduction in punitive damages.
Whilst it is estimated that the contribution of oil spillages to the overall problem is of a lower order—estimates go between five and eight per cent of the oil pollution in the world—it is still important. If we can take action internationally and as a nation to reduce the possibility, it is a worthwhile venture. It is of interest that 70 per cent of oil pollution comes from consumer use—run-off, et cetera. As I say, that five or eight per cent is important when we are trying to ensure that we move in the right direction. As well as Exxon Valdez, there has been a focus on the Gulf of Mexico over the last year or so. That certainly gained international attention because of the huge media coverage and the impact on Louisiana's wetlands and fishing and shrimp industries. There was the image of a US President not acting strongly enough. It focused international attention, in the globalised world of media presence, on making sure we all have some indication of what can occur. There have been multiple examples—Exxon Valdez, the Kuwaiti oilfields, whether it involves spillages through ship crashes or negligence in ship maintenance or, as I say, the search for oil itself.
This legislation includes a commendable series of measures designed to reduce the problem. It includes penalties for ships not having plans of action for problems that might occur; equally, there are penalties of up to $6,000 for inappropriate qualifications of people on ships, with some leniency depending on how much notice the ship operators have had. There is a penalty of $22,000 for failure to report incidents and strict liability in regard to a ship-to-ship plan. So there is a series of measures here to bring Australia into line with international provisions. This is as a result of international action. While I heard one speaker saying that Australian waters have not been affected by this many times, there is always the possibility. Who would have foreseen 20 years ago what is happening in international transport? Who knows what is going to occur with oil shortages over the next few decades—how it will be transported, in what kinds of vehicles, the nature of Australian ports? The degree of caution, vigilance and action early on are commendable. We are, through this legislation, moving on the threat of spillage from ships transporting oil, chemicals and other substances.
In conclusion, I commend this as a necessary measure and stress again both the threat to the environment and an indication of this country being involved in international organisations, and the very positive outcomes which occur through international cooperation.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (11:41): Australia is fortunate to be home to some of the most spectacular environments in the world, in particular our marine life. Being the world's largest island, our coastline boasts hundreds of beautiful islands and reefs and each of these provides support to their unique ecosystems. From whale sharks in Western Australia to the heritage listed Great Barrier Reef, our marine environment is worth protecting. The bill we are debating today, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011, relates to safety measures which are to be implemented by oil tankers during ship-to-ship transfers. They are important. Imagine the damage an oil spill would cause to our marine environments.
We saw the devastation caused last year by the massive deepwater oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Yet even spills on a smaller scale can have hugely detrimental effects on an environment and can occur from ship-to-ship oil transfers. One of the most serious cases of a ship-to-ship oil transfer spill occurred off Texas in 1990, which resulted in 4.3 million gallons of crude oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico. Oil spills are hugely destructive. We saw for ourselves a major impact on our islands and coastline north of Brisbane from a relatively smaller oil spill from the Pacific Adventurer, as detailed previously by my colleague the member for Longman. I commend Brisbane City Council and the then Lord Mayor, Campbell Newman, for their response and for the subsequent campaign by Brisbane Marketing to reinvigorate the region. Oil spills damage the environment for marine wildlife and cause stress to the complex ecosystems which exist along our shore lines. As well as the environmental harm they cause, the economic repercussions of a clean-up can be quite drastic. We do not want to see this happen in Australian waters. That is why the coalition is supportive of today's amendments.
As a nation we have always valued our unique biodiversity and have been a member of the International Maritime Organisation since its establishment in 1948. It has always been acknowledged that the best way of increasing safety and reducing pollution at sea is by developing international regulations that all shipping nations adopt. Australia has played an active role in the International Maritime Organisation over the years, helping to develop conventions and treaties. It is wonderful that our nation is part of such a successful, multinational organisation that continues to adapt to the changing conditions of the world in which it operates.
As part of the IMO, the MARPOL convention is part of the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes. All of its six annexes have been implemented over the years by both coalition and Labor governments to ensure that Australian standards are in line with international conventions. Today's amendments, which deal with protecting the sea from pollution caused by vessels engaged in ship-to-ship transfers of oil, were adopted by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO in July 2009 and came into force internationally in January this year. Amendments to the annexes of the MARPOL have consistently received bipartisan support, reflecting the importance of those sensible measures as well as the value Australia places on protecting our marine environments. The amendments today bring Australia's legislation in line with the relevant MARPOL convention annex and, therefore, in line with international standards.
This bill will implement safety measures which will require all oil tankers of a gross tonnage of 150 or more involved in ship-to-ship oil transfer operations to have a ship-to-ship operations plan on board. This plan will prescribe how to conduct oil transfers, the implication being that the fact that a tanker does not have this plan on board indicates that it may not have sufficient safeguards in place to avoid an oil spill. The scheme is designed to ensure that oil tankers give due consideration to the ship-to-ship transfer practices and that their hazard prevention safeguards adequately prevent an oil spill. These ship-to-ship operation plans will be checked by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and if they are found to comply with the bill's requirements they will be approved for use. These requirements will apply to ship-to-ship transfers carried out from April next year. After this time, a record of ship-to-ship transfers occurring near an Australian state or territory must be kept, and a 48-hour notification of a transfer must be given to the country in whose waters it will take place.
Given the disastrous effect an oil spill could have on the Australian coastline, it is important to note that ship-to-ship transfer is uncommon in Australian waters. In fact there has been only one ship-to-ship operation conducted near Australia in our history. That case occurred in March of this year and was administered by Caltex, as they have advised that this method of transfer is a cost-effective way of transporting oil from distant locations in Africa. This transfer was completely successful and in full accordance with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. This method of ship-to-ship transfer is important for companies such as Caltex as they can use a large vessel or supertanker to transport the oil over great distances, but they need to be able to transfer to smaller vessels which can then take the commodity to port.
Another environmental benefit of this is that it reduces the number of oil tankers travelling on the sea, thus reducing the increased pollution that multiple vessels travelling large distances would cause. For the foreseeable future it is likely that Caltex will be the only company engaged in the ship-to-ship process. As they already operate under best practice, the company believe that they are already compliant and the amendment will have no negative effect on their business. So whilst a current company already employs these standards, today's amendments will ensure that the standards are already in place to protect our marine environment from any future tankers that use ship-to-ship transfers.
The coalition will always support sensible policies which deliver real outcomes for Australia. Both sides of this place have given support to MARPOL amendments over the years to ensure that Australia upholds international standards wherever possible. It is said that the best defence is a good offence and these measures will help to protect our precious marine environment from the disastrous effects an oil spill would cause. I am pleased to support this bill.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (11:48): As someone with a keen interest in the marine environment, it gives me great pleasure to speak today on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011. This bill seeks to implement amendments to annex 1 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The intention of the bill is to prevent spills occurring during ship-to-ship oil transfers between oil tankers. The new requirement under the bill will apply to oil tankers over 150 gross tonnes. These transfers most often occur when an oil tanker is too large to enter a port where there is a refinery, so it becomes necessary to transfer the oil to smaller ships.
Many will perhaps think it is odd that the member for Canberra would rise to speak on this legislation. After all, Canberra is not well known for its great beaches, its bustling working ports or its maritime tradition. As I said, I rise to speak on the bill because I am motivated by our national interest and because I believe that, whilst such transfers are rare in Australia, the potential damage that could result from a spill is enormous. My dad is a very keen snorkeller, skindiver and sailor, and as a result my sisters and I were brought up swimming from an early age, with a strong appreciation and respect for the ocean and a strong appreciation and respect for its dangers, beauty and wealth of life. So, from a very young age, I have been extremely conscious of the need to protect Australia's marine environment.
I was fortunate recently to visit the Australian Antarctic Division in Tasmania with the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. During this trip, I spoke with scientists from the division as well as from the University of Tasmania. In my conversations with them I learned of the pressures being placed on the oceans of the world due to climate change. I learned how the protein value of krill populations could diminish from increased ocean acidity caused by a sudden and dramatic increase in the Earth's temperature due to climate change. The division is, thankfully, undertaking a comprehensive, unique and significant study of krill which has drawn interest from scientists all over the world. When we were there that day, there were scientists from Germany, the United States, from memory, and a range of other countries who were drawn to this very unique research taking place only in the division and only in Tasmania.
Krill are a vitally important part of the marine environment. They are the foundation of the marine food chain and many species, both large and small, directly depend on this vital food source for survival. Beyond this, many more, including us, are indirectly linked to the survival of these tiny creatures. My trip to Tasmania more than settled in my mind the need for this parliament to take immediate action on climate change through a carbon price. It also underscored the need to protect our precious marine environment from all sorts of threats, including potential oil spills in Australia.
The transportation of oil through sea lanes represents an important source of marine pollution. Whilst I have noted that such spills in Australia are rare, when they occur the potential environmental damage is enormous. Not only do they have an immediate and devastating impact in the short term but also research has shown that there is significant long-term damage from spills. Oil in the marine environment can irritate the eyes of the wildlife that encounter it. It also contaminates food sources, damages or disrupts the fins of fish and clogs fur and feathers. We have all seen those dreadful images from around the world of birds covered in oil from the range of disasters that have happened with oil spills. They really underscore this point.
Longer term exposure has other dire consequences for these creatures, such as organ failure. One of the substances contained in crude oil is a compound known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, or PAH. This compound is known to be mutagenic and carcinogenic, and whilst naturally occurring in certain circumstances it is significantly present in crude oil. PAH has been demonstrated to have highly toxic and long-term effects on the reproduction of fish, even at very low levels. But, well apart from the ecological cost of oil spillage, there is also the social and economic cost to those people who live near the site of spills. The recent events in the Gulf of Mexico highlight the effect on communities. Local anglers were prevented from fishing for months, sending many of them to the wall and decimating local economies. Tourism to the area all but ceased as once picturesque beaches were covered with a thick black coating of oil, and of course they will take many years to fully recover, if indeed they ever do.
There have been concerns about the health of the people who live in areas near these disasters, as well as the health of those who clean up the spills. In the Gulf of Mexico, there have been reports of skin and eye irritations. One academic study focused on the effects on the health of workers who were sent to clean up the 2003 spill from the Tasman Spirittanker in Karachi. This study found an increase in respiratory problems in the people who cleaned up the spill. The report also found an increase in coughs, skin and eye irritations, sore throats and headaches as a result of people being close to the spill.
While these spills are perhaps larger than that contemplated by this legislation, even a minor incident can have devastating consequences. One such example occurred in 1976, when an oil tanker which had unloaded its cargo sought to wash its tanks out with seawater. Although only an estimated five tonnes of oil were released, it had the effect of calming the waves and attracting a migrating flock of ducks. Some 60,000 died as a result of this spill. While this is perhaps an isolated incident, it does serve to highlight the effects of oil spills. While they may be rare, the effects can never be truly predicted and are highly damaging. That is why we need strong legislation to prevent such events from ever occurring.
Today's legislation seeks to do just that. It requires a ship-to-ship operation plan in all ships. This will ensure that tankers have appropriate equipment and qualified and trained onboard crew to undertake the operation. It will also ensure coastal states are notified of an operation proposed in their areas, which will allow them to move quickly should the worst happen. The bill is an example of world's best practice regulation and will bring Australia into line with international convention. Since 2007, the government has introduced legislation covering civil liability for bunker oil pollution damage. We have introduced the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Regulations and the Protection of the Sea (Oil Pollution Compensation Fund) Amendment Regulations. The Gillard government is deeply committed to protecting Australia's environment, and I commend the bill to the House.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (11:56): I also rise to support the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011. The coalition has a long history of supporting sensible reform to protect our marine environment, and the bill amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to implement amendments to annex 1 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL, to prevent marine pollution during ship-to-ship oil transfer operations. These requirements entered into force internationally on 1 January 2011, and this bill will bring Australia's legislation into line with that scheme.
The measures of the bill are that oil tankers with 150 gross tonnage and above will be involved in ship-to-ship oil transfers and that they must have an operational plan prescribing how to conduct those transfers. It is also designed to ensure that consideration has been given to the process involved in the ship-to-ship transfer and that hazard prevention safeguards are in place to prevent an oil spill. These plans have been checked by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, AMSA, who will ensure that they meet the requirements. As you would expect, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the bill also stipulates that ship-to-ship transfers must be made in accordance with the approved operations plan and that ship-to-ship transfers must be overseen by the master of a ship involved, or by a suitably qualified person. A record of ship-to-ship transfers must be kept and notification must be given to the country in whose waters the transfer is to take place approximately 48 hours prior to the transfer.
Recently I met with representatives of the Australian Marine Conservation Society. They are the voice for Australia's oceans. A constituent of mine in Brisbane, Mr Omar Ameer, was one of the representatives to visit me. He is a volunteer for the society. He is very dedicated and spends many hours in his fight to help conserve Australia's marine environments. I want to congratulate him and the organisation for the very fine work that they do in this particular area. Their head office is located in my electorate of Brisbane, and the work that they do on behalf of all of the community to protect ocean wildlife, make our fisheries sustainable and create places in the sea where our precious ocean animals are safe from harm is to be commended. The Australian Marine Conservation Society are working actively with passionate scientists, educators and advocates who have defended Australia's oceans for more than 40 years. Australians love the sea and, as an island nation, we value our ocean wildlife, our fur seals, our humpback whales and our sea turtles. Measures outlined in this bill have the specific aim of protecting these gifts that we have been given. Moreton Bay, on the eastern coast of Australia 45 kilometres from Brisbane, is one of Queensland's most precious coastal resources. The waters of Moreton Bay are a popular destination for recreational anglers and are used by commercial operators who provide seafood to the market. The protection of this area, along with our waters, is of great importance. Brisbane has a great love for Moreton Bay and its 30 beaches, its wonderful, beautiful islands and its national marine park. This region also plays a very important role in the world's biodiversity, hosting 40,000 migratory birds each year, as recognised by the World Wetlands Day celebrations.
We all remember one of Australia's worst oil disasters on 11 March 2009. We saw the cyclone-buffeted cargo ship Pacific Adventurer leak some 270,000 litres of fuel into Moreton Bay. It blackened the beaches of Moreton Bay and Bribie Island and beaches along the Sunshine Coast. The oil washed onto beaches, rocky reefs and mangroves on the north-eastern side of Moreton Bay and Bribie Island, and onto the beaches and mangrove wetlands between Caloundra and Coolum Beach on the Sunshine Coast. Many of the affected areas were located within the Moreton Bay Marine Park and the Moreton Bay Ramsar site. It will take many years for these areas to fully recover.
The Bligh government's response to the Moreton Bay oil spill disaster was just another bungle from a tired and inept Labor administration. It took far too long for them to recognise that there was a problem occurring, and then they delayed the start of the clean-up effort. Several of the local restaurants and many of the hotels and function centres that received shipments of fish from the waters off the Queensland coast refused to stock any fish due to the spill. The cost of that particular operation also hurt the economy terribly. It cost at least $10 million. In July 2009, the total clean-up bill was estimated to be some $34 million. The President of the Queensland Seafood Industry Association, Neil Green, said at the time that the 30 containers of ammonium nitrate that fell off the Pacific Adventurer on the Wednesday morning were also a major concern to commercial fishermen and the potential impact on fishing stock was absolutely devastating.
I support any safeguards that we can implement to prevent such ecodisasters. The coalition has supported the bills which have updated liability provisions for oil spills in 2008 and implemented improved air pollution standards for ships in 2010. These measures, combined with the current bill, will in the long term reduce the risk, and lessen the impact, of disasters such as those I have outlined. The measures in the bill are very important. It also needs to be noted that to date a ship-to-ship transfer has occurred only once in Australian waters. In March this year Caltex conducted a successful transfer off the coast of Sydney.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr MELHAM: I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
Frankston City Council Splash Card
Type 1 Diabetes Carers Allowance
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (12:04): I bring a note of celebration and excitement. The great Southern Hemisphere metropolis of Frankston has done it again, achieving two awards in the National Awards for Local Government. I am delighted to share with the parliament that the Splash Card has won the National Awards for Local Government National Award for Excellence and also the National Awards for Local Government Inspired Cities category. This is an enormous tribute to Frankston City Council and to all of the team involved in this outstanding initiative. Essentially, the Splash Card is a student discount card and it is leading economic development and also local employment, local shopping and youth engagement initiatives in Frankston city. The program predominantly operates through online mediums such as websites, email, SMS, Facebook and Twitter, connecting youth, through these avenues and the avenues that they prefer, with our community. Not once has the program been marketed through the traditional media—it simply has not needed to be done. Instead, this innovative approach is engaging people, particularly young people, and sets an excellent example for social media strategy for other local governments. The concept behind it is for the council, through this Splash Card, to engage youth and alert them to local employment opportunities, in a no-nonsense fashion that reduces bureaucracy and provides opportunities for local business and local employers, and also to engage local people in what is going on in their community, the great city of Frankston.
The Splash Card provides secondary and tertiary students with discounts at over 50 street-side business in Frankston City Centre. Students are required to register online, they provide the council with information for ongoing interactions and then they are on their way. Students can receive their cards online, or they are posted to them within 72 hours. The great idea about this is that those holding a Splash Card are in a position to take advantage of in-store discounts. It provides an avenue for them to be updated about new commercial offers from local small businesses in Frankston city, and it also lets them know about events and competitions that may be of interest to them. A very exciting part of it, though, is that it also alerts young people in our community to local employment opportunities, and we have already seen some examples where, by learning about employment opportunities through digital media and online services, young people have been able to find employment in Frankston city. So far, in just 15 months of operation, the Splash Card has been distributed to over 25,000 students, 20,000 of whom are tertiary students. Over 2,200 students have registered online; that number continues to grow, and the council has a useful database to engage with local people about issues of concern to them.
So there are a few elements to the program: the activation of the Frankston City Centre through a creative engagement means and marketing means; an opportunity to encourage students to shop in Frankston city; a way of sharing information about events and opportunities and discounts; a way of retaining talented local people in the area as they are alerted to opportunities for employment; and also a way of engaging with the community in Frankston city. Rather than just hanging out in the streets of Frankston, young people are encouraged to engage, to shop, to support, to look for employment opportunities and to be connected with what is going on in their city. This is a fantastic initiative of Frankston City's and they have well deserved the recognition that they have earned. To the economic development team, particularly Jonathan Reichwald, Samantha Jackson and others that are active in this area, my strong, hearty congratulations for their win.
On a slightly less exciting area, there is some concern about government pondering changes to type 1 diabetes carers allowance. I know the minister has met with a number of people in the local community who are concerned about a proposal that would see parents of children with type 1 diabetes losing some of the carer allowances and benefits when those young people hit 10 years of age. The thinking behind it, as I understand it, is that at that age a 10-year-old should be able to manage their medication, but parents are telling me that the challenges get harder and more demanding as parents are actively involved with their pre-teenage children, making sure that they make good dietary choices and good healthcare arrangements. There is also the issue of the cost of medication itself. Under this measure, if the government proceeds with it, some may lose their healthcare card and see medications costing $268 rather than $5.50. So I urge the government to think carefully about that issue.
In the few seconds that are left I want to thank Minister Roxon's staff for meeting with me about the area of workforce shortage challenges in the Dunkley electorate, including at the Belvedere Park clinic, where Dr Hura and the other doctors have been looking after my family for many years. A number are retiring, Dr Barry being one of them, and we need to make sure that we can replace those doctors. You can see the area of workforce shortage. (Time expired)
Whitlam Institute
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (12:09): Since its establishment in 2000 by the University of Western Sydney, I have been honoured to attend a number of functions at the Whitlam Institute. It is housed in the historically significant Parramatta Female Orphan School on the Parramatta campus of the university. The Whitlam Institute is guided by the three great aims that drove the agenda of the Whitlam government in 1972, as well as recording the historical legacy of Gough Whitlam's years in public life. Those aims are: to promote equality, to involve the people of Australia in the decision-making processes of our land and to liberate the talents and uplift the horizons of the Australian people. It exists for those Australians who care about what matters in a fair Australia. It bridges Mr Whitlam's public legacy and the contemporary relevance of his program to public policy. I have previously noted in this place a contribution of the Whitlam government and of Gough himself to the advancement of greater Western Sydney, including the establishment of the university itself. It is only appropriate that the institute house Mr Whitlam's records and papers from his private collection in addition to its other scholarly activities.
The Whitlam Institute works as an educator, policy influencer and research institute, amongst its many activities. The institute has, over the past five years, conducted the 'What matters?' Competition for students in years 5 to 12 across the ACT and New South Wales. Students write between 500 and 600 words to share their thoughts on what matters to them. Since its inception in 2007, the number of entries has risen from a few hundred to a few thousand. Every entry is read and every student who contributes is acknowledged through a certificate. The 2010 competition saw essays on a range of subjects, such as global unity, poverty, the death of a sibling, the palm oil industry and honour killings.
This year saw the successful inaugural Gough Whitlam Oration given by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, on 'Walking the reform road'. There are regular exhibitions, such as the lauded 'Mrs Prime Minister' and the upcoming 'Shell-shocked Australia', in conjunction with the National Archives and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Another tradition has developed with the celebration of Gough's birthday on 11 July each year; his 95th birthday is next month. All this is in addition to its research program. In a relatively short few years, the professionalism and contribution of the Whitlam Institute has continued to grow.
I wish to pay particular tribute to the Director of the Whitlam Institute, Mr Eric Sidoti. Throughout his long career and prior to his appointment, Eric was engaged in a range of activities across many policy areas, including education and training, employment, human rights, development, Indigenous land rights and education, humanitarian law and conflict and welfare issues. Apart from his own consultancy business, he was previously involved in a leadership capacity at the Human Rights Council of Australia, Amnesty International Australia and the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace.
In 2002, Eric addressed the annual general meeting of the Professional Teachers Council, where he introduced the value set that has underpinned his contribution to public policy with reference to Harper Lee's book To Kill a Mockingbird. He said:
Harper Lee's work spoke to me at least about our shared humanity, the way we relate, about respect and justice. She spoke to me about the destructive powers of ignorance, and prejudice.
To Kill a Mockingbird has been a constant reminder to me that the human is the essential determinant of rights.
I applaud Eric's work as the Director of the Whitlam Institute. I congratulate the institute, for its commitment to the legacy of a great man and the future of public policy debate in this country.
In his policy speech on 13 November 1972, Gough Whitlam had this to say:
We want to give a new life and a new meaning in this new nation to the touchstone of modern democracy—to liberty, equality, fraternity.
Professor Janice Reid, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Sydney, had this to say:
Gough has always argued that the people of Australia should be heard and involved in the decisions governments make. How fitting then that the opportunity to speak up and be heard offered by this What Matters? competition is being so enthusiastically embraced by so many young people.
I commend the Whitlam Institute on its work.
South Australia: Walking Trails
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (12:14): I would like to speak about walking trails in South Australia. South Australia has a number of long-distance walking trails. The Heysen trail, which was completed in the 1980s, runs from Cape Jervis on the Fleurieu Peninsula to Parachilna in the Flinders Ranges. It is 1,200 kilometres of walking trail and was modelled on some of the walking trails in Europe and the United States. It was the vision of Warren Bonython, an explorer, an adventurer and a very keen bushwalker. It honours South Australian artist Hans Heysen, who brought the Flinders Ranges and the Adelaide Hills to the Australian community and to the international community. There are also the Mawson Trail, which is a long-distance cycling trail, and the Kidman Trail, which is a multi-use trail and can cope with horse riding.
Recently I walked some of these trails with my family. In walking some of the shorter walking trails around Adelaide, we went on a walk from Waterfall Gully to Mount Lofty. I was amazed at the numbers of people who were taking this walk. It is a 3.8-kilometre walk up to the summit. Mount Lofty was devastated by the Ash Wednesday bushfires in the early 1980s. I remember doing that walk when the summit was quite bare and it was a very lonely walk; you might see one or two other people making that walk. When my family and I did it on the Monday of the long weekend it was like Rundle Mall; people were walking up in single file.
The reason I raise this is there are many other walking trails that people can use. The Yurrebilla Trail, which I have also walked with my family, is 54 kilometres. It links all of the national parks in the Adelaide Hills. It begins at the Belair National Park, runs through Brown Hill Creek, Cleland park, Horsnell Gully, Morialta and Black Hill. This is a great opportunity, right next to the city, to see wildlife—to see koalas, to see the abundant birdlife—in the Adelaide Hills. It was a vision of the South Australian Liberal government to link up all of these parks through a walking trail.
There is one thing I would like to see, as the local member. The Liberal and National parties proposed at the last election a green army with teams to go out and work in the environment. One project I would like to see the green armies working on is upgrading these walking trails. The walking trail from Waterfall Gully kiosk to Mount Lofty—which I think the member for Kingston walked quite recently, and that was covered on radio—has been significantly upgraded. There is more work that can be done on the walking trails to make them more user-friendly so that more people can use them. If you have a look at the numbers of people doing that walk up Mount Lofty, people are doing it to train for mountaineering, doing it for exercise, doing it to appreciate nature. The amount of participation is tremendous.
There is also the Sea to Summit walk, which runs from Seacliff to Mount Lofty. Over the same long weekend there was a race from the sea to the summit, which is Mount Lofty, again using the bushland that exists in the metropolitan area. The green army proposal would be a way of upgrading our walking trails to get more people to appreciate our beautiful environment. One thing that struck me with the Yurrebilla Trail is how few people were using that beautiful trail through the Belair National Park compared to the very well-travelled walk up Mount Lofty. I do hope that the coalition will be pushing ahead with our green army proposal. I think that there is a lot of work that can be done on walking trails so that they can be better used by the community.
Free Trade
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (12:19): I rise to discuss the benefits of free trade to the Australian economy and the Australian consumer. Estimates from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade show that households have benefited by $3,900 per annum as a result of the reductions in tariffs and the elimination of export quotas over recent decades. A large part of that boost has been in the form of prices being lower for consumers than they would otherwise have been in the presence of tariffs. The real prices of heavily protected products have fallen sharply. Boys' footwear has fallen by 50 per cent, prices of major household appliances have fallen by 47 per cent and prices of automobiles have fallen by 37 per cent. One in five Australians is now employed as a result of exports and imports. Australians working in export industries are paid 60 per cent more than other working Australians.
I want to use this opportunity to praise the trade minister, Craig Emerson, for his recent statements in this area. He follows very much in the traditions of the Hawke and Keating governments of trade liberalisation. Trade liberalisation in Australia has been a Labor achievement; whether through Gough Whitlam's 1973 tariff cuts or the Hawke tariff cuts in 1988 and 1991, the tough decisions have been Labor decisions. The Australian economy is better for that—we are a more resilient economy. I think one of the reasons we have weathered these shocks so well in recent years has been because Australian businesses naturally think of themselves as international businesses engaged with the world economy and diversified across international markets.
Lowering Australian trade barriers is worthwhile in its own right, regardless of what other countries do. As the great Cambridge economist Joan Robinson put it, it is worth removing the rocks from your harbours even if other trading partners do not take the rocks out of their harbours.
Thankfully, our other trading partners have also been taking the rocks from their harbours. Among Australia's major trading partners in the Asia-Pacific region, which buys 70 per cent of Australia's exports, average tariffs have been cut over the last quarter century from more than 25 per cent to around five per cent, according to a recent Productivity Commission trade policy statement.
I would like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to the late Senator Peter Cook, who was, for a time, Australia's minister for trade and, when I worked for him in the late 1990s, the shadow minister for trade. Peter died a little under six years ago, having resigned from this place almost exactly six years ago. He was just 62 at the time when he passed away, but he left a great legacy. He held a range of different portfolios, including industry, shipping, resources, industrial relations and trade. He understood intuitively that the benefits of trade liberalisation flow to all Australians.
He understood, as very much a self-taught politician and one of the last who had not finished high school to serve in a cabinet, the benefits of comparative advantage, of doing what Australia does best. When he returned from the 1999 Seattle trade talks, where he and his wife, Barbara, had been caught up in the riots and the tear gas, Peter set about rewriting Labor's trade policy. Its opening paragraph firmly committed our party to free trade.
He was an instinctive internationalist, perhaps because he was engaged in that most global of sports—sailing. When doctors told him he had only a year to live, Peter Cook told them what he thought of their prognosis by buying a 41-foot yacht. He never lost track of what mattered. He cut through the arcane complexity of trade agreements to make simple and straightforward points, and he recognised so well the interconnection between a strong social policy and an internationalist outlook.
On the shores of Lake Geneva, the building that was once the International Labour Organisation is now the World Trade Organisation. Yet it still bears on its walls the original social realist murals, depicting workers battling for their rights. Peter Cook once remarked how fitting he found the building, melding the rights of labour with the principle that trade across national boundaries should be unfettered. It was a great gain to the parliament and public debate that Peter Cook served for 22 years in the national parliament. We owe him much.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (12:24): It is important for every government to consult, just as it is for every one of us in this chamber to remember we are not here forever, but when it comes to Indigenous wellbeing we need to be doing more than consulting alone, and more, certainly, than sitting here in our public lives and seeing nothing changing. That is why yesterday's release of 'Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory' caused so much alarm, if not insult, in Central Australia. This offer by Minister Macklin to yet again consult on the Northern Territory intervention is more of the same. Minister Macklin can now be very proud that she has an entire page of links to reports under her tenure, looking at an examining the Central Australian situation. Is there a need for more reports and more consultation in the absence of action?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I put to you that it is one thing to talk about spending money but quite another to talk about changing the lot of those who are living in Central Australia. You may well be proud of every single one of these links that take you to reports written by committed authors, mostly now forgotten, but, in reality, what is changing out there? Go back two years, one month and one day, and an almost identically titled report was released promising again in not stronger futures but future directions to, yes, consult on the Northern Territory intervention. That was two years, one month and one day ago. We seem to see the word 'future' in many of these government documents because there is nothing to talk about in the present. And, of course, the past is something for which one only apologises on behalf of others.
As we look to the future with documents like this, I can see more promises to consult. How long do we have to consult about children not going to school? How long do we have to consult about people not taking up a completely reasonable job just down the road on a mine site? How long should we have to live with the watered-down, mutual obligation laws under former Minister O'Connor from 2008 when he put in the hardship clause, which said that if you had less than $5,000 in liquidity one cannot be breached. Who on earth who is facing breaching or mutual obligation, has a quick $5,000 in their bank account? No-one. It was a blanket exemption on mutual obligation. All that Indigenous Australians are asking for is some decision, some strength. It is one thing to be using the rhetoric of 'stepping up' and 'getting tough' when you are talking to people in the south, but quite another when you tiptoe around communities whispering that it is such an unfair intervention.
In reality, the only thing that has changed between these two reports is the adjectives. Even the photo shot of the minister is exactly the same. The only thing that has changed is the adjectives: back in 2009 the minister was talking about 'hurt' and 'betrayal', and then in 2011 she is talking about 'anger', 'fear' and 'distrust'. In the end, apart from the adjectives changing, the content is exactly the same. The great problem is: how can adjectives even change when nothing is happening, except an almost anthropological fixation of the Labor side of this chamber to watch the intervention and consult on it.
Yes, we as a coalition government brought it in towards the end of 2007 and, correct, we had just three months to consult. Let us accept that it could have been implemented far better.
Mr Melham: You didn't talk to anyone, not even the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.
Mr LAMING: I accept that intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. It could have been consulted even better. But certainly an Australian government receiving bipartisan support in November of 2007 could have started a process of consultation. But, no, like you are looking through an oven window at a rising souffle of frustration, you just sit there and measure the intervention and talk about it, but nothing has been improved. Despite everything that was promised in 2008 and 2009, in those interminable reports written by well-meaning people, there is a fundamental failure here.
Minister Macklin is quite happy to fund Noel Pearson to increase school attendance to 85 per cent. She funds him to increase school attendance but does not have the wit to take the ideas of Pearson and disseminate them anywhere else in the country. So in the rest of Central Australia we have school attendance rates that have stalled at 60 per cent and have barely changed one per cent in the following three years. The ideas are there, they can be easily disseminated, but they have not been taken up.
Deputy Speaker, I appeal to you. There have never been a lot of jobs in Central Australia. There has certainly been difficulty matching jobs to people. But with the mining explosion and the thousands of jobs appearing, there is no excuse for having remote Indigenous communities hyperendemically unemployed right next door to mine sites. There is a time when we have to match these good young people to job opportunities just down the road. The Kimberley has more jobs than it has working-age Aboriginal adults, but this government has not had the wit to put the two together for the simple reason that they find it impossible with their left-wing ideology to make someone do something if they do not feel like doing it at the time. That means you do not have to send your kids to school, you do not have to take up a job if you do not feel like it, you do not have to drink in moderation if you do not feel like it, and that is the fundamental problem with Labor's approach—they have been unable to apply mutual obligation to the challenge of Central Australia.
Kingston Electorate: McLaren Vale RSL and Naval Association Beachvale
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (12:29): I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the great work of two returned service organisations in my electorate of Kingston, the McLaren Vale RSL and the Naval Association Beachvale Subsection. The McLaren Vale RSL makes a real difference in the lives of both members of the veteran community and the wider community by providing a range of age appropriate programs and activities aimed at addressing issues such as social isolation, disadvantage, health and wellbeing as well as positive lifestyle choices. The RSL is a safe and comfortable place where ex-service men and women and members of the wider community can come to socialise and undertake new and different activities. The McLaren Vale RSL also works extremely hard both to commemorate the service of our veteran community and to increase understanding in the wider community of issues of relevance to veterans.
I was honoured to attend the unveiling of the McLaren Vale RSL's Peacekeepers Memorial last weekend. The memorial is a testimony to the hard work of this veterans' organisation. This important and impressive project would not have come to fruition if it was not for the vision and dedication of members of the McLaren Vale RSL, and in particular President Brian Flavel and Secretary John Gyepes. The focal point of the memorial is a decommissioned Leopard tank, which was never deployed and has never 'fired a shot in anger'. This will serve as a fitting tribute to Australian peacekeepers, who may not have always received the recognition they deserve.
Australia has a proud history of providing transitional support to regions troubled by conflict or political turmoil, with over 65,000 Australians having taken part in over 50 UN and other multilateral peace and security operations in more than two dozen theatres of conflict since 1947. We continue this longstanding tradition today as an active contributor of both personnel and financial support to UN and other multilateral peace operations around the world.
The memorial will provide our local community with an opportunity to honour the Australian men and women who have served and continue to serve in important peacekeeping missions. It will become a valuable asset to the region and it will serve as a visible reminder both of our nation's military history and of the sacrifices made by Australian Defence Force personnel as well as members of the Australian Federal Police in the promotion of peace and stability throughout the world. The McLaren Vale RSL worked hard to secure the decommissioned Leopard tank and to secure funding for the memorial through a range of grants programs, and I commend them on pulling together all these grants programs, all these parcels of money, to make a very splendid memorial indeed.
I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the great work done by the Naval Association Beachvale Subsection. This important local community group provides services both to ex-service men and women, many of whom are members of the subsection, and to the broader community.
It was my pleasure also on the weekend to attend the Naval Association's annual anniversary luncheon. This luncheon marks the day that the organisation came into existence. It was a fantastic event celebrating the history of this local group but also recognising the services and sacrifices made by Australia's ex-naval personnel. I also commend the naval cadets who were there waiting on us on the day. They provided a very professional service and were very respectful. I would like to congratulate them. They come out to a lot of different memorial services and really work hard and respectfully. I think they really contribute to our local community.
The subsection contributes significantly to help people with pension and welfare issues and they have a number of pension and welfare officers who provide members and nonmembers with information about the availability of government financial assistance. These officers can help people with applications for payments such as DVA pension and apart from that are an important source of information. The subsection also works in partnership with other local groups and lends its facilities to members as well as keen local residents who perhaps want to be involved in activities such as craft, chess, cards and even indoor bowls. I would like to really commend this organisation for its outreach work and the dedication it provides to its local members and retired servicemen and women. The effort of these people is enormous.
I would like to congratulate both of these organisations for making a significant contribution to veterans in our local area and also to the wider community. (Time expired)
Grey Electorate: Telecommunications
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (12:34): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to tell you a tale today of three communities in the west of my electorate. The first is Streaky Bay on the stunning west coast of South Australia's Eyre Peninsula. It is 730 kilometres from Adelaide and 300 kilometres north-west of Port Lincoln. The backbone of the economy is agriculture; they grow wheat, other grains and livestock. It has a vibrant fishing and aquaculture industry expressed in oyster and abalone production. It has an increasing tourist sector, beautiful islands, a spectacular coastline, including cliffs, sweeping beaches and a string of protected bays, seal and sea lion colonies, and growth in sea change population—I have spoken to people who have come from the other side of the world to buy real estate and to live and visit Streaky Bay. The population of the council area is 2,025 according to the 2006 census, and around 1,070 of those live within the township. In that part of the world, it is a substantial centre, and certainly a confident and growing town.
Just 140 kilometres down the road, also on Eyre Peninsula, is another excellent, vibrant community: Wudinna. Wudinna is the biggest town in the Wudinna District Council, and like many of my inland towns is an agricultural service centre. It has fantastic services for a community of this size: a 23-bed hospital, resident doctor and dentist, swimming pool, aged care and large farm service businesses. Wudinna is a good community to live in. It is highly motivated—just last year they unveiled the Big Farmer, a six-metre high single slab of granite. The local community raised $200,000 to commission and erect it. Wudinna is the southern gateway to a great South Australian secret: the fabulous Gawler Ranges. It is the heart of what they call 'granite country'. The population of the district, according to the ABS in 2009 was 1,333, with about 600 living in the town.
The third community is the town of Cummins on the lower Eyre Peninsula, heart of some of the most productive agricultural land in South Australia. It is the service centre for 4,402 residents even though the town only has a population of a little over 700. It is very fertile farming area and the district is closely settled, and the majority of the population lives outside the town. It owns and controls the Port Lincoln airport, has a hospital, doctor, large school and is one of the most prosperous towns in the South Australian grain belt.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you may well ask what the point is of telling the story of these three towns? Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, along with a number of similar communities in my electorate, they will miss out on the government's $50 billion National Broadband Network. Streaky Bay meets the minimum criteria of more than 1,000 residents—1,070—but it is conspicuously absent from the broadband maps. In fact, it is proposed that Streaky Bay will be serviced not by a wireless network but by satellite. Wudinna is below the 1,000-resident threshold but sits on top of two fibre optic cables, so there is no cost at all to build the associated backhaul, just the street rollout. As I said, both of these communities are to be serviced by satellite. Cummins, according to the NBN plan, will receive a wireless network but also sits on a fibre optic cable.
I have raised repeatedly the poor deal for rural Australia under the NBN. In short, these Australians get to pay their full share of the $50 billion cost—around $2,500 a head or $6,000 a family—but they will not receive the service the rest of Australia will receive of 100 megabits per second, rising to 1,000 megabits per second. At best, many of them will only access 12 megabits by the satellite service. Increasingly communities are switching to wireless networks which they are establishing for themselves because, essentially, they do not want to wait the six to eight years for it to happen. As a resident of Grey, who has actually survived on a satellite internet connection, I would have to say that while it works quite well one way, a two-way conversation is pretty stilted because of the latency factor that operates with getting the signal up and down to the satellite.
If the government is determined to push on with its $50 billion National Broadband Network it should take a responsible decision either to give regional Australia a comparable service or to take a serious look at the financial penalty it is inflicting on these smaller communities. Why should they? Because in the case of Streaky Bay, what is the deal? Can the government not do the numbers? There are 1,070 people who live there. And in the cases of Wudinna, Cummins and a number of other communities in similar circumstances, let us have a common sense decision.
Deakin Electorate: Building the Education Revolution Program
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (12:39): Today I would like to relate to the House the story of another BER opening in my electorate, at Blackburn Lake Primary School, which I attended on 10 June to open its new multipurpose hall. Blackburn Lake Primary is a school that I first visited in 2008, and I have seen it change in that time. The change has come about due to that capital investment. Like so many schools in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, it was built many decades ago and, although it has had some work done, it has not kept up with the local community nor has it kept up with the technological needs of the students in its classrooms.
Looking at the figures for investment for 2009 shows that the Victorian state government put only $36,000 of investment into its own school for a whole year. This goes across both sides of politics in Victoria. Investment in government schools over many decades has simply not kept pace with the demands of growing populations.
Blackburn Lake Primary School now has around 440 students. Similar to many schools in my electorate, those 440 students could not have an indoor assembly; it was simply impossible to fit them into the size of room that was provided, which was really just some old buildings bolted together. They now have a multipurpose hall that can fit all of the students in, where they can have performances and do indoor sports. It is a particularly valuable community asset as well. I know there are local basketball teams and others interested in using such a facility.
This facility did not just happen by chance; it came about as part of the federal Labor government's stimulus program back in 2009. It is one of about 7,000 buildings across the country in our schools. It is the 13th project I have had the pleasure of opening in the electorate of Deakin. I have at least another 20 or so to open in new parts of the electorate as well, and many of those are coming up in the next few weeks. It is going to be a very exciting time for many of these schools as they get to use their new facilities. It has been such an important change for the area and especially for the students; they now have modern facilities and IT facilities that they were lacking, in many cases, and many of these are all in the one building.
The school still needs more. Whilst I was there for the opening of the multipurpose centre, the school received more portable classrooms because it is growing. Rather than receiving fixed assets, proper classrooms, they are still in the phase of receiving more portables. While new portables are good, they are obviously not a long-term solution for a school like Blackburn Lake Primary.
I would also like to say that on the day I was very well looked after by the school captains, Emily and James. I would like to thank them and the school vice captains, Thanushi and Andrew. They all did a great job not only in introducing me but in hosting a lot of the ceremony. The school's principal, who just started this year, Jason Walker, also did a particularly good job on the day of making sure that everyone was involved.
I would also like to pay tribute to the school's former principal, David Jewell, who was principal for 17 years . He was a great driving force, especially when it came to talking about how good a government education could be in a state school. In recognition of David Jewell, the school council actually named the centre after him. I think that is a great local recognition for someone that has had an impact on so many people in the local area.
Blackburn Lake Primary also had an investment from the federal government under the National School Pride program into its old school hall—to call it a school hall is a bit much. As I said, it could not fit all the school there. It has now been turned into an arts centre and has many more specialist facilities than before. The school has gone ahead in leaps and bounds. It is very popular. It is not the easiest school to get into because of its popularity, but it has great results and it is well located.
On the day of the opening I also got to plant a tree for the school. It is an acacia lightwood, indigenous to the local area, and I hope that tree grows into a magnificent specimen. The local nursery, Bungalook, tell me that it does suit the area. It will grow into a magnificent stand-alone specimen in the years to come. I hope that both the tree and Blackburn Lake Primary continue to grow and become even more valuable assets to the community.
Swan Electorate: Financial Advisers
Mr IRONS (Swan) (12:44): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was interesting to listen to the member for Deakin. I went to Blackburn High School and hearing him talk about Blackburn Primary School brings back memories of the time—Orchard Rise, Springfield Road and all those sorts of places. I rise to speak on behalf of the financial advisers in my electorate of Swan who are not happy with the government. They are not happy because this government is presiding over an absolutely shambolic policy process in its attempt to further regulate the finance industry which could cause considerable damage to an important sector. Firstly, I would like to thank one of my many constituents, Mr Phil Alvaro, for raising this issue and his continued advocacy on behalf of his industry.
By way of background, the government felt it had to do something in the wake of the financial collapses of Storm, Westpoint and Trio. It commissioned a joint committee review chaired by the member for Oxley which became known as the Ripoll review. It may surprise you to hear this, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do have some sympathy for the member for Oxley, who I know put a lot of effort into his review only for the government to completely ignore his recommendations. The member for Oxley must be wondering why he bothered at all. The government's new tack is outlined in their Future of Financial Advice proposals, which have caused widespread condemnation from the financial services industry. I have concerns with several of the measures in the multiple versions of the government's proposals we have seen and heard.
I was listening to the shadow minister for small business in the chamber the other day when he condemned the government for its deregulation failures. Before the 2007 election, Labor promised a one-in one-out approach to regulation, yet the statistics on actual outcomes are damning and reveal abysmal performance. Between 2008 and 2010, the Commonwealth's own ComLaw register reveals that federal Labor introduced 12,835 new regulations while repealing only 58. This amounts to the Rudd-Gillard government imposing 220 new regulations for each one they have removed. The government's Future of Financial Advice proposals are another deregulatory failure. They will mean that investors who receive financial advice will face more red tape, increased costs and reduced choice if Labor's latest version of these proposals is passed in full.
The opt-in proposal, Labor's push to force people to keep re-signing contracts with their financial advisers, is a classic example of this. Originally the Assistant Treasurer wanted contracts to be re-signed every year. It is worth noting that he has now backed down and revised his proposal to once every two years. However, we in the coalition still believe this is bad policy. It was revealed in the Senate estimates that an average small business financial advisory firm would face $50,000 per annum in additional costs as a result of the latest opt-in proposal. We propose ensuring financial fees are transparent and that consumers are able to opt out of financial advice arrangements or to change advisers without imposing such a regulatory burden. This would be more effective. Opt-in would not be worth while and I do not think even the minister is sure about the merits of his proposal.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect among the industry is the proposed ban of commissions on risk insurance. We do not agree with Labor's assertion that commissions on risk insurance are in themselves a conflicted remuneration structure. Indeed, recent experience in the UK showed that banning of commissions on risk insurance does not work, which is why the UK reversed this decision. I know from a meeting I had with the finance industry in my office that their main complaint about the commissions restructure was that small investors would suffer the most under the restructuring because they would be paying on an hourly-rate basis for the financial investor's advice instead of paying a small commission fee on what may be a $1,000 investment. That was a worry for the end-user. This measure would increase costs for consumers, remove choice and leave many people worse off, particularly small business people who self-manage their super funds.
In conclusion, we oppose key elements of the government's Future of Financial Advice proposals. We do support changes such as proposed statutory 'best interest' duty for financial advisers, subject to seeing the detail in the legislation. However, neither the proposed two-year opt-in requirement nor the proposed ban of commissions on risk insurance inside super would have prevented the collapses of Trio, Storm or Westpoint, which the member for Oxley originally set out to prevent occurring again. The government does not seem to have a clear agenda, and the backflips and delays are causing great uncertainty within the financial sector. I condemn the government for allowing this to happen. As they often say in the other chamber, business needs certainty. I want to assure financial advisers in my electorate of Swan that the coalition will continue to examine all the proposed changes in close consultation with all stakeholders and make final decisions once the necessary detail on the proposed legislation is available. (Time expired)
Housing Affordability
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:49): Affordable housing is a critical issue in Australia and the Gillard government, in partnership with the states and territories, is deeply committed to providing affordable, appropriate and flexible social housing. Given the relative affluence of Canberra, many in this place may not consider housing affordability and homelessness to be a particular problem here and I acknowledge that we are fortunate to be below the Australian average when it comes to homelessness. However, this does not mean we are immune from today's housing and homelessness challenges. Canberra has some of the highest rental prices in the country. We also have some of the lowest levels of rental availability. In fact, housing and housing affordability are by far the main issues on which I am contacted by constituents in need of assistance—mainly by women. Each week my office helps many Canberrans who are struggling to find a place to live and build a life and a home.
The 2006 census showed that there were 1,364 homeless people in the ACT, which equates to 42 homeless per 10,000. Of this figure, 22 per cent were aged between 12 and 18 and six per cent were sleeping rough. Irrespective of whether this is below the national average or not, I do not believe it is acceptable. Every Australian deserves a home and both the Gillard and the ACT governments are doing a commendable job on helping people with that. Having a home is something so basic and yet so powerful in determining your future, especially if you are a child and going through the formative stages of your life. The experiences of your early childhood form the prism through which you see the world. If you know that you have a safe, secure and inviting place to return to at the end of your day it makes everything seem more possible.
Having access to secure, affordable housing is no less important in the later years of life. Being able to enjoy retirement and one's family in a suitable place to call home should be a great pleasure. Older members of the community should not be forced to worry or stress about a place to stay, nor should they feel they are a burden on their families. For this reason, I have been very pleased to be able to attend a number of openings in the ACT of new older-persons units. These are units that have been funded though the Gillard government's $5.6 billion Social Housing Initiative, in partnership with state and territory governments—the single largest investment in social housing ever undertaken by an Australian government.
As part of this partnership in the ACT, building has begun on 421 approved dwellings, with over 280 of these already completed. The units provide age appropriate accommodation for older people in the community, and free up larger social houses for families. So it is win-win. The units mean older members of the Canberra community can continue to live independently and with dignity in a space they can call their own—usually around their social network in their former suburb and in six-star energy rated homes built to universal design principles.
The most recent opening occurred in the suburb of Rivett in my electorate where I was fortunate to join with the ACT Minister for Housing and Community Services, Joy Burch, to open 60 units. I have also opened new units in complexes in Curtin, Conder and Bonython. Once complete, the Rivett complex will have 69 two- and three-bedroom units as well as a community centre and there are community centres in some of the other complexes as well, so it is about not just living spaces but also community space. The complex was funded jointly by a $10.7 million grant from the Gillard government, with the ACT government contributing the land as well as a further $5.1 million.
I really enjoyed being able to see how these units had been turned into homes in a very short amount of time. In a matter of weeks, proud new resident Judith Young had made her new space her home. She had photos of family and loved ones on the wall and a fantastic garden with pots and outdoor art. Many of the other residents are using this opportunity to move from an older home into a brand-new home, to get new curtains and new furniture and to make a welcoming space. Judith's home was a place that looked like it had been lived in for years with comfort and love and family, even though it had only been a matter of weeks.
Safety and shelter are the fundamentals that underpin self-esteem, confidence and achievement. I am extremely proud of the historically significant investment the Gillard government has made to provide thousands of Australians with a home, and through it the opportunity to actively participate in society.
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (12:54): I would like to discuss today the marked increase in the incidence of graffiti and vandalism in my electorate of Goldstein, a series of incidents which is increasingly common across many other parts of Melbourne. I cite as an example the very shopping strip in which my office is based in Centre Road in Bentleigh, one of the 17 suburbs in my electorate. It is a wonderful shopping strip but it has increasingly been confronted with endless graffiti: shopfront hits and tagged windows and advertisements on bus shelters and a host of other sites up and down that strip and the surrounding streets. All of the signs are being attacked and defaced by graffiti and it is dreadful. At a time when retail is hurting, and the last 12 months have been perhaps the worst in 20 years, it saps morale. It is ugly, it is a blight on the landscape and so many local residents and traders alike are fed up and are calling for action on graffiti.
We have people reporting that while graffiti has always been around, it is increasingly becoming out of control. Centre Road has been made a most unattractive place to shop due to the extent of graffiti. President Tania Moss of the Bentleigh Traders Association, whom I have met with on a number of occasions, said the traders paid for the graffiti to be removed from shops on a weekly basis. Every week they have a person coming in for nearly one day to remove graffiti up and down the strip. It is costing literally thousands of dollars—no assistance from council—and all in an attempt to maintain the truly pleasant nature of that strip at a time when retail sales are really being hit all over the country.
This is but one example. I could talk in equal terms about many other areas in my electorate including the shopping strip in Highett, Carnegie, Hampton Street, the Beaumaris Concourse, Ormond, Black Rock and Sandringham. It is very unfortunate that some of these sorts of local community issues could well have been dealt with in the last 12 months and, in fact, the voters and the members of my electorate have been denied effective action because, unfortunately, we were not able to get onto the government benches at the last election. We were taking to local electorates all over the country a very flexible and responsive program designed very much to tackle these sorts of issues of graffiti, vandalism and other unnecessary local violence. The program was intended to enable councils and local community groups to apply for funding for crime prevention projects and strategies to deal with crime prevention. It was to include CCTV systems for community hubs and shopping strips, security patrols, graffiti removal kits for traders associations and alarm systems for sporting clubs. It was to be a highly flexible and responsive program to deal with the fundamental concerns of Australians. At the moment Australians are deeply anxious about their circumstance. The government is offering no direction and no leadership, you have a leader with no authority and people are concerned. That is why savings rates have gone up dramatically. That is why retail sales are down. This sort of cost is being imposed on our retailers who can ill afford to be dealing with graffiti and other incidents and damage and vandalism. We need a government in place that can live within its means, focus on the issues that are of concern to our local communities and make sure that Australia heads in the right direction again. (Time expired)
Shortland Electorate: Government Programs
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (12:59): It is always good to follow the member for Goldstein. He is always so negative and oppositional. He really reflects the opposition's policy of no, no, no. That is what the member for Goldstein is about. I am here to give you a positive picture. I am here to talk about some of the Building the Education Revolution projects that have been completed in my electorate of Shortland. Over $85 million has been spent on schools. This money would never have been spent. This money has delivered state-of-the-art classrooms, state-of-the-art libraries and state-of-the-art halls.
Gorokan Public School, where I went on 7 June, has six fantastic new classrooms. I have spoken about the Budgewoi classrooms, and the ones at Gorokan are of the same quality. They really reflect the needs of the school. Nords Wharf Public School has a new library. Marks Point Public School have the school hall they have dreamt about for many years. I will be attending Swansea Public School on Tuesday for the opening of their Building the Education Revolution project.
I attended Gwandalan Public School in the construction stages. They have got new classrooms. I was particularly impressed with what was happening there because they were employing apprentices who are in the government's Apprentice Kickstart program. That demonstrated how all these programs are coming together. On 30 June I will be visiting Mannering Park Public School and on 1 July I will be visiting St Patrick's at Swansea. Charlestown Public School are having their opening at the same time as Mannering Park, on 30 June. All these projects are welcomed by the school communities as they are very worthwhile projects.
On 8 June I was at Windale for the opening of 16 new one-bedroom units that have a six-star energy rating. I was there with representatives from Compass Housing. That is a $3.8 million project. The thing I found so exciting about it was the fact that a number of the residents have been homeless and have had enormous insecurity about their housing. There were a number of Indigenous tenants and people with disabilities. They are getting not only the wonderful support of living in these new houses; they are also developing friendships with the other tenants in that complex. We had a morning tea. It was such a success that I have given those tenants an undertaking that, during the July-August break, I will be back there with my staff and Compass Housing to have a barbecue. We are going to encourage the friendships that are starting to develop in that complex.
Around lunchtime on Saturday I had two hours of free time, so my husband and I went for a wonderful ride on our bikes along the Fernleigh Track. The federal government put $2 million into that project under the national pathways program. It was the largest project that was funded under that program. Once again I enjoyed the investment and saw the Commonwealth's money working for the benefit of the community. There were hundreds of people on that track either riding their bikes or walking. It was a wonderful experience. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Main Committee adjourned at 13:05
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Commonwealth Departments and Agencies: Costs of Central Functions
(Question No. 189)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, in writing, on 10 February 2011:
What are the costs of central functions for each department and agency of the Australian Public Service (including finance, human resources, information technology, and other functions that support the work of the department or agency as a whole) in dollar terms, and as a proportion of total expenditure for each department and agency.
Mr Swan: The Minister for Finance and Deregulation has supplied the following answer to the member for Bradfield's question:
The Department of Finance and Deregulation does not currently comprehensively or systematically track the information requested by the Member for Bradfield. The task of compiling the information requested would require a significant diversion of resources both in individual agencies and in the Department of Finance and Deregulation, and would be an unreasonable diversion of resources across Government.