The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Electoral Matters Committee
Reporting Date
The SPEAKER: I have received a message from the Senate informing the House of the following resolution agreed by the Senate:
That the time for the presentation of the report of Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the funding of political parties and election campaigns be extended to 1 December 2011.
BILLS
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Bill 2011
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Snowdon.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Indigenous Health) (09:01): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present legislation that further improves the operation of Australia's repatriation system and provides improved access to compensation and health care for former Defence Force members.
This bill will amend the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act.
The department has received claims from a small number of personnel who should be, but are not currently, eligible for compensation and health care under the acts as a result of their participation in the British nuclear test program.
The personnel were involved in the maintenance, transporting or decontamination of aircraft used in the British nuclear test program outside the currently legislated nuclear test areas or time periods.
These amendments will facilitate and streamline access to compensation and health care for these Australian personnel, and any future claimants, who participated in the British nuclear test program conducted in the 1950s and 1960s.
This streamlining will be achieved by enabling the Repatriation Commission to determine, through a legislative instrument, additional eligibility criteria relating to participation in the British nuclear test program under both the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act.
The quality of the records from the test period, and the secrecy surrounding the operation, means that it is impossible to rule out the likelihood that new information may come to light which warrants further extension of coverage to additional groups of participants.
Streamlining will enable the department to be more responsive to new information regarding personnel associated with, and tasks undertaken as part of, the British nuclear test program.
The bill will benefit Australian personnel who participated in the British nuclear test program, and their dependants, by enabling compensation and health care to be provided with a minimum of delay.
These amendments are a demonstration of the government's commitment to continually improve the services and support we provide to our current and former military personnel. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill 2011
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Garrett.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (09:06): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In 2009, the Prime Minister, in her then role as Minister for Education, asked the Hon. Bruce Baird AM to conduct a review of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and its associated legislation.
At the same time, a number of amendments to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act were introduced to strengthen registration requirements and enable the re-registration of all providers delivering to overseas students in 2010.
When the Baird report was released the government committed to a staged response to the review. I am pleased to say we have delivered on that commitment with the government's first-round response to the Baird review enacted in April this year, and subsequent legislation introduced in June to adjust the annual registration charge for cost recovery. The bill that I am introducing today forms the government's second response to the review and the fourth piece of legislation to strengthen the regulation of international education in two years.
This is in addition to broader reforms to the student visa program and the establishment of national regulators for the vocational education and training and higher education sectors.
The Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, or ESOS, protects Australia's reputation for delivering quality education services. It does this by establishing a regulatory regime for the provision of international education and training services and through this protects the interests of overseas students by establishing minimum standards and providing tuition and financial assurance.
ESOS also complements Australia's migration laws by ensuring providers collect and report information relevant to the administration of the law relating to student visas.
Education is one of Australia's largest export industries, generating in the order of $18 billion annually and supporting around 125,000 jobs across Australia.
The background to the current problems facing international education is by now well known. In 1990, Australia welcomed 47,000 international students to our shores. By 2000 this number had grown to 153,000 and in 2010 there were 619,000 international students studying in Australia. This jump in the student population has led to significant growth in the number of education providers offering services to international students, particularly in the private vocational education and training space.
There are now over 1,200 providers ranging from large universities and TAFEs, public and private schools, to small private colleges and English language providers. Together this has resulted in pressures on the underpinning regulatory frameworks, exacerbated by external factors such as global economics.
To keep pace with this growth and change in the sector, since first written in 2000, the ESOS Act has been amended several times and is widely recognised as one of the best legislative frameworks for international education in the world.
The Baird review report, Stronger, simpler, smarter ESOS: supporting international students, was released on 9 March 2010 and made 19 recommendations generally focusing on strengthening the registration process, more effective monitoring and enforcement, empowering students with information and improved complaints handling, ethical recruitment and a simpler, more robust consumer protection regime.
The government's first-round response to the Baird review enacted earlier this year had a dual focus on better managing risk upfront and throughout a provider's registration, and more effective enforcement. It also introduced changes to the Ombudsman Act 1976 to ensure students of private registered providers have access to a robust complaints handling process.
The bill I am introducing today is the second phase of the government's response to the Baird review and addresses many of the remaining recommendations made by Mr Baird in his final report. A number of other recommendations will be progressed in subordinate legislation, such as the National Code and the ESOS Regulations.
The centrepiece of this response is reforms to strengthen tuition protection to ensure that students are looked after in a timely and effective way should problems arise or their provider closes. This was a key recommendation of the review following a spate of closures that highlighted weaknesses with the current arrangements, originally designed around a much smaller sector.
From a student's perspective, the biggest concerns have been delays in getting a placement offer or refund, and a lack of choice when that placement offer finally comes through.
On top of the reputational damage associated with provider closures that has affected all providers in the international education sector, currently non-exempt providers have to belong to a tuition assurance scheme and also have to pay into the ESOS Assurance Fund. This involves separate application processes and fees as a condition of CRICOS registration and the benefits or burden of placing affected students are not always evenly distributed.
The proposed new Tuition Protection Service, or TPS, is for a single point of placement, or refund as a last resort, which involves all possible placement options, placement incentives for providers and greater student choice in the process.
A single TPS will provide a more seamless and flexible service, one contact point for students, one set of fees for providers, and greater accountability to government. The TPS will incorporate a TPS director, TPS Advisory Board, Overseas Students Tuition Fund and an online information and access service for overseas students.
The TPS is a universal scheme and to recognise the reputational benefits to the sector of a robust and sustainable tuition protection arrangement, a new annual risk based TPS levy will be applied to all registered international education providers.
This means that the new TPS will be backed by all international education providers, it will increase the pool of placements available, turn the placement and refund process into one that is streamlined, responsive and efficient, and stop the multiple charges that providers are currently paying.
When considered in conjunction with the rebasing of the annual registration charge, legislation for which was passed through parliament last week, the financial impact on the vast majority of providers is expected to reduce from its current level, giving these providers considerable relief.
Providers who place students will now also receive the equivalent of the students' unexpended pre-paid fees as a financial incentive to take these students. There will be no compulsory placements and providers will not be obligated to take on students that do not meet their entry requirements or who are unable to pay any difference in fees.
To support the TPS, the bill will introduce a suite of complementary initiatives. Student refunds will change to include only the unspent portion of the upfront fees paid. In the past, if a provider closed in the last weeks of a student's study, the student would receive a full refund, even though they could usually obtain credit for completed units of study. Significantly, only 11 of the 54 providers that closed between 2008 and the end of March 2011 met or partially met their refund obligations to students. Providers will also be limited in the amount of prepaid fees they can collect at any one time. All but the lowest risk providers will also have to keep initial prepaid fees in a designated account until the student commences their first study period. This will stop providers from using prepaid fees for operating expenses before the student commences, and will encourage more sustainable business models. Together with limiting refunds, this will mean that providers are better able to meet their student refund obligations in a timely way and there is less recourse to the TPS.
Satisfactory placement of students affected by a closure will be supported by requiring providers to strengthen their record-keeping processes related to students' contact details and academic progress. This will ensure timely contact and placement of students and the calculation of a more accurate refund entitlement in the event of a provider closure.
It will also help address concerns raised during the debate of the 2010 ESOS reregistration bill about students' access to their records and credit transfer. Strengthened record keeping will also assist in keeping students informed of their course progress, and early intervention if the student is not maintaining good progress.
The other main reform being introduced by this bill is national registration for providers operating in more than one state or territory, or across a number of locations within one state. This will reduce duplication of effort as well as support risk management and simplify processes for providers.
One of the issues highlighted through the recent provider closures was the ability to gain a national picture of a provider to determine how many students were going to be affected. The ESOS Act currently requires providers to be registered to provide a specific course for a state. For providers that operate in a number of locations in one state, or across a number of jurisdictions, this has led to them acquiring a large number of registration numbers.
Current figures indicate that approximately 230 providers operate across sectors and across jurisdictions, contributing to a disjointed system for these providers in that they experience different processes and charges in each jurisdiction and different initial and annual registration charges at the Commonwealth level. There may also be duplication in terms of registration assessments which are more global to the organisation rather than local to the courses being delivered at a particular campus.
National registration has been recommended to better position ESOS regulation for the anticipated transfer of ESOS functions next year to the national regulators currently being established for the VET and higher education sectors.
It will also enable monitoring of a provider's activities nationally as well as in each jurisdiction, support comprehensive risk assessment and management and provide greater transparency in the event of the closure of a provider that operates in a number of sectors or jurisdictions.
A key theme of the Baird review was making ESOS stronger, simpler and smarter. With this in mind, a number of amendments are being made to clarify and simplify the act as well as introduce stronger penalties for noncompliance around reporting and the misuse of prepaid fees.
Timely passage of this bill will ensure these measures can commence quickly. This is particularly crucial for the establishment and transition to a new TPS.
This bill completes the government's response to the Baird review recommendations to strengthen regulation and quality in the international education sector.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Tuition Protection Service) Bill 2011
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Garrett.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (09:20): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Tuition Protection Service) Bill 2011 will make necessary consequential amendments to the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Act 1997 to give effect to the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill.
The amendments contained in this bill will take effect on the commencement of the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Bill 2011
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Garrett.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (09:21): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Bill 2011 contains necessary provisions to implement the new annual TPS Levies framework which will underpin the new ESOS tuition protection architecture.
The TPS levies arrangements contained in this bill will take effect from the commencement of the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill. This will mean that the first annual TPS levy will be applied in 2013. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:23): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
On 3 April 2010, while traversing a well-known shipping route south of the Douglas Shoal in the region of the Great Barrier Reef, the Shen Neng 1 ran hard aground just east of Great Keppel Island.
The vessel's grounding caused damage to the coral reef on the Douglas Shoal and there was a spill of oil.
The impact caused the ship's fuel tanks to rupture and released approximately four tonnes of fuel oil into surrounding waters.
Fortunately, this oil spill was not severe and was broken down by the elements, chemically dispersed or contained and recovered.
While this incident was considered relatively minor, there was the potential for a significant oil spill.
If the salvage operation had been unsuccessful or the vessel had been more severely damaged as a result of the impact with the reef, the Shen Neng 1 incident could have resulted in a spill of up to 975 tonnes of heavy fuel oil and around 65,000 tonnes of coal causing significant environmental damage and requiring an extensive shoreline clean-up.
But the Shen Neng 1 is not the only example of environmental damage by a vessel in recent times.
A year earlier, on 11 March 2009, a Hong Kong China registered general cargo ship, the Pacific Adventurer, lost 31 containers of ammonium nitrate overboard east of Moreton Bay while en route to Brisbane from Newcastle.
The fallen containers caused damage to the ship that resulted in the loss of more than 270 tonnes of heavy fuel oil.
This oil impacted significant portions of the south-east Queensland coast, in particular the eastern and northern beaches and headlands of the Moreton Island National Park, the eastern beaches of Bribie Island, the beaches and foreshores of the Sunshine Coast and small areas of the Brisbane River.
The majority of oiling occurred on sandy beaches in areas that have high tourism and community amenity value.
Clean-up operations continued for two months, with a total of about 2,500 people deployed for the entire clean-up, including workers from many state and Commonwealth agencies and community volunteers.
At the height of the response operation 400 personnel were working on Moreton Island each day.
Approximately 3,000 tonnes of sand contaminated with oil was removed from Moreton Island.
Considering the size of the oil spill very small numbers of wildlife were affected but the potential existed for many birds, turtles and sea snakes to be injured or worse.
These two incidents highlight the impact that pollution from ships can have on Australia's coastline and coastal waters.
At that time, I committed the federal government to improving safe navigation through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
In April 2010 AMSA issued its report into the Shen Neng 1 grounding, titled Improving Safe Navigation in the Great Barrier Reef.
The report made four recommendations:
Extend the coverage of the Reef Vessel Traffic Service (REEFVTS) to the southern boundary of the Great Barrier Reef,
Strengthen regulatory arrangements including modernising the penalty and offence provisions available to the Commonwealth,
Enhance navigational aids in the Great Barrier Reef, and
Develop a whole of government management plan.
Since April last year we have implemented these recommendations.
On 1 July this year I announced the extension of the REEFVTS to the southern boundary of the Great Barrier Reef.
As part of the REEFVTS extension navigational aids within the Great Barrier Reef have been enhanced.
For example, the North Reef Lighthouse north of Gladstone has been refurbished with new vessel tracking equipment.
There is also a new under keel clearance management system for the restricted waters of the Torres Strait.
This technological advance will show the best times and safest speeds for vessels to move through the area, making sure that there is a minimum level of water beneath the keel at all times.
I understand this is the first time such a system has been developed for open water.
In developing a whole of government management response to prevent such incidents in the future we have re-established the Great Barrier Reef Shipping Management Group.
It has members from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Maritime Safety Queensland, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Department of Infrastructure and Transport.
This group plays a vital role in monitoring the new safety measures.
Finally, the bill I am introducing today delivers on the last element of the government's commitment at the time of the Shen Neng 1 grounding.
Large incidents are relatively rare however; the number of reported oil spills in Australian waters has averaged over 250 per annum over the last 10 years.
While the majority of these oil spills are relatively minor, the potential impacts of these spills on the maritime industry, the environment, the tourist and fishing industries and the broader economy needs to be recognised.
That is even before we consider the economic impact to some of Australia's most important export ports. Ninety-nine per cent of Australia's international trade is carried by ships.
Our ports manage 10 per cent of the world's entire sea trade.
$200 billion worth of cargo is moved annually.
There are over 25,000 voyages by ships to and around Australia each year.
All this means that we need strong safety regulations and penalties when shipping companies ignore their responsibilities.
This bill will:
Create an offence for negligently operating a vessel in Australia's waters in a manner that causes pollution or damage to the marine environment;
Increase the level of penalty for failure to report by a ship in a mandatory reporting area such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; and
Increase the level of penalty for reckless or negligent discharge of oil or oil residues by ships in Australian waters.
There is a widely held view that Commonwealth penalties are too low to discourage violations.
Currently, Commonwealth penalties for incidents like the Shen Neng 1 and Pacific Adventurer are inconsequential when you take into account the economic capacity of modern shipping companies.
This bill will amend Commonwealth legislation to ensure that our regulatory regime is strong enough to provide sufficient deterrent for shipping companies and their crews from engaging in unsafe and irresponsible actions at sea, particularly near environmentally sensitive marine ecosystems.
Penalties for a corporation will be increased from $1.1 million to $11 million.
This brings Commonwealth penalties into line with the states.
This bill brings in changes that will have a significant positive impact on our environment by influencing better practice in navigation and vessel operation in Australian waters.
In April 2010, I stated that the government's aim here is simple—that is, to further deter shipping companies and their crews from engaging in unsafe and irresponsible actions at sea, particularly near environmentally sensitive marine ecosystems.
That is the objective of this bill and I commend it to the House.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Reference
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (09:31): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: HMAS Albatross redevelopment, Nowra, New South Wales.
HMAS Albatross is the centre of the Royal Australian Navy's maritime aviation capability, supporting operations of one training helicopter squadron and two operational helicopter squadrons. This proposal is at an estimated cost of $192 million plus GST to upgrade and replace ageing, obsolete and, in some cases, potentially unsafe infrastructure to improve the functionality and capability of the facilities at HMAS Albatross to support Navy's training and operational requirements.
The proposal will provide a comprehensive engineering services upgrade, new refurbished working accommodation, a new hot refuelling capability, works to provide increased future airside development space and demolition of redundant facilities at HMAS Albatross. The capital investment in the project will have economic benefits for the Shoalhaven region and local industry with significant opportunities for subcontractors and the construction industry over the next three years. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to begin mid-next year with completion expected in mid-2015. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
Reference
Mr GRAY (Brand—Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State) (09:33): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Royal Australian Air Force Base East Sale redevelopment, Sale, Victoria.
RAAF Base East Sale is the primary officer training base for the RAAF and is also a main operating air base, providing continuous support to two operational squadrons, visiting operational squadrons, minor exercises and operations and contracted research and rescue operations. The RAAF base redevelopment project estimated at $185.6 million plus GST proposes to improve the functionality and capability of the base by upgrading or replacing inadequate and non-compliant facilities, infrastructure and engineering services to meet current and anticipated future requirements. The proposal will provide major engineering services upgrades, new and refurbished working accommodation, new and refurbished training and maintenance facilities, security upgrades, a new air traffic control complex, new commercial, community and chapel facilities, a new firing range, new living-in accommodation and demolition of redundant facilities at RAAF Base East Sale.
The capital investment in the project will have economic benefits for the Victorian region and the local industry, with significant opportunities for subcontractors and the construction industry over the next three years. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to commence in mid to late 2012 and is planned to be completed by mid 2015. I commend the motion to be House.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations
Presentation
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Indigenous Health) (09:35): For the information of honourable members I present a copy of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations 2011 draft and seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
Mr SNOWDON: Today I am pleased to be tabling the final version of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations 2011 as they relate to cigarettes and cigarette packaging. These regulations replace the previous draft regulations tabled on 6 July 2011 by the Minister for Health and Ageing when she introduced the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 and the Trademarks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011.
BILLS
Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (09:37): This is important legislation, let us be in no doubt about that. Let us also be in no doubt that this is not so much about offshore processing but, fundamentally, about a lifeline for a stubborn Prime Minister who has long been in denial about the one policy which has been proven to work when it comes to stopping the boats.
There is only one party that is preventing offshore processing in this country and that is the government, which closed down offshore processing in 2008. There is only one party which has obstructed Australia from processing boat people offshore and that is the government, which has not processed a single boat person offshore since it closed down offshore processing in 2008. This is a government that could have had offshore processing at any time if the Prime Minister had been prepared to swallow her pride and pick up the phone to the President of Nauru. This is a government that could have offshore processing today if it were prepared to accept the opposition's amendment, an amendment which will secure offshore processing and will also secure offshore protections, because while we need offshore processing—let there be no doubt about that—a decent country also puts in place decent protections for people who are sent from this country to another one.
Let there be absolutely no doubt about where the coalition stands on offshore processing. We support offshore processing. We invented offshore processing. We have the patent on offshore processing. But I'll tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker, it was never offshore dumping. We specifically amended the Migration Act back in 2001 to ensure that the minister, the government—the country, in effect—had a responsibility to ensure that people who had come into our care and who left our country were properly looked after.
There is another question which is, in effect, before the parliament today. It is: who do you trust, who does this parliament trust and who does this country trust to stop the boats? Do you trust the party—the coalition—that did stop the boats or do you trust the party—the government—that started them up again? That is the fundamental question before this parliament and before this country. This is a coalition which has a very strong record when it comes to border protection. This is a coalition which has been totally consistent for more than a decade. That is a government, over there, which over the last few years has had every single imaginable policy, except the one that has actually worked.
Do you trust a coalition that has had a clear and consistent policy on this for a decade, a policy that has worked, or do you trust a government, a Labor Party, that has every policy except the one that would actually stop the boats?
This bill from the government is essentially about its Malaysia people swap. I want to make three points about the Malaysia people swap. First, it is a bad deal; second, it is a cruel deal; and third, it is a dud deal. It is a bad deal because no serious, competent, self-respecting government would go to another country and offer a deal on such disadvantageous terms to itself. No serious, self-respecting country would allow itself to be a dumping ground for other countries' problems—and yet that is what this desperate Prime Minister has done. No decent country would expose people who once had its protection to the kind of treatment that they would get in Malaysia.
I want to be absolutely crystal clear about this. Malaysia is a friend of Australia's. Malaysia is an ally of Australia's. But their standards are not our standards. I make no comment on their standards other than to say that they are different from ours and our responsibility with the people who have come into our care is to ensure that the standards they are going to are acceptable to us, not merely acceptable to others.
The Malaysia swap is a dud deal because it has simply not worked. Since the Malaysia people swap was announced we have had more than 1,000 illegal arrivals. Since it was signed we have had 400 illegal arrivals. That is 1,000 reasons why this deal will not work and it is 1,000 reasons why the policies of the coalition—which have been proven to work—are better for the Australian people.
Let us review the history of this whole business. Back in 2001 Australia had a problem, a very serious problem of border protection. It was not easy for the Howard government. Everything the Howard government did was ferociously attacked by, among others, members opposite. We were cruel, we were brutal and we were racist! That is what they said about us. But we put a series of policies in place that did stop the boats. There were three elements to our policy: Nauru, temporary protection visas and turning boats around where it was safe to do so. From that time to this the policy of the coalition has been absolutely consistent and absolutely clear. And it worked.
From 2002 until 2007 there were fewer than three boats a year. The policies that we put in place worked. Then there was a change of government, a change of government to people who thought they knew better and a change of government to people who thought that they were so good, so competent, that they did not need to leave well enough alone. In fact, we had the then minister for immigration say that the day that the Pacific solution was formally dismantled was the proudest day of his life.
I wonder how proud he feels now, given that, since then, we have had 241 boats and 12,000 illegal arrivals. But we have not just had the boats and the arrivals; we have had the deaths, we have had the riots and we have had the suffering. I do not blame everything that has happened since on the government. That would be unfair. The government did not intend, and did not cause, all of the tragedies which have flowed from this terrible mistake. But a terrible mistake it was. Yet, at any time, they could have reopened Nauru. At any time they could have put back in place temporary protection visas and at any time they could have talked to the Indonesians about reinstituting the sorts of informal arrangements which allow boats to be turned around.
The problem is that this government has had every policy on this subject but none has ever worked. On temporary protection visas, the Prime Minister has been for them and against them. On turning boats around, she has been for it and she has been against it, and now she wants to do it again—as long as it is a virtual turnaround. On offshore processing, she was against it and now she is for it.
On the question of the United Nations convention, first it was absolutely essential that people only be sent offshore to countries that had signed the refugee convention and then it was just the merest scrap of paper—it did not matter at all. The Prime Minister has had every policy except one that worked. She supported everything because she believes in nothing. It is worth quoting the words of the Prime Minister; they should be on the record in this parliament. On turning boats around, Gillard said in a press conference on 3 December 2002:
The Navy has turned back four boats to Indonesia … It has made a very big difference … It has disrupted people-smuggling operations tremendously … We think that it is important … that we do everything we can to disrupt people-smuggling. And we think turning boats around that are seaworthy, that can make the return journey, and are in international waters, fits in with that.
That was what the Prime Minister said then. Then, last year, she said turning around the boats is some kind of a joke. On offshore processing, on the Pacific solution, in this very House on 13 May 2003, she said:
Labor will end the so-called Pacific solution—the processing and detaining of asylum seekers on Pacific islands—because it is costly, unsustainable and wrong as a matter of principle.
Well, since then, there has hardly been a Pacific island that she has not turned to to beg them to take boat people from Australia. On temporary protection visas, Julia Gillard said in a press conference on 3 December 2002:
… Labor’s policy, is that a unauthorised arrival who does have a genuine refugee claim would in the first instance get a short Temporary Protection Visa.
Really and truly, this Prime Minister, who gets on her moral high horse regularly in this parliament, has ridden every policy horse possible.
On the subject of the UN convention, we had the Prime Minister on radio 6PR on 8 July last year state:
I would rule out anywhere that is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention.
Let's mark these words: 'I would rule out anywhere that is not a signatory to the refugee convention'. You just cannot have a Prime Minister who makes categorical statements one day and then says the exact opposite another day when it suits her political purpose. Now the view of this government is:
… being a signatory to the Refugee Convention is important, but it's not the be all and end all …
Mr Robert: They've developed their thinking.
Mr ABBOTT: Yes, their thinking has developed, as the minister told us in this parliament. The one thing that it has never developed into is a firm and consistent policy to stop the boats. The one thing that it has never developed into is a policy that the people of this country have the right to expect: a policy that stops the boats.
We then have the statement from July last year from the current Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, who said that boat people had to be sent to countries that are signatories to the refugee convention 'for the sake of decency'.
Mr Robert: It's no wonder he wanted to resign.
Mr ABBOTT: It is no wonder that he wanted to resign, because the policy which his government is now pursuing, the policy which he is now required to implement, is, by his own standards, in his own words, an indecent policy.
Let's consider in more detail the sorry history of this government's handling of this issue, which not only betrays a lack of principle but shows a complete lack of competence. Since the Prime Minister belatedly 'lurched to the right', in the words of her predecessor—since the Prime Minister was convinced that this lurch to the right, as Kevin Rudd, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, put it, was necessary—we have had the so-called East Timor solution, and that did not work because the Prime Minister did not understand that the head of the government in East Timor is actually the Prime Minister and not the President. She called the President, not the Prime Minister—the one who is actually in control of these matters.
Then, of course, we had the Manus Island proposal, and that did not work; the Prime Minister sent a parliamentary secretary to supplicate the PNG government and the PNG government rather understandably thought, 'If this is important, come yourself.' Not only was she too proud to pick up the phone to the President of Nauru; she was too proud to send Kevin Rudd to PNG because he had a vital engagement in Kazakhstan at the time. Then we had the Malaysian people swap, which is unworthy of a self-respecting and serious country.
Then we had the events of this week, which demonstrated that the government are incapable of holding a position from Friday evening until Monday morning. On Friday evening, the Prime Minister dispatched senior officials of the immigration department, plus the Solicitor-General and another senior lawyer from that department, to brief the coalition on what the government had in mind. What the government had in mind was a truly remarkable abandonment of the principles which have always governed offshore processing in this country. What the government had in mind was to completely strip out of the Migration Act the requirement that Philip Ruddock, the member for Berowra, put in there back in 2001 that the countries to which Australia sent people had to observe relevant human rights standards. That was our position. That was our law. Yes, we believed in offshore processing, but we did not believe in offshore processing 'anywhere under any circumstances'. They stripped out the protections, because what they were on about in the legislation that they gave to us last Friday was not offshore processing but offshore dumping.
We made those points. The shadow Attorney-General, the shadow foreign affairs minister, the shadow minister for immigration and I, in a spirit of candour and constructive cooperation with the government, made the point that it would be very difficult for us to support legislation that did not retain the requirements for human rights to be protected and for people to be properly processed offshore. So I went and saw the Prime Minister late on Monday morning, as requested, and there was a new draft proposal, new legislation. But this legislation—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: As one of my colleagues says, 'Even a weekend is a long time in politics when it comes to this government.' The new legislation that we were presented with on Monday morning paid lip-service to the protections that we had talked about on the Friday evening, but it did not guarantee them. In fact the advice that we had from former Solicitor-General David Bennett QC was that the Monday morning position was in fact worse than the Friday evening position, because the Monday morning position was just as deficient on protections but was much worse when it came to legal certainty. That is why this legislation deserves to be defeated if it is not amended.
I want to turn briefly to the expert advice which the Prime Minister often refers to in this parliament. There is, in my judgment, no persuasive case that offshore processing in Nauru cannot work in the future; because it has worked in the past. Again and again we hear from members of the government that 90 or 95 per cent of the people sent to Nauru ended up in Australia. Dead wrong. I am not allowed in this parliament to call it a lie, but it is not a truth. And if I were not in this parliament I would say that it is a lie. The truth, which members opposite well know, is that 30 per cent of the people who went to Nauru ended up in their home country; 27 per cent ended up in a third country; and only 43 per cent ended up in Australia, and they often came here after a delay of up to five years. It was a very powerful deterrent. It was a powerful deterrent then; it can be a powerful deterrent again. The final point I make about Nauru is that it was a decent thing for the Australian government and the Australian people to do because, at all times, we knew that people being sent to Nauru were being looked after in accordance with decent standards, our standards, that were being supervised by Australians.
It is claimed that the expert advice is that boats could no longer be turned around. How can they say that when the government just has not tried? Kevin Rudd, back in 2007, said that he would be tough enough to turn the boats around, but not once has the government since then actually tried to turn boats around. Then it said that temporary protection visas would no longer be effective because most of the people on temporary protection visas were eventually given permanent residency. If temporary protection visas are not effective, why have there not been any more boats in Canada since temporary protection visas were put in place there?
It is very clear: Nauru is a proven success; Malaysia is a proven failure. Having put before us this proven failure, having asked this parliament to vote for a proven failure, they have absolutely no plan B. Again and again in this parliament members on this side of the House have asked the Prime Minister what happens when the 801st person arrives, and she has absolutely no answer. I have a clear message for the Australian people and for members opposite: this coalition does not vote for failure. This coalition votes for success. That is why this coalition is determined to vote for our amendment and, if our amendment fails, to vote against this bill.
When I saw the Prime Minister on Monday she said that the legislation would be introduced on Wednesday but then it would not actually be debated in the parliament until the following sitting fortnight because they had a very important bill before the parliament—the carbon tax bill—and it was so important that this particular amendment was going to have to wait. Now we are debating this amendment today and all of us in this parliament know why we are debating it today—because the Prime Minister is not sure of her numbers. Daily her numbers are crumbling and that is why we are debating this bill today. The one thing that the Prime Minister does not want is to have the Minister for Foreign Affairs back in this parliament. She does not want to risk this parliament having to decide this matter with the foreign minister present in the parliament. You can just imagine the Prime Minister's little speech to her cronies in the caucus, 'Let's not have a lurch to the Left,' because that is what we might have if the foreign minister comes back.
The other message we have heard again and again from the Prime Minister in the course of the last few weeks is that somehow the coalition is betraying the national interest by failing to support bad policy from a bad government. I say to this Prime Minister: it is never the opposition's job to support bad policy from a bad government. It is never the job of the parliament to give a blank cheque to the executive government. Does this Prime Minister not know any constitutional history at all? Has she no understanding of Westminster whatsoever? It is simply wrong for this Prime Minister to repeat, as she does time and time again, that somehow the opposition leader is required to assemble a parliamentary majority for the Prime Minister's legislation. She is only the Prime Minister because she says that she can command a majority for her legislation. If in fact she cannot command a majority for the important legislation of this government, there are options open to her and she should take them. If the Prime Minister cannot command the confidence of this House and of this parliament on an issue as important as this, the question then arises: should she have the confidence to remain as Prime Minister?
Let me conclude by reminding the House of where this government and this country will be left should the Prime Minister fail to accept the amendment that the coalition is putting before it. Remember: this amendment guarantees offshore processing, but it guarantees offshore processing with the protection that it must take place in a country which is a signatory to the UN refugee convention. Our amendment secures offshore processing, but it also does the best we can to secure human decency and to protect human rights, subject to the kind of legal certainty that the government now thinks is necessary in the wake of the High Court decision. If the government fails to accept our amendment, we will have no choice but to oppose the legislation. The likelihood is that, on the basis of that opposition, the legislation will fail to pass through the parliament. That will mean that the government has no capacity in its assessment to send people offshore. That is not an assessment that this coalition shares. We believe that, even under the existing legislation, offshore processing at Nauru is possible and desirable.
What the government will have left itself with is its strong assessment, its categorical conviction, that offshore processing is no longer possible combined with its constant statements over the last few weeks that without offshore processing our borders are simply uncontrollable. This will be a government that has put itself in the position of failing to do what is the first duty of any government, namely, to protect the borders of our country. A government which cannot protect the borders of our country is a government that is incapable of doing its job. A Prime Minister who is incapable of protecting the borders of our country is a Prime Minister who has manifestly failed in the highest task she has. Frankly, it is a government and a Prime Minister who should resign and not engage in the kind vituperation that I am sure we are going to get again and again in this parliament on this matter.
This is a Prime Minister and a government which now say that without offshore processing border protection is impossible. I wonder what they were thinking then in 2008, when the government closed down offshore processing. I wonder what the government has been doing for the last 12 months, when it has not sent a single person offshore to be processed. I say this is a government that can have offshore processing today. All it has to do is to accept the amendment that the opposition is quite sensibly and quite properly putting forward. It can have offshore processing in 148 countries, if that is what it wants. There are 148 countries to choose from. Certainly, it can have offshore processing in Nauru, which worked, and it can have offshore processing on Manus, which was its own policy until it seems to have been forgotten just a few weeks ago. This is a government which can have what it wants. It just has to say, 'Yes, we will accept the opposition's amendment.'
Mr MARLES (Corio—Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) (10:07): What we have just heard, over the last 25 minutes, is the total abandonment by this Leader of the Opposition of any desire to pursue public policy. We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition that there is a desire on their part not to vote for failure, but everybody on that side of the House and everybody who is listening to this broadcast today knows that they desperately hope that, in the pursuit of solving a very complex problem, this country fails. They are precisely voting for failure and that is exactly what they are about here.
We have seen a Leader of the Opposition—the author of Battlelines; a man who saw himself as a self-proclaimed conviction politician acting in the national interest—reduced to nothing other than a peddler of rank politics, dedicated to his own self-interest. Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there are a large number of people on the opposition benches today who privately agree absolutely with that proposition. They joined a conservative party wanting to engage in policy and they have found that they are being led by a man who is utterly opposed to any policy at all. We thought there might be some suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition acting in good faith when the High Court decision was made, but since then we have seen Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, crab-crawling away from that commitment to a place of base hypocrisy. We see him on the one hand saying that for a decade he has supported the proposition of offshore processing, and now he is voting for a proposition which is dedicated to stopping it. For a decade we have seen him talking about trying to disrupt people smuggling; now all he is about is trying to disrupt the government from dealing with people smuggling.
There are in this debate people who are trying to solve a complex and difficult problem of public policy and there are people who are engaging in base politics. The vote that we will have in relation to this debate is all about letting the Australian people know on which side of the fence every parliamentarian stands on this question. I stand today in support of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011, and I do so because the purpose of this bill is to restore the law in this country as we understood it to exist prior to the High Court's decision in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on 31 August 2011.
This is a complex problem. No-one would suggest it is anything other than that. We live in a wonderful society in Australia. It is a society which, by international standards, has extremely high standards of living: excellent education, an excellent health system, democracy as its core value, fundamental freedoms and human rights as the basis of government action. This problem essentially takes all that is good about Australia and abuts it with those who come from parts of the world where all is not good—where people do seek to leave and do want to come to Australia, for many reasons. How we deal with those who want to come is a difficult issue. How we perform our role as a good international citizen and respond to that need in an appropriate way, whilst at the same time maintaining an organised and balanced system of migration which plays a role in contributing to Australian society—which we have done so wonderfully since Federation—rather than doing the opposite, is a complex matter. We do that by taking 13,750 people each year who seek refuge in this country, people who are asylum seekers, through a system of processing by the UNHCR which is undertaken in camps around the world. That is the normal basis by which people come here. Because that processing occurs offshore, it enables those people who seek refuge in this country to be settled within our communities very quickly. In addition to that, we have an extensive skilled and family migration program.
We all understand that when we are talking about this area of public policy we are engaging in the act of saying who can come to Australia and who cannot. Decisions in that space are about determining the very quality of lives of people in an extremely significant way, and these are therefore very hard and difficult decisions. This is an area which has been made even more complex by the decision of the High Court, and it is an area which is being made even more complex by a very difficult political landscape which is laden as heavily with political baggage as any landscape in the political arena. From the point of view of Labor, both in opposition and in government, we have approached this problem with a very consistent sets of ideals. We want to meet our international obligations, so as a matter of principle we deal with this problem by working with the UNHCR and the International Organization of Migration, and we work through with them the things that we can do to meet the global demand of those who are seeking asylum.
We seek to approach this problem from the point of view of having an orderly and safe way of people coming to this country. As soon as you talk about providing an orderly and safe migration process, you immediately say that it does matter that we stop the boats coming to Northern Australia. It matters because we need to stop the appalling death rate which accompanies people who come on those boats. By some estimates, as many as four per cent of people who decide to get on one of those boats—four people in 100—to come to Australia lose their lives. The fact of the boats coming also means that the principal agent for those people who come to Australia in that way is not the UNHCR but a systematic group of people smugglers. Of course, it also requires those people coming in that way until this point to be processed onshore, which creates a burden to our processing system in Australia.
In dealing with this issue it has been very important to Labor that it is argued to the Australian people in a way which is dignified and appropriate, which emphasises the very positive role migration has played in modern-day Australia, which celebrates those people who have come to Australia in that way, and which sees that migration and all the benefits that come from it are inherent to the culture that we have in this country today—that multiculturalism is a wonderful thing and that we do not vilify people who come here as asylum seekers or in any other way. How you argue this debate matters, and we have argued it in a way which celebrates diversity and multiculturalism rather than the opposite.
The politics of this is difficult and has been made more complex in the last 10 years. For those who are listening to this broadcast seeking to understand the complex nature of this political debate, have a look at the way people are motivated when it comes to the politics. Let me say before I go into that that there are very, very good people in conservative politics and certainly in Labor politics who have been trying to deal with this problem in good faith. But when politics takes hold the motivations can become very dark. When politics takes hold the motivations start to become clearer.
From the Labor side our political motivation is completely equated with trying to substantively resolve this issue. But, when politics overtakes the behaviour of those on the opposite side, you see the Liberal Party seeking to do everything they can to not see this issue resolved. They want to see this issue being talked about as much as possible within the media. A resolution to this problem, one which sees this go away from the front pages, is not in their political interest at all, and that is what is driving their behaviour in this House today. It is as plain and simple as this: the mob opposite have stopped trying to solve this problem and they are now simply engaged in rank politics and, in turn, that is leading them to rank hypocrisy.
At the outset of their criticism of the Malaysia deal—and we heard a little bit from the opposition leader just before—they said that five for one was a bad deal. That was the basis on which we heard the rhetoric against the Malaysian deal then. But now they have found their bleeding heart and they are telling us that in fact what is going on here is that there are not the right protections in Malaysia. Those two things are inconsistent. What we see is rank hypocrisy. They say to us is that what now matters in their view is the refugee convention and that is now what is wrong with Malaysia. Yet they still pursue a policy of turning boats around if they can and sending them to Indonesia—a country which is not a signatory to the refugee convention and does not have in place all the protections that have been negotiated in the context of the Malaysian arrangement. They say that they see offshore processing as an important part of their policies, and now they stand in this House today doing everything they can to stop it.
In holding those values to deal with this issue our response since being in government has been as follows. We brought to an end what was occurring in Nauru because it was bad policy. It was bad policy because it was costly and because people were being allowed to linger in Nauru without resolution of their status, which was simply not an act of humanity. One person was in Nauru for as long as five years; 120 people were there for more than three years. That ought to have been stopped and we did stop it. Another reason we stopped it was that it had simply ceased to become a deterrent.
We saw this as being as a regional problem which required a regional process. At the Bali ministerial conference on 30 March this year we agreed to the regional cooperation framework. Under that process we then entered into an arrangement with the Malaysian government that would see people coming from Indonesia by boat to this country seeking asylum transferred to Malaysia. In return for 800 of these people we would take 4,000 people over four years who had been processed by the UNHCR in Malaysia and our intake would increase per annum from 13,750 to 14,750.
The effect of that arrangement was really a breakthrough in terms of providing a significant deterrent because it meant that people returned to Malaysia under this arrangement would in effect be put at the end of a very long queue. There are 94,000 refugees in Malaysia. They would have paid their money to a people smuggler and not taken one step closer to this country. Therefore the people smuggler had nothing to sell and the model of the people smugglers would have been broken. In the process, though, significant safeguards were negotiated with Malaysia to make sure that, in relation to those 800 people, there would be no return to the country from which they had fled; there was a commitment to see their claims processed by the UNHCR; their lawful stay within Malaysia would be facilitated; minimum standards of employment, education and health would be allowed; and a commitment would be made to treat them with dignity and respect. Importantly, this was a proposal that was worked through with the support of the UNHCR and with the International Organisation for Migration. To supplement that we entered into a memorandum of understanding with the government of PNG on 19 August 2011 to establish a processing centre on Manus.
All of this represented a breakthrough—something that would actually see the boats stop, something that would put governments back in charge and defeat the model of the people smugglers, and something that would increase our share of dealing with the significant asylum seeking burden which is out there in the world today. The High Court changed that and by virtue of that we now stand before this parliament seeking to restore the law to a position which would allow executive government to make the decisions that it needs to make. Those opposite, as we have heard the opposition leader articulate, support a different proposal—and, were the opposition in government, that would be fair enough. We, in seeking to change the Migration Act, are trying to enable the opposition, if and when they come into government, to put in place their policy and for this government, while in government, to put in place its policy. We are trying to solve a complex problem; but we have just heard from the opposition leader that he stands opposed to that—and we will hear the same thing again and again from speakers on the other side. They stand for the failure of any attempt by government to resolve the asylum seeker issue.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (10:22): The member for Bennelong recently told me that in tennis you never change a winning game but you always change a losing game. If only the Rudd-Gillard government had listened to this advice when they ignored advice and abolished John Howard's proven border protection regime in 2008.
Today we debate the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011 in this place because the government has been shamed into doing so. At no stage did this government seek to have debate on this bill expedited by this parliament; the opposition had to remind this government that it was an urgent matter. A government that was delivering lectures on the national interest had failed to work out that such a pressing matter should be urgently dealt with in this parliament. This is what the coalition did a decade ago when dealing with the question of illegal arrivals, and the then member for Bennelong, John Howard, introduced his Tampa bills. After another day of confusion and division within the government yesterday, the government finally relented and brought on this important debate.
The question now for the government is: how many of its own members will be muzzled—how many of them will sit silent? After a decade of vilifying the coalition, they will now sit silent on that side as with this bill their own government introduces their own worst nightmare. The bill follows more than three years of cascading failure by this government, which now seeks a blank cheque to inflict more failed policy on the Australian people. Since the Rudd-Gillard government abolished the Pacific solution, temporary protection visas and turning boats back, more than 12,000 people have turned up illegally on 241 boats. This has caused a budget blowout of more than $3 billion as well as chaos and riots in our detention centres. At least one critical incident occurs in the detention network every six hours. The Howard government's program cost less than $100 million each year; the Rudd-Gillard government's program costs more than $1 billion. When the coalition left government there were just four people in our detention network who had arrived illegally by boat; under the Rudd-Gillard government that number has exceeded 6½ thousand. As hundreds of illegal boats arrived, the government denied that there was even a problem. Instead, it vilified the coalition and all Australians who shared our concerns. At one point the government called us racists for our views—even as, long before the horrific and terrible tragedy at Christmas Island, we pointed out that people die on boats.
After Prime Minister Rudd abolished John Howard's solution, he proved to be an absolute soft touch by bungling the Oceanic Viking stand-off. Then there was his failed and discriminatory asylum freeze. Then, of course, came the embarrassment of Prime Minister Gillard's East Timor non-solution. Now we have Labor's incompetent five-for-one Malaysian people-swap deal, which has already failed and would cost taxpayers almost $300 million. Almost 1,000 people have turned up since the deal was announced with a quota of just 800, and more than 400 have turned up since it was signed. This deal has a clear use-by date which will be deliberately exhausted by people smugglers as a tactic, and the government has no plan B for illegal arrival 801. This failed policy has already been condemned by both houses of this parliament, and just over three weeks ago it was struck down by the highest court in this land.
In 2001, the coalition established section 198A of the Migration Act to enable offshore-entry persons to be taken to a country which the minister could declare provided the following protections: firstly, access to effective procedures for assessing a person's need for protection; secondly, protection pending determination of their refugee status; thirdly, protection while they awaited return to their own country or were resettled in another; and, finally, the meeting of relevant human rights standards in providing these protections. This was the coalition's legislation. In it the coalition enshrined the twin principles of offshore processing and offshore protections in Australian law, and this has been the coalition's policy for a decade.
From the time of the announcement in May, the coalition has consistently highlighted concerns that the Malaysian people swap could not provide the protections required under section 198A. This position was only reinforced in my assessment during my visit to Malaysia in late June, which I made in order to form my own view of the conditions on the ground. During that visit it was patently obvious to me that, even with the best will—which I do not doubt—on the part of the ministers involved in putting the agreement together, such protections could not be practically guaranteed. In my consideration as a shadow immigration minister, there is simply no legal or institutional infrastructure in place in Malaysia to meet the standards set out in section 198A. A key reason for the absence of these frameworks is the fact that Malaysia is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
In a small country such as Nauru, this was less of an issue then it is in Malaysia, since the coalition was able to directly and practically ensure the welfare, support, processing and protection of every person through to the time of departure. As we know, of these people only 43 per cent came to Australia, 30 per cent went back to their home country and the balance were resettled in other countries.
This was recognised by the High Court in paragraph 128 of the judgment in the comments provided by His Honour Justice Gummow and his colleagues. They stated:
… the arrangements made with Nauru were very different from those that are now in issue—
Namely, those with Malaysia—
Not least is that so because Australia, not Nauru … was to provide or secure the provision of the assessment and other steps … as well as the maintenance in the meantime—
And—
to provide the access and protections in question.
The High Court judgment struck down a failed policy in Malaysia, not a proven policy in Nauru.
Given that Nauru has now signed the convention, is introducing complementary domestic laws to support their applications, and is willing to enter into clear and binding arrangements with the Australian government, and Australians will be directly involved on the ground to support the Nauruan government in meeting these obligations, the coalition remains confident about reopening Nauru under current law.
Contrary to the claims by the government to discredit Nauru, the Solicitor-General, in his advice to the government and in his briefing to the opposition, did not rule out this possibility. The type of direct control possible in Nauru is not possible in a country like Malaysia. People are left exposed and vulnerable to forces beyond the control of governments that are unaffected by the well-meaning words of non-binding agreements.
On 31 August the High Court struck down the minister's declaration and found that it was not lawful. The protections required were not established as a jurisdictional fact. No statute was struck down by the High Court; just the declaration of a minister who had failed to ensure appropriate protections were in place consistent with the Migration Act. While the court may have found that the discretion afforded to the minister was less than previously understood, there is no question that protections were a requirement of the act.
Rather than seek to uphold these protections that have been a feature of this act for a decade, the government's response to the High Court decision has been to abolish the protections in the act through this bill—as confirmed to the opposition by officials at our briefings—including the lack of any binding obligation for an offshore processing country under the government's proposal not to refoule. To support this bill in its current form, the coalition would have to walk away from a decade of proven policy that has supported such protections being contained in the act.
The bill also fails the test the Prime Minister established for its introduction—namely, simply to restore the previous legal understanding of the situation prior to the High Court decision. This bill goes far beyond this understanding, by stripping away prior protections. The bill also violates the Prime Minister's own commitment to not send asylum seekers to countries that are not a signatory to the refugee convention. The bill seeks to provide unfettered ministerial discretion through a legislative blank cheque rather than re-establishing protections that can be reasonably and objectively tested.
Officials indicated they were unable to identify an objective test of protections that would also satisfy the government's policy to transfer offshore entry persons to Malaysia. In other words, the only way they could make Malaysia lawful and immune from challenge was to provide the government with a complete legislative blank cheque. The recent failure of the government to provide sufficient protections in their Malaysia agreement when they thought they had a blank cheque, highlights the wisdom of retaining safeguard provisions within the legislation—not just for this government but also for any future government.
It is not unreasonable for a parliament to provide modest guardrails for the exercise of executive discretion. The blank cheque option is therefore not about reasonable executive discretion. Such discretion was not available to, nor sought by, the coalition when we introduced these measures 10 years ago—despite the false and desperate assertion by the Prime Minister to the contrary. However, the coalition believe that a safeguard, a clear litmus test, can and need be readily established following the High Court decision by requiring any country to which an offshore entry person may be transferred to have acceded to the United Nations Convention on Refugees or its associated protocol.
During the consideration in detail stage of this bill, I will be moving an amendment that gives effect to that proposal—and I table that amendment for circulating in my name. This will be the only amendment moved to this bill by the coalition. The former Solicitor-General, Dr David Bennett AC QC, has provided written advice to the coalition on the amendments provided by the government and the coalition's alternative. His opinion is that the coalition's plan 'provides more protection for asylum seekers than the government's versions and is less likely to be the subject of complex judicial proceedings'.
I also note that the bill deals with changes to the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act to deal with the High Court's decision in the same judgment. The previous understandings of the provisions were that the power to remove under the Migration Act took precedence over the requirements of the Guardianship Act. The amendments restore the original understanding of the ascendancy of the Migration Act over the Guardianship Act and are not opposed by the coalition.
The coalition has offered legislative support to this government to re-establish offshore processing that was abolished by the Rudd-Gillard government just over three years ago. By refusing the coalition's amendment, the government are refusing to guarantee reasonable protections, while leaving the door open for further legal challenge that could leave them once again stranded in the High Court. Our amendment seeks to provide protection in the act to ensure that this government again does not find themselves stranded in the High Court for yet another policy failure.
At the end of the day, the Australian people will make a judgment about this debate, and I believe they will do that on the basis of one simple question, and that is: who do you trust to protect our borders? Who do you trust to stop the boats? Who do you trust to restore the integrity to our refugee and humanitarian migration program—which has been, I think, one of this country's great contributions? We are proud of this program. We have been partners in this program with other members of this place for many, many years. As one who sits on a side of the House in a party that was once led by Robert Menzies, the former Prime Minister who was the one who ensured that we signed the refugee convention in the first place, I believe this is a matter of trust.
The coalition's border protection policy has always been tough, has always been uncompromising, has always been consistent and, most importantly, has always been effective—and it remains so. In contrast, Labor have supported and opposed every position there is, except for things that work—especially this Prime Minister. Labor's record under both Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard has been failure after failure, and they are seeking a blank cheque for more failures. When it comes to the issue of trust, actions speak louder than words. Onshore processing has been the government's only policy. They abolished offshore processing. By contrast, the coalition turned back boats, successfully operated offshore processing on Nauru and denied illegal arrivals permanent visas. That is how you earn the trust of Australians on border protection. The coalition will stand by the policies that have earned this trust when dealing with the bill before the House. It is for a government to secure passage of their legislation, not for the opposition. The government alone will therefore be responsible for failure to accept our reasonable amendments in seeking secure passage of this bill and will be responsible for every illegal boat that continues to arrive on their watch. (Time expired)
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (10:38): At the start of a debate on a bill like this it is tempting to refer to the way in which the opposition have chosen to approach this difficult policy question, but I am not going to do that, because the two speeches that we heard this morning, from the member for Warringah and the member for Cook, indicate in the clearest possible way that the opposition have in effect dealt themselves out of consideration of the difficult policy that is under consideration with these amendments to the Migration Act. The member for Warringah made this crystal clear at the start of his speech to the House this morning by saying, 'Let us also be in no doubt that this is not so much about offshore processing.' The very purpose of these amendments is to put in place in the Migration Act of the Commonwealth provisions that deal with offshore processing. The member for Warringah portrays the approach of the opposition as one that is purely a continuation of the kind of mad partisanship that we have come to expect from those opposite on just about every policy question, but particularly difficult policy questions like the one that arises here.
I will start by giving a little bit of personal family history. I spoke about the history of my family's arrival in this country when I first spoke in this House. It was to inform the House that issues such as those raised by these amendments to the Migration Act are very close to my heart. My father and my uncle came to this country as people seeking refuge—indeed, as children—when they arrived on my father's 11th birthday, 22 July 1939. They arrived having been sent by their parents who were still in Nazi Germany. My grandparents remained in Germany to try to persuade their parents, regrettably unsuccessfully, to escape from that regime, and my greatgrandparents—those who were still living in 1942—perished in the camps.
My father arrived here and was given refuge, along with his elder brother, in July 1939. They waited anxiously to see whether their parents would arrive and, happily, some months after the Second World War started, my grandparents did arrive in this country and for some years enjoyed a happy life in Australia, as did my late uncle and my father, who is happily still living. So this country has provided great refuge to my family. As that is part of my family history, the issues raised about how Australia is to provide compassion and fulfil its obligations under the refugee convention are dear to my heart.
We entered the refugee convention and we participated closely in the drafting of the refugee convention because Australia, as a compassionate nation, did not want to see a repetition of the horrific events that preceded the Second World War and occurred during the Second World War. People who were fleeing persecution, fleeing torture, fleeing imprisonment, fleeing imminent death at the hands of the regime in their country were denied refuge in different countries across the world.
Just last weekend in the media there was an account given of one of the worst incidents that occurred in that context: the denial of refuge to those onboard the St Louis, a boat that sailed from Germany and unsuccessfully tried to disembark its passengers in Cuba, unsuccessfully tried to disembark its passengers in the United States of America and was forced to return to Europe where the passengers—German Jews fleeing the Nazi regime—disembarked, and within a short time about a third of them perished in the concentration camps. It is to prevent events like that that the refugee convention was brought into existence.
We have continued to wrestle with the refugee convention, not just in the drafting of it but in working through it in all of the years since, right up to this time—for example, in determining how to treat the central obligation of the refugee convention, which is not to return refugees who have arrived. I will read the central consideration in article 33 of the refugee convention:
No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
Then there is a qualification relating to the security of the receiving country. We honour that central obligation. The government of Australia will continue to honour it. It is central to the amendment to the Migration Act of the Commonwealth that we put before this House.
I back the Malaysia arrangement that our government has come to with the government of Malaysia. More broadly, I support regional arrangements because, for those seeking asylum and those in need of refuge, regional arrangements offer, and indeed secure, a better future for a greater number. We cannot pretend that there is not a large problem in the world. There are not merely thousands or hundreds of thousands but millions of displaced people around the world who are seeking refuge from persecution, and Australia has always played its part in seeking to provide refuge and to resolve the problem. That is why we are signatories to the refugee convention, that is why Australia presently takes over 13,000 refugees on an annual basis and that is why we will continue to seek to increase this number. One of the best aspects of this Malaysia arrangement is that it will see Australia increasing the number of refugees it takes by 1,000 people each year. That indicates the compassion which our government is seeking to bring to the resolution of this problem. By contrast, we have a coalition that is simply not interested in resolving the policy problems.
These amendments seek to restore the position in law to the position as it was understood to be before the recent High Court decision. It is important to understand the purpose of these amendments. They are seeking to give power to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, and it is a power to be exercised on specified conditions that are set out and will be set out in the Migration Act. It is a power to send people who arrive here seeking asylum to a so-called offshore processing country. As the minister made clear in his second reading speech, it is an arrangement that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is prepared to assist with. It is a recognition of the level of difficulty of this problem and a recognition of the important part to be played by all of the countries of our region that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has worked with Australia in developing the arrangement with Malaysia. I do not want this to be set up as merely a competition between the possibility of sending those who have arrived in Australia seeking asylum to Nauru and the sending of those seeking asylum to Malaysia, because the purpose of these amendments is not country specific. The purpose of these amendments is to restore the position to what it was understood to be when these provisions—specifically section 198A of the Migration Act—were inserted in the act by the Howard government in 2001. The purpose of these amendments is to restore the position of the government of this country to the position that it was understood to be.
We have had a lot of discussion about the way in which the High Court's decision is to be understood. We have had all sorts of suggestions which are in error as to what the brief comments made by the High Court in paragraph 128 of the majority judgment mean. I make it clear to the House that paragraph 128 is dealing with a statutory interpretation argument and a statutory interpretation argument alone. The only reason that the majority in the High Court saw it as necessary to refer to Nauru is that the sending of asylum seekers to Nauru had been raised in argument by the Solicitor-General in order to show to the High Court the context in which the provision under consideration, section 198A, had come into existence in the first place. The Solicitor-General was pointing out to the High Court that it came into existence in circumstances where the government of Australia was considering sending people to Nauru. The High Court, in express terms, was not commenting on whether or not Nauru did then or would now satisfy the requirements of section 198A of the Migration Act, which is the section we are seeking to amend. Rather, the High Court was dealing solely with whether or not the minister's declaration that designated Malaysia as an offshore processing country was lawful.
In order to determine what the content of that statutory provision was, the High Court was invited to look at the Nauru declaration that had been made by the former government. The High Court, in brief comments rejected the argument that it should condition its decision as to what the content of this power was by reference to the hopes or intentions of the then government, which the court said:
… do not bear upon the curial determination of the question of construction of the legislative text.
Then, in the part that has been referred to this morning by the member for Cook, the High Court said:
Second, even assuming them to be in some way relevant, the arrangements made with Nauru were very different from those that are now in issue. Not least is that so because Australia, not Nauru as the receiving country, was to provide or secure the provision of the assessment and other steps that had to be taken, as well as the maintenance in the meantime of those who claimed to be seeking protection. Thus it was Australia, not the receiving country, that was to provide the access and protections in question.
I repeat: the High Court was not looking at whether or not Nauru would have been a lawful place to send people seeking asylum. Rather, it was saying, 'We reject the statutory interpretation argument that is here being put forward by the Solicitor-General.'
It is the fact—and this is why this amendment is necessary—that Nauru would not presently satisfy the requirements that the High Court has read into section 198A of the Migration Act and that Papua New Guinea would not presently satisfy the requirements that the High Court has read into section 198A of the Migration Act and it is the case, because this was the focus of the decision, that Malaysia does not presently satisfy the requirements that the High Court has read into section 198A of the Migration Act. It is because we wish to pursue a compassionate arrangement with the government of Malaysia and with all of the countries of our region that we bring these amendments to the Migration Act before this parliament and seek the support of all those members of this House who genuinely seek to have, on behalf of our nation, an appropriate and compassionate resolution of a very difficult problem. It is because at present, on a full reading of the High Court's decision, there is practically no country that would satisfy the definition of an appropriate receiving country. Australia itself might satisfy the definition of an appropriate receiving country. New Zealand probably would satisfy the requirements that have been set down by the High Court, but no other country would. To point as do those opposite—and we would say ridiculously—to a sole requirement of being a signatory to the refugee convention would include countries like Afghanistan, Haiti, Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia and Zimbabwe. We do not think that is an appropriate qualification or condition to impose on the minister's discretion. These are appropriate and measured amendments to the Migration Act and I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:53): This government is mired in confusion and chaos on this issue and has demonstrated over a number of years that it is without principle, without conviction and without consistency when it comes to border protection and the treatment of asylum seekers. The mess in which the government finds itself today over its various failed asylum seeker policies is entirely of its own making. The coalition has a solution. Before I turn to that, let me suggest that if the Prime Minister wants to find a solution she should take heed of the words of Albert Einstein. He said, 'We can't solve problems using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.'
Let us consider the sorry saga of how the government arrived at the position it finds itself in today. Australia has experienced several waves of boat arrivals carrying asylum seekers since the 1970s. The first wave was from 1976 to 1981 when just over 2,000 Vietnamese arrived by boat in the wake of the Vietnam War. The second wave occurred from 1989 to 1998 when about 300 asylum seekers per year arrived, with most coming from South-East Asia and China. It was during this wave that the Keating Labor government introduced mandatory detention in 1992. That is something some on the Labor side often find uncomfortable, but it is a fact.
It was around 1999 that asylum seekers, mainly from the Middle East, began to arrive in Australia in larger numbers with the involvement of the people-smuggling networks. It is important to note the numbers. In 1999, 86 boats carrying 3,721 asylum seekers arrived; in the year 2000, 51 boats arrived with 2,939 people aboard; in 2001, 43 boats with 5,516 people arrived. The Howard government responded with a range of measures that included the introduction of temporary protection visas, excising some parts of Australia's territories from the migration zone, including Christmas Island, and the establishment of offshore processing on Nauru and on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea.
Amendments were made to the Migration Act to enable offshore processing, subject to a number of protections for those seeking asylum. This was consistent with Australia's obligations under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. The Howard government inserted into the Migration Act protections for asylum seekers and a reference to human rights for those that Australia was sending offshore for processing. The Howard government also had a policy of turning boats around if they were intercepted in international waters and returning them to Indonesia where it was safe to do so, and we did that on a number of occasions. Overall, these measures combined to provide a strong deterrent to the people-smuggling trade. The coalition's response at that time was driven in large part by the tragic drowning of 353 people when SIEVX sank off the coast of Indonesia.
There was an immediate response from people smugglers to the laws and policies that the Howard government put in place. In 2002, after these policies had been put in place, just one boat arrived with just one asylum seeker aboard. In 2003, there was one boat with 53 people aboard, yet the now Prime Minister, then in opposition, claimed at the time that this was a case of 'another boat, another policy failure'. In 2004, one boat arrived with 15 people aboard; in 2005, four boats with 11 people; in 2006, six boats with 60 people; and, in 2007, five boats with 148 people.
Just before the 2007 election the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Griffith and the present Minister for Foreign Affairs, promised that if elected his government would also turn back the boats. I think this is important. His then deputy, the now Prime Minister, claimed credit for this policy and said at the time, 'I was shadow minister for immigration and developed the policy'—in 2002—'which remains Labor's policy now.' Labor won the election. In early 2008, this new Labor government was warned in writing by officials of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that:
… any weakening of the coalition's border protection laws including the closure of Nauru, would result in an increase in people smuggling.
The government was warned by the Australian Federal Police, and the coalition provided many warnings, week after week, that if the coalition's policies were dismantled the inevitable result would be a flood of boats via the people-smuggling trade. But, no, the government knew best. The government ignored all of the expert advice that it had received and scrapped temporary protection visas, closed down the processing centre on Nauru and ended offshore processing for asylum seekers. The government ended offshore processing. Of course, there was an immediate response from a reinvigorated people-smuggling trade and boats began arriving again within weeks of the changes in the law. As of today, more than 240 boats have arrived with about 12,000 asylum seekers on board. We have seen overcrowding in the detention centres—the very detention centre on Christmas Island that the member for Melbourne Ports described as a 'white elephant' and likened to a gulag or a concentration camp. When this Prime Minister knifed the member for Griffith in the leadership coup in June 2010 she nominated border protection as one of the three critical policy areas where the government had 'lost its way'. She was conveniently ignoring, it seems, that she was, in fact, the author of the border protection policy upon which she claimed the government had lost its way. On 6 July last year the Prime Minister announced that the government would be reintroducing offshore processing, nominating East Timor as the host of a regional processing centre and specifically pointing out in her speech that East Timor was a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees. That was important for the Prime Minister in announcing the East Timor solution. It was important for her to point out that East Timor was a signatory to the UN convention on refugees; therefore Labor could reintroduce offshore processing.
In fact on 27 July 2010 the now Minister for Immigration and Citizenship said:
… the regional processing centre—
referring to East Timor—
would need to be, for the sake of decency, at a country which is a signatory to the refugee convention.
What has happened in the space of 12 months? If, in July 2010, for the decency a regional processing centre had to be in a country which is a signatory to the refugee convention has Labor now thrown decency to the wind? Indeed, the Prime Minister also said:
I would rule out anywhere that is not a signatory to the refugee convention.
What has happened in 12 months? The Prime Minister said she would rule out anywhere that was not a signatory to the refugee convention. That was a strongly stated policy by the Prime Minister. This was Labor Party policy until 7 May this year when the Prime Minister suddenly, on the eve of the budget, announced a five for one asylum seeker swap deal with Malaysia—a nation which is not a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees.
It became embarrassingly evident that the East Timor solution would fail notwithstanding the Prime Minister's protestations that negotiations were underway. With whom one has to ask because East Timor made it clear that they were not negotiating to host a regional processing centre? And as the boats kept on coming the government also announced plans to reopen the Manus Island detention centre, which had been part of the Howard government's Pacific solution. This was an embarrassing backdown for the government because the Prime Minister had previously dismissed the Pacific solution, the Manus Island solution, as 'an unsustainable fiasco.' The Prime Minister now embraces what she once claimed was an unsustainable fiasco as part of Labor's policy on border protection.
There were concerns raised about the legality of the Malaysia swap arrangement and they were dismissed by the immigration minister who repeatedly declared it was on 'very, very strong legal grounds'. The government has never released the expert advice it claims it relied upon to inform the Australian people that its Malaysia swap arrangement was on 'very, very strong legal grounds'. This House condemned the Malaysia swap agreement. This parliament condemned the agreement yet still this government went ahead. The High Court disagreed with the minister's claim that it was on very, very strong legal grounds and found that, in relation to this Malaysia swap deal, this minister had not satisfied the human rights protections for asylum seekers as was required by the Howard government's provisions in the legislation, the very provisions that underpinned offshore processing under the Howard government. The Prime Minister is now proposing that we amend the Migration Act to strip away all of the human rights protections for asylum seekers who are sent to another country for processing. I did not think that I would live to see the day a Labor government would seek to walk away from the 1951 refugee convention, that this government would seek to legislate away Australia's obligations under the UN Convention on Refugees.
The coalition has a solution. We propose an amendment that supports offshore processing. We were the ones who came up with the idea of offshore processing in the first place. We propose an amendment that will support offshore processing with the proviso that the country to which Australia sends asylum seekers must be a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees or the protocol. This is precisely the same position that the Prime Minister had adopted before the last election. This is precisely Labor's policy before the last election. This is what it took to the last election. It had ruled out processing offshore in any country that was not a signatory to the convention. If the government adopted the coalition's proposed amendment, it could immediately recommence offshore processing on Nauru. Nauru has offered the government its assistance in this regard. In fact, Nauru has had an offer on the table for over 12 months. It is ready, willing and able to reinstate the detention centre for offshore processing. And, if the government adopted the coalition's proposed amendment, offshore processing could also recommence on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea because both Nauru and Papua New Guinea are signatory countries. All it would take is for this Prime Minister to admit for once that she got it wrong on border protection. Yes, it would be the final humiliating backdown for the Prime Minister but it would be in the national interest. I fear this Prime Minister is not capable of acting in the national interest on this issue.
The true cost of Labor's 2008 decision to weaken Australia's border protection laws is not only in relation to the tragic loss of life that we have witnessed. It is not only in relation to the overcrowding in the detention centres which has led to riots and the damage to property but the Treasurer has also revealed a budget cost blowout of more than $1.7 billion for offshore asylum seeker management. The thousands of people including children in detention are placing enormous strains on the ability of our institutions and our officials to cope. There has been dangerous overcrowding and there have been outbreaks of violence and rioting.
The saga of Labor's response to border protection would resemble a plot of a farcical comedy were it not such a deeply serious issue with, at times, tragic consequences. The Prime Minister spent almost a year maintaining that her solution to the people-smuggling trade and increase in asylum seekers arriving on our shores was the East Timor solution. When after a year it was evident that this was not going to work, she backflipped on her backflip and came up with the Malaysia solution.
I am afraid that, as a result of the High Court ruling, the minister has been shown incapable of applying the laws correctly. That is why this government finds itself in the position it does. It is a case of overwhelming hypocrisy for Labor to repeatedly rule out sending asylum seekers to Nauru because Nauru was not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees. It now is. (Time expired)
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (11:08): On 18 October 2001 an Indonesian fishing boat left the port of Bandar Lampung. There were 421 people on board, including at least 70 children. The boat was just 20 metres long and four metres wide, so people were tightly packed on board. The next day, about 70 kilometres south of Indonesia, the boat encountered heavy seas, took on water, listed violently to the side, capsized and sank within an hour. There were life jackets on board but none of them worked.
As a Senate committee, chaired by the late, great Senator Peter Cook concluded, there were at least 70 children aboard when SIEVX sank. Only three survived. Two hundred men and women lost their lives. As the International Organisation for Migration pointed out, the tragedy was due to 'the way the people smugglers pack these boats'. Nine years later, on 15 December 2010, a boat carrying around 90 asylum seekers sank off the coast of Christmas Island. Thirty bodies were recovered, including those of four juveniles and four infants. Up to 20 others are missing, presumed dead. The report of the Joint Select Committee on the Christmas Island Tragedy quoted Raymond Murray, the first person to arrive at the scene. He told the committee:
Standing right out on the edge of the rocks, there were times when that the boat was closer than you are to me now. I will never forget seeing a woman holding up a baby, obviously wanting me to take it, and not being able to do anything. It was just a feeling of absolute hopelessness. It was like it was happening in slow motion. A wave would pick the boat up and almost hit the rocks and then go back again, and then finally it was like it exploded.
Over the past decade or so there have been 414 confirmed drownings by asylum seekers at sea. For example, apart from those I have mentioned, five were drowned on 16 April 2009, 12 on 1 November 2009 and 12 on 15 June 2010.
Apart from this, there have been over 500 more unconfirmed deaths by asylum seekers at sea. There were reports of a vessel carrying 200 people that disappeared in March 2000. There were reports of another vessel carrying 100 people that disappeared—presumably with the loss of everyone on board—in October 2009. We will never know how many asylum seekers have died at sea in attempting to reach Australia, but we do know that those people certainly number in their hundreds and perhaps in their thousands.
Quite often the asylum seeker debate focuses on people who arrive by boat, but that is only a portion of the refugees we take. We also take refugees from offshore processing, people who in many cases have spent years in refugee camps. The more onshore arrivals we take the fewer offshore arrivals we take.
To provide a more complete picture, I want to say something about the refugees that are resettled from these offshore camps. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship has a vast network of offices, which work in cooperation with the United Nations High Commisioner for Regugees to process refugees. Our offices include those in Amman, Beijing, Cairo, Moscow and Warsaw. We work with the UNHCR that recommends or refers refugees for resettlement to the Australian government. Once recognised as a refugee by the UNHCR a person is referred to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for resettlement.
Australia is unusual in this. We are one of only about 20 nations worldwide that participate formally in the UNHCR's resettlement program and accept quotas of refugees on an annual basis. For the last year that I was able to get statistics, Australia had the third largest number of refugees for resettlement under this UNHCR program. We were outranked by the USA and Canada but on a per capita basis we take more UNHCR refugees than either of those two countries. Of course, the numbers that we take are small. Our total humanitarian quota was 13,750 in past years, increasing now to 14,750 under this agreement. But that is a small share of the world's 15 million refugees, 10½ million of whom are under the UNHCR's mandate.
The world as a whole needs to do more to take in refugees under the UNHCR. Last year there were only 539,170 refugees recognised or resettled under the UNHCR. Of these, only 98,761 were resettled from other countries. What we need is a regional approach to a global problem. This approach began through the Bali meeting in March, bringing together countries in our region to discuss how to deal with the challenge of refugees. Labor's approach has always been one of multilateralism. That is as true for immigration as it is for trade and foreign policy. The coalition, on the other hand, have a tendency to focus on unilateralism, striking particular deals with single countries. They do it in trade and they do it in migration. We believe it is the wrong approach. Modern Labor's approach will always be a multilateralist one.
Yet while I am proud of modern Labor's multilateralist approach on refugees, it is important to also acknowledge my party's history, and that history has not always been a great one. We were a party formed to protect the rights of Australian workers, and, partly for that reason, there were Labor representatives in this place who played a frankly shameful role in restricting the intake of Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Europe in the 1930s. They did so because of a mix of anti-Semitism and anti-capitalist radicalism. The confusion between Jewishness and capitalist banking meant that Australia took only 5,000 Jewish refugees before the outbreak of war. Labor Senator John Armstrong in 1938 said:
I urge the Government to take steps to prevent the unrestricted immigration of Jews to this country …
Labor immigration minister Arthur Calwell was shocked when the High Court ruled that he could not deport an Indonesian woman who had six children with her Australian husband. Calwell thought it was right that that family be torn apart.
But Labor's role is fundamentally a proud one. In 1945, at the San Francisco conference to establish the United Nations, Jessie Street—the only woman on the Australian delegation—argued for the removal of restrictions on Jewish migration and for an increased intake of Jewish refugees to Australia. In 1948, as the fourth President of the UN General Assembly, HV 'Doc' Evatt was a key drafter of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document that says, in article 14(1):
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This set the foundation for the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was originally to address the problem of the millions of Europeans displaced by World War II and was then updated in 1967 to apply to refugees generally.
Today, the issue of immigration is a proud Labor issue. In my first speech, I mentioned my mother's parents—a boilermaker and a teacher—who lived by the credo that, if there was a spare room in the house, it should be used by someone who needed the space. I remember as a little kid eating in my grandparents' home with new migrants from Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, Chile, Cambodia and Sri Lanka.
Last year, I attended a prize-giving ceremony for an art competition run as part of Refugee Week. First prize went to a Karen Burmese woman who had woven a traditional crimson tunic. Because she did not have a proper loom, the woman had taken the mattress off her bed and fashioned a loom from her pine bed base. It is hard not to be overwhelmed by the courage and spirit of Australia's migrants.
In referring to refugees in my first speech, I was not unusual. If there is a defining characteristic about first speeches by Labor members and senators, it is that they almost invariably include a migrant's tale. Part of what we are doing in the agreement with Malaysia is trying to ensure better treatment for refugees currently in Malaysia. The challenging protection environment in Malaysia makes it difficult for the UNHCR to fulfil its mandate in the country. The UNHCR registers asylum seekers, determines their status claims and provides them with documentation. Our agreement will allow the UNHCR access to persons seeking asylum, including to assess their need for protection. It will strengthen the relationship between the UNHCR and Malaysia, not just for those refugees who come from the Malaysian camps to Australia but for the nearly 100,000 refugees who are in those camps. The UNHCR in Malaysia aims to recognise refugees and process claims, and Australia is helping UNHCR to achieve those aims. In the words of the UNHCR:
It is UNHCR’s understanding that the Arrangement will with time deliver further protection dividends in the two countries, as well as the region …
Lasting improvements in the region's response to asylum seekers and refugees necessarily involve countries, like Malaysia, that are not yet party to the convention. The arrangement with Malaysia is subject to oversight by committees involving representatives of the Australian and Malaysian governments, the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration.
We have to get policy right in this area and there are no simple solutions. As the old Max Weber line goes, public policy is like 'slow boring through hard boards'. Nowhere is this more true than with migration. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mark Dreyfus, has pointed out, this is not about being compassionate; it is about 'competing compassions'. There is no moral high ground.
I reject in this debate the attacks on public servants in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that we have heard in recent weeks. Public servants have a difficult task, and we should respect the long hours that they put into crafting policy. I respect the many constituents of mine who work in the Australian Public Service and I will defend their impartiality.
I also reject the claim that some have made that this is a new 'Pacific solution'. There are two reasons this is wrong. Firstly, the Howard government's Pacific solution saw no increase in the total refugee intake. Under this policy, we are taking an additional 1,000 refugees per year. The second reason is that the Pacific solution had no involvement from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Ours has a strong involvement from that body.
As a Labor member of parliament, I believe that the neediest people should be given the first priority. In our offshore processing centres in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, working with the UNHCR, we take people who have nothing. Those who come by boat are invariably those who have enough money to pay a people smuggler. In saying this, I am not reflecting on those who come by boat; in their shoes, I might well make the same decision. But we have a fixed humanitarian quota: 13,750 now, which will increase to 14,750. I believe it is appropriate to prioritise those who are selected in our offshore processing centres.
This is a hard debate, and I have had many conversations and email exchanges with people in my electorate about what is the right thing to do. I respect those who disagree with the government's position on this. But no-one has a monopoly on compassion. In closing, I pay tribute to those in the ACT who work with refugees, as my maternal grandparents did with refugees in their home. I want to acknowledge the work of the Multicultural Youth Services in settling young refugees, often those who are orphaned or who only have one parent. The work they do to help newly arrived migrants in Canberra develop friends and social networks is valuable work indeed. I recognise Companion House, which works with the victims of torture and trauma. It is hard work and it is important work. They provide health care and social networks. I acknowledge those who work in these organisations and the many other organisations that assist refugees in the ACT. Their compassion is a great credit to them and it is one of the reasons why I hope that in the future Australia will be able to take still more refugees than we do today.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (11:23): I rise to talk on the Migration Act amendments that the House is considering today. I believe the way the debate has been framed by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Cook—it is about trust and about who the Australian people trust to protect our borders—is the right way for the House to be looking at it today. It comes down to a judgment about whether you trust the people who have had a consistent policy for the past decade, a policy we have actually tried out and which has worked, or whether you trust the Labor Party, who on this issue have had every single policy except one that actually works.
It is not just the Australian people who make a judgment about Australia's border protection policies; it is the people smugglers as well. People smugglers are very sophisticated criminal gangs. They understand what is going on in terms of the policy debate in Australia. When the Labor Party 'develop their thinking' on these issues, as the immigration minister memorably put it—which, of course, is just another way of saying that they are consistently inconsistent—the people smugglers look at this inconsistency and make a judgment about whether the government have the policies and the resolve to protect Australia's borders. The way they respond to that is either to continue to send people to Australia illegally or to cease sending people to Australia illegally.
In 2001, when the people smugglers had sent a lot of people down to Australia illegally—we had a wave of illegal arrivals in the years leading up to 2001—the then government, the Howard government, decided that enough was enough and they showed some resolve. They took tough and controversial decisions to drive the people smugglers from their evil business. At the time, the Labor opposition heavily criticised the government for that. They called the Pacific solution, which was one plank of that policy, immoral; they said we were racist for pursuing these policies. There was a lot of controversy within the community about them, but I do not think that anyone could reasonably argue that they were not successful. They were extremely successful in stopping the people smugglers from deciding who came to Australia. They were successful in breaking the people smugglers' model, which is to go out into communities where people are in much more difficult conditions than we find here in Australia and to sell to those people at great expense—up to $15,000 per head—a passage to Australia. If there is a reasonable expectation that people can come to Australia and be resettled here permanently, then clearly that remains a very potent product for the people smugglers to sell.
You need to embrace a policy prescription that is as tough as necessary to break that model. You do not need to subject people to greater hardship than is reasonable; you only need to take away that product that the people smugglers are selling. The people smugglers will of course test the resolve of a government when policy changes. Unfortunately, what they have found is that, every time they have tested this government, it has been the government that has blinked—it has been the Labor Party that has always folded. We need to go back and look at the history of its policy backflips and changes since it came into government to understand that we are now in this blind alley that the Labor Party has led us down in discussing this legislation here today. This legislation seeks to strip away all the protections that the Howard government put in place within our Migration Act, some of which last year it was saying it held so dear.
When the government changed in 2007, the Labor Party had held many contrary positions in relation to border protection. As I said, they criticised the Howard government's policy of border protection very heavily. They were in favour of temporary protection visas and then they were against them. They were in favour of towing boats back to Indonesia and then they were against it. They have been in favour of offshore processing and they have been against it. We have watched them dismantle the successful policies that they inherited from the Howard government and we have warned them that the people smugglers will be emboldened to bring people back down to Australia illegally and very dangerously on leaky boats. Of course, when they came to office they went ahead in a fit of moral vanity and dismantled the Pacific solution.
The then immigration minister, who still serves as a senior minister in this government, Senator Chris Evans, said that dismantling the Pacific solution was his proudest day in politics. He remains, despite the terrible consequences that his moral vanity has had for our border protection policies, the third most senior minister in Australia. He said that offshore processing on Nauru was expensive and a failure. Those decisions went out as a signal that Australia was once again a soft touch for people smugglers. People smugglers picked up on that signal straightaway and went back into the business of bringing people down to Australia illegally. It is empirically impossible to argue that those decisions did not have an impact on the people smugglers' business model. In 2007 there were four people detained on Christmas Island; under this government there have been up to 3,000. As soon as those decisions were made in August 2008, people smugglers started to bring people down to Australia illegally. In September 2008, we had a trickle of illegal boat arrivals. That increased through 2009 and 2010 and the government's response was not that they had a policy problem but that they had a political problem. They have subsequently looked at it in that way. They have understood that Australians expect the federal government to provide a robust system of border protection and, therefore, they have seen this issue as an enormous political problem for them.
We have had some significant missed steps because of that. We had the debacle of the Oceanic Viking, where asylum seekers literally took control of a Commonwealth vessel and refused to be taken back to Indonesia. Subsequently, they matched wills with the federal government and, astonishingly, it was the Labor government that blinked. It did a secret deal with Indonesia to bring those people down to Australia, the culmination of which was to send a private plane up to Indonesia to collect people who had been deemed by our own domestic security agency to be security risks to this country. Subsequently, because of the political panic that has come with the collapse of Australia's border protection system, we have seen a gradual policy retreat from this government. It axed Kevin Rudd because he was unable to protect Australia's borders and the new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, nominated border protection as one of the areas where she believed that the previous government had lost its way.
During the subsequent election campaign she said that the policy of the Labor government was to go back to offshore processing but to do so on East Timor. She never spoke to the government of East Timor about it. She made a perfunctory call to the head of state of East Timor and the East Timorese, from the word go, did not want a processing centre within their territory. As is their right, they did not want to host such a facility. The Australian government continued with the fiction that it was in negotiation with the East Timorese government, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Embarrassingly, Australian diplomats were sent out into the region to argue the case for a policy that everybody in the region knew was a dead duck. It was an albatross around the necks of anyone practising Australian foreign policy. This farcical East Timorese processing solution had collapsed—it was dead on arrival; it was dead as soon as it was announced—yet for months and months Australia had it as one of its key planks in its foreign policy.
Finally, the government succumbed to reality and admitted that the East Timorese processing centre was not going to go ahead. So the government talked about reopening the Manus Island processing centre in Papua New Guinea, one of the evil planks of the Howard government's policy. It is actually a good idea, an idea that the opposition would support, but like everything this government does it cannot competently put any plan into action. The Papua New Guinea government, which is apparently amenable to reopening Manus Island, was gravely insulted by the fact that the Labor government sent up the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs. Surely, if you were serious about getting something done, you would send someone more senior to negotiate what apparently is one of the most important policy proposals that the government is pursuing. The Papua New Guineans were rightly insulted by such a low-level official going up to talk to them about reopening Manus Island. The Minister for Foreign Affairs would not go; the Prime Minister would not go. Of course, that policy has now languished. It is a good idea and is an idea that is worth pursuing. The government of Papua New Guinea was apparently amenable to it being pursued; but, like so much of what this government does, it cannot competently pursue any policy proposal, and now the Manus Island proposal appears to have languished.
In the meantime we have had the collapse of our detention network. The government's policy was not to process people onshore but to process people on Christmas Island. But the sheer volume of people coming to Australia illegally meant that that centre was so full—and subject to riots and violence—that it has had to go back on other commitments about processing people onshore in a way that has led to a massive expansion of onshore processing.
Illegal boats have arrived by the dozen. The government has searched for any policy but the coalition's policy that has actually worked. Finally, it came up with this proposal with the Malaysian government to send people to Malaysia in what is a five-for-one people swap. This was announced in May, just before the budget, and since that announcement 1,000 people have been smuggled into Australia illegally. Since the agreement was signed, 400 people have come to Australia illegally. Clearly, the Malaysian policy is deeply ineffective, and not only for the human rights consequences that have been outlined by previous speakers. The government has no answer to the legitimate question of what its policy will be once that 800 cap has been reached. We have asked that in this parliament on many, many occasions and the government has absolutely no answer to it.
Our problem with the Malaysia arrangement is that it is unnecessarily cruel. Despite the government's protestations, the people we send there will surely not have their human rights protected in a way we would expect if they were processed in an Australian-run facility. The government has absolutely no response to the reasonable question about what it is going to do once that policy reaches its use-by date. It is only 800 people. We have had 1,000 people arrive since the policy was announced and 600 people arrive since the agreement was signed.
The response of the government to the High Court ruling, which was that the Malaysian arrangement was not in keeping with Australian legislation, was to march into this place and ask the parliament to accept amendments to the Migration Act that strip away all of the basic protections that the Howard government had put into that act when we faced similar policy dilemmas in 2001. This is a government that has shown incredible incompetence and a complete inability to have any resolve or conviction about its border protection policies, that has literally embraced every available policy except one that is going to work and that has marched into this place and asked this parliament to give it unfettered powers with no safeguards under the Migration Act. The opposition say no, we are not going to accept that proposal, although we will of course facilitate this government doing offshore processing. But we insist that it be done—as Labor has said on many, many occasions—in a country that is a signatory to the UN refugee convention.
If you are going to protect Australia's borders then you need to send a very strong message to the criminal gangs that smuggle people here. You need to have some resolve and you need to have a policy platform that is going to work and that you are prepared to stick to when it comes under criticism or under pressure. We have had the same policy for 10 years. We know that it works because it has worked in the past. (Time expired)
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:38): This is a race to the bottom. This is a grubby debate and it diminishes this parliament in the eyes of the Australian people. It is a missed opportunity for us as a parliament and as a country to have a rational, sensible discussion about the long-term future and about Australia doing its fair share in dealing with people who are fleeing the most wretched of circumstances and are seeking our help.
We are here because the High Court has told us what we should already have morally known, and that is: Australia cannot expel children and adults who come here seeking help and send them to another country where we do not know what fate awaits them. The High Court decision gave us a remarkable opportunity to take stock of where we are going as a country. We could have begun a rational debate that would have allowed us to explain to people, to other members of parliament and to the whole country facts like, for example: every year 15,000 people come here and overstay their visas. That number dwarfs, by several orders of magnitude, the number of people who will ever arrive here by boat. It would take 20 years to fill the MCG with people who arrive here by boat, but the MCG is already half full of people who are overstaying their tourist visas and other kinds of visas. We do not have a national hysterical debate about the backpackers and their impact on society, and yet we have spent so much time in this parliament and in the media having a debate fuelled by misinformation, xenophobia and some of the dirtiest politics around some of the most vulnerable people in the world.
It is a sad day when the Labor Party comes into this place and says, 'Our position on refugees is tougher because we will send them to a country where they might be caned,' and then the Liberal Party says, 'No, ours is tougher because we will tow boats back out to sea no matter what fate awaits the people who are on them.' So long as the two old parties are locked in this deadly embrace, we are going to continue this race to the bottom and we are not going to have a rational debate in this country. Of course we should do everything we can to stop people getting on boats and making the risky journey that possibly might see them end their lives in transit. Of course we should do everything we can to stop that. But, if we were serious about a regional solution to stop that, we would put up front and square the protection of these people, and the debate would be about the best multilateral approach to ensure people's rights are protected and their lives are not put at risk. That is not the debate we are having. We are having a false debate about the so-called evils of people smugglers.
I have no doubt that there are some people smugglers who are not very nice people, but I can tell you this: if I were in a situation where I feared for my life, where I was worried about what might happen to my family and where there was war, famine and threats of political persecution, I would do everything I could to get out of there. I would do everything I could to get my family out of there, and that would include paying someone who offered me the last chance to flee a wretched situation. I would be prepared to bet that most people in this country would do exactly the same. If we started having a debate about that instead of so-called people smugglers, we might go some way to restoring the principle of humanity in this parliament, this parliament might have a better reputation in the eyes of the Australian people, and Australia might have a better reputation in the eyes of the world.
It is worth remembering that it was not always like this in this country. In the years after the Vietnam War, just over 2,000 people came here by boat. We did not tow them back out to sea. We did not send them off to other countries. We took them in and we opened our country to them, to members of their families and to their relatives, and we had a solution that saw, over the next decade, something in the order of 90,000 people come to this country. If you were to ask almost any Australian, I bet that they would tell you that it was a success and that we can look back now with pride at the compassionate approach we took in the past and what it has meant for our wonderful and vibrant society today. My electorate of Melbourne would be a very, very different and diminished place had we not, over many years, welcomed people here from other parts of the world—many of them as refugees. If you ask most Australians, every single one of them, I think, will have a story of someone they know, someone they work with, someone in their street, or someone that someone in their family is married to who came here as a refugee and who might have even come here either by boat or in a way that would now see them languishing in a detention centre or potentially sent off to another country. Everyone is only one or two degrees removed from that success story of migration into Australia, and poll after poll shows that a majority of people want refugee claims processed here onshore in a fair and humane manner. The last poll said 54 per cent of Australians want refugee claims processed here onshore and yet we have both of the old parties in lockstep together, marching away as quickly as they can away from public opinion.
If we were able to have a rational and reasonable debate about this, what we as the Greens would be advancing is a humane, compassionate and long-term practical approach that asks: what is Australia's fair share as a rich country in our region and in the world for dealing with this global problem of movement of people fleeing war, persecution and famine? We would, like the majority of the Australian population, see claims from refugees and asylum seekers processed onshore. We would have a minimum length of detention for the purposes of health and security checks—no more than 30 days and only longer if a court approves it. Once we had checked people's health and security status, we would allow them to live in the community while their claims were being processed, as happens in other countries and as we used to do. And we would lift to 20,000 the number of people we take into the country in the humanitarian refugee stream, something that the Refugee Council of Australia says is Australia's fair share.
This debate looks like ending in some kind of stalemate and we will end up with something approximating a default position, which will be what the High Court said the law and the legal situation is, which is that people will be processed onshore. I am pleased that that will be the outcome, presuming the legislation does not get through—perhaps it will. Whatever happens, I do not think that people looking at us around the country want us to come up with a position by default. I think that people around the country want us to take a stand and make a decision in Australia's long-term interest, in the interest of compassion and fairness, and in the interest of sharing our fair share of the burden within our region—but one that is based on principle. It needs to acknowledge that we will pull our weight within the region and that the basic principle that all of us in this chamber, with the exception of the member for Hasluck, are or are descended from boat people in one form or another. I think people would want us to come up with a position that is based on principle, on what we believe, rather than the short-term politics of the media cycle and the worry about what is going to appear on the front page of the newspaper the next day.
My position and the Greens' position in this debate is that we are not going to assist either of these old parties in their race to the bottom in what is a grubby debate. I will be voting against the coalition's amendments and against the government's legislation. My second reading amendment would bring this parliament into line with what the majority of the Australian people are very clearly saying they want.
This is a historic debate and votes that will be taken on this are historic, because in 10 or 15 years people will look back on this—in the way, I think, that we look back on the White Australia policy—and they will say: 'How could they come up with such a solution? Why were those principles informing their debate?' When they look back on this they will ask every member of this chamber: 'Where did you stand? Did you vote for a more compassionate, more humane and fair approach to dealing with some of the world's most vulnerable people or did you continue the race to the bottom?'
I know that there are some people in this place on different sides of the chamber who want to see this parliament take a stand that reflects the will of the majority of the population and that has processing done onshore. I say to all of them: this is an opportunity to have your vote counted. I hope that when we divide on my second reading amendment, and when parliament states as a matter of principle whether it believes in processing people's claims onshore, it is more than just me and the member for Denison sitting on the affirmative side, because this will be noted. We are entering an environment where seats do not just change hands in elections on the basis of who can come up with the harshest and most punitive policy. People around the country are increasingly saying: 'We've had enough. Seats will change hands and we will change our vote on the basis of who has the more compassionate, practical and long-term policy.'
I commend my amendment to the House. I do not know which way the votes are going to go today, but I do know there will be an opportunity for everyone here to take a stand on a matter of principle about how we as a country—a rich nation in a region where many countries have troubles of their own—will act, how we will be viewed in the eyes of the Australian people and how this country will be viewed in the eyes of the world.
I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House declines to give the bill a second reading and calls on the Government to end offshore processing and process all asylum seekers' claims for protection onshore."
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (11:52): I second the amendment and wish to offer a few comments. The High Court ruling against the Malaysia solution provided a very important opportunity for this parliament to look afresh at Australia's policy on irregular immigration. This government and this parliament should have seized this opportunity as a chance to remedy the wrongs of the past and develop a more humane policy towards some of the most vulnerable people in the world. But neither the government nor the opposition has decided to seize the moment. The government instead has chosen to try to cook the books, in effect, by legislating a workaround to dodge the High Court's ruling. The opposition, meanwhile, has seen the ruling as another opportunity to pursue its political self-interest ahead of the public interest—and, in my opinion, it has done so against the wishes of a clear majority of the Australian community.
I will not support the government's Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011 because it would perpetuate offshore processing, with which I disagree most strongly. But I would support any new policy put forward by this government—and ideally, supported by the opposition—which finally came to grips with the complexity of the global irregular migration issue, particularly as it affects Australia. I would support a policy that finally and for the first time in this country took into account the fact that the flow of irregular immigrants to Australia is a function of many factors—not the least of which is the situation in source countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere—and which addressed the situation in countries of first asylum such as Iran and Pakistan, which host millions of refugees from bordering countries yet get next to no assistance either from the Australian government or from the governments of other developed countries. The policy I would support would also take into account the important role that transit countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have in the flow of irregular immigrants to Australia. Until we have a policy that addresses the situation in source countries, in countries of first asylum and in transit countries, we will continue to have these periodic surges of people making it, entirely understandably and entirely defensively, to our shores.
Irregular immigration is not a border security problem; it is a global humanitarian problem. Australia does not need a better border security policy; Australia needs a more humane policy that takes into account and addresses the humanitarian aspects of irregular immigration. The people who are coming to our shores in boats are not terrorists; they are overwhelmingly people who are escaping awful circumstances in their own country and who are fortunate enough to be able to scrape together or borrow the modest amount of money to pay the people who will facilitate their travel to our shores. With some confidence I would say that just about every person in this House, if they were put in similar circumstances to those of the people who arrive in Australia by boat—if they were put in the same boat, so to speak—would act in exactly the same way as those people do and that they would be shocked if they got to our borders and were not accorded the protection that Australia's obligations as a signatory to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees demand that it give.
I make the point again that this is not a border security problem; this is a humanitarian problem. Australia does not need another border security policy; Australia needs another humanitarian policy. Such a policy would be not simply the result of legislation which we might create in this place but also a matter of Australia's honouring its international obligations as a signatory to the refugee convention. I remind everyone in this place that, as a signatory to the convention, we are compelled to give protection to anyone who comes to our country and to promptly hear their claims. If their claims are found to be accurate, we are compelled to give them refuge. We cannot opt in or opt out of this—it is not voluntary. Many years ago we quite rightly became a signatory to the refugee convention. Why on earth can't Australian governments—this government and the last government as well as, likely, the next government—come to terms with the fact that we have obligations as a signatory to the refugee convention? We cannot turn it off; it is on. Because of that, we must give protection to people who come to our shores, hear their claims promptly and give them refuge if their claims are found to be accurate. Yes, we should put on the very next plane home those people who are not genuinely in need of refuge and whose claims are thus found to be fraudulent; but the overwhelming majority of people who come to our shores do have reasonable claims, and we should give them refuge.
The people who come to Australia by boat are not criminals and they are not illegal immigrants; neither are they unauthorised arrivals. They are human beings doing nothing more than exercising their rights as members of the human race and moving in accordance with what the refugee convention recognises and allows. They are doing nothing wrong, and those who continue to refer to them as illegal immigrants are doing those people a terrible disservice. Those people are not breaking Australian law; they are, in fact, acting in accordance with their circumstances in a way that we would recognise as entirely warranted. We recognise these circumstances because we have decided to sign up to the refugee convention and to remain a signatory to it. Let us put a face to this. A fellow called Najaf Mazari—and I am sure he will not mind me mentioning his name—fled from Afghanistan some years ago. He made the final stage of his journey to Australia by boat. For his troubles, the Howard government locked him in Woomera for many, many months. Here is a man who fled in fear of his life after many members of his family—who were Hazaras, I would add—were murdered by the Taliban. He fled in fear of his life, including being prepared to travel a very dangerous leg overseas by boat from Indonesia. And what did the Australian government at the time do? We did what I suspect many people in this place still approve of: we jailed him in what was nothing better than a concentration camp in Woomera.
Fortunately for Najaf, his claims were found to be accurate and he was released. He is now an Australian citizen. He has finally got his wife and his young daughter out from Afghanistan and they have a little afghan rug shop in Melbourne. When you talk to that family you realise that they are human beings who genuinely fled in fear of their lives. We have done the right thing by them by letting them settle here and allowing them to become Australian citizens. And they are now pillars of their community in Melbourne—to their great credit.
When you look into Najaf's eyes you see a deep sorrow—a man who has lost many members of his family to violence—but you also see a great joy that a country did give him refuge. You see in him a great potential—someone who will go on and become a great Australian in whatever way he chooses. These are not just SIEVs; these are not just irregular immigrants. These are human beings, and the overwhelming number of them are people fleeing violence.
There has been some commentary today about this being a question of leadership. I agree with the commentary in the media: it is a question of leadership. It is a question of the Prime Minister's leadership and it is also and equally a question of the opposition leader's leadership—because it is not a case in this parliament, in a power-sharing parliament, where one or the other can act alone. I call on the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to both show leadership, to put their heads together and to seize the moment; not to look for workarounds on how to cook the books and get around High Court rulings.
I call on them to look at this as an opportunity to look afresh at our policy and to create a new policy, a sophisticated policy that is matched to the complexity of the issue—something that means we do more to help out and to stabilise source countries; a policy that give much more foreign aid to countries of first asylum, like Iran and Pakistan; a policy that gives much greater assistance to our transit countries, particularly Indonesia, and, in particular, to help the Indonesians deal with the people smugglers. I make the point: the only people who are doing anything wrong here are the people smugglers. As far as us tracking down wrongdoers, we should be helping Indonesia and other transit countries to track down and to deal with the people smugglers, because they are the only criminals, the only people doing anything wrong.
In summary, I hope my words help to explain why I will not support the government's bill that would perpetuate or resume offshore processing. Nor will I support any opposition amendment that would restrict offshore processing to countries that are a signatory to the refugee convention. I laboured with this issue about the possibility of the opposition bringing on an amendment that would say that Australia can send asylum seekers only to countries that are signatories to the refugee convention. For a long time I did see the value in supporting such an amendment, because if we are going to have offshore processing, let us at least send people to countries that have some safeguards in place—and Malaysia is not one. But in the end I have decided that I will not support such an amendment for fear that it would create the circumstances in which the government and the opposition might work together to continue offshore processing in a place such as Manus Island, where I do worry that the government's and the opposition's interests overlap.
I will support the member for Melbourne's amendment, but I fear that I will be the only person supporting it. The member for Melbourne and I hope that other people come together and support that amendment. That amendment is to do the right thing. It is an amendment that would legislate that we have only onshore processing—the humane approach, the approach consistent with the refugee convention, and the approach in line with the majority of Australians.
The Howard era's irregular immigration policies were a shameful episode. The Malaysia deal would be just as shameful or, arguably, more shameful. At least on Nauru and Manus Island there were Australian officials on the ground ensuring that at least some safeguards to Australian standards were being maintained or adhered to. But the Malaysia solution would not even have that. There would be no Australian officials on the ground—in a country that is not a signatory to the refugee convention, in a country that does use the cane, in a country that would return people to dangerous countries of origin.
This is the moment to seize for both the Prime Minister and the opposition leader. They both need to act in the public interest. This parliament needs to seize the moment and put the shameful episode of the Howard era behind us and to put the shameful suggestion of the Malaysia solution behind us. That is why I will not support the government's bill and I will not support opposition amendments. The only thing I expect to support today will be the member for Melbourne's amendment.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (12:06): I rise today to speak to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011 and, in particular, to reject the government's bill and to support the opposition's amendments. The only reason that we have had 12,263 illegal arrivals on 241 boats is that this Labor government held up the 'open for business' signs. In fact, since the Prime Minister became leader there have been 100 boats, containing 5,710 illegal immigrants. For the record, not one person has been processed offshore.
It was this week that Treasurer Wayne Swan was named Finance Minister of the Year. I am absolutely sure that the 'People Smugglers Association' would call our minister for immigration the 'International Immigration Minister of the Year' because he has done so much for people smugglers. In fact, he has recreated an industry that brings to those people smugglers somewhere between $120 million and $250 million in revenue, and that was after the Howard government smashed the people-smuggling rings.
It is only absolute stubbornness that stops the Prime Minister from having an offshore processing solution. The Prime Minister—that wheeler and dealer; that negotiator of extreme ability—cut a deal with Malaysia which sees us taking five refugees for 800 people. That is a hell of a deal, but she should actually work out that 50 per cent of something is better than 100 per cent of nothing. If the Prime Minister were to agree with the amendments by the opposition, she would have in place an offshore processing regime that does not dictate Nauru. In fact, Nauru is excluded until Monday, when it will finally have its signed ratification of subscribing to the UN convention on refugees. In fact, what amazes me is the Prime Minister's push for Malaysia when so many speakers in the past, on previous bills, have spoken about the need to have countries that are signatories to the convention.
I quote from the UNHCR website about Malaysia. It says:
Malaysia is not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its Protocol.
… … …
By law, refugees are … vulnerable to arrest for immigration offences and may be subject to detention, prosecution, whipping and deportation.
It is true that Nauru is not a signatory at this point in time. It will not be ratified until Monday. So by the time this bill is voted on and by the time it goes through the Senate, Nauru will be a signatory. As I said, it is only the stubbornness of this Prime Minister. In fact, I quite expect the Prime Minister to come in and say something along the lines of: 'We, and we alone, will dictate the terms of who comes into this country and by which means they come into this country.' So much so is her stubbornness.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds. I say that in the light of the Prime Minister's position on 6PR on 8 July last year, when she said:
I would rule out anywhere that is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention.
But she has changed her mind yet again. This Prime Minister has had more positions and more policies than I have had hot feeds—and, I have to say, that is actually saying something! She has changed her mind on so many issues and has changed direction from one extreme to the other, bouncing almost like a ball in a pinball machine—bouncing off the little flickers—
Mr Hartsuyker: She's faster than that!
Mr BALDWIN: She is faster than a ball in a pinball machine, but she is not on her own. I state to the House: when the Howard government instituted offshore processing, when we turned the boats around and had the Pacific solution, supported by temporary protection visas, it stopped the boats. We did not have this problem. We broke the people-smuggling ring and we denied them of around $250 million worth of income.
The hypocrisy is shared by many on her side. In fact, I might not agree with Mr Bandt, the member for Melbourne, but I do admire his conviction and, in particular, his consistency. That is something that is absolutely lacking from members opposite. I think back to the speeches in the debate on the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. That was debated on 10 August 2006. There were a number of speakers, in particular the member for Grayndler, as he was then. In his speech he said:
You do not protect your borders by giving them up—and that is what this bill does.
He went on to say:
The Labor Party supports border protection but does not accept that excising the whole of Australia is an effective means of border protection. You do not deal with boat arrivals by pretending that you do not have sea borders or by pretending that, if you arrive by one particular mode of arrival—boat—you do not arrive in Australia …
In fact, he then went on to quote the UNHCR and said:
If this were to happen, it would be an unfortunate precedent, being for the first time, to our knowledge, that a country with a fully functioning and credible asylum system, in the absence of anything approximating a mass influx, decides to transfer elsewhere the responsibility to handle claims made actually on the territory of the state.
He even went on to quote Justice Kirby's letter, which said:
Every diminution of freedom takes us in the wrong direction. Every act of discrimination by our parliament and governments dishonours our nation.
He summed up by saying:
But we have to bear in mind how future generations will look at what we are doing …
I look forward to the courage of conviction and consistency from the member for Grayndler. But he is not on his own. The member for Melbourne Ports—one of those people so passionate about human rights and such a strong advocate who is lining up—in his speech, on the same day and on the same bill, said:
I am pleased to see that some of the members opposite—the members for Kooyong, McMillan, Pearce and Cook—agree with us. I commend their adherence to principle on this matter and hope other coalition members and senators will also agree with us.
The list goes on. The member for Shortland, on the same day, said:
Nauru will be used to detain asylum seekers, and asylum seekers arriving by boat will have no access to legal or appeal proceedings in Australia. I think that is rather horrendous.
She went on to say:
… I see asylum seekers and refugees as some of the most vulnerable people in the world. I am very ashamed to have been part of a parliament that has adopted this approach.
I ask her: how does she feel now? She goes on to say:
If I was in a situation where I was as desperate as many of these people who are hopping on those leaking boats are, I would do exactly the same.
Further, she says:
Labor believes all asylum seekers should have the right to access Australian appeal processes, the Refugee Review Tribunal and Australian judicial review. To deny this is to deny basic human rights.
But the ringer in all this is the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, who made a speech that same day when he was just the member for Prospect. He said:
If the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 passes the parliament today, it will be the day that Australia turned its back on the refugee convention and on refugees escaping circumstances that most of us can only imagine. This is a bad bill with no redeeming features. It is a hypocritical and illogical bill. If it is passed today, it will be a stain on our national character. The people who will be disadvantaged by this bill are in fear of their lives, and we should never turn our back on them. They are people who could make a real contribution to Australia.
He went on to say:
The biggest problem is that, even if an asylum seeker overcomes all these obstacles and has their application for refugee status accepted, there is no guarantee of a visa to settle in Australia. Someone who makes it to the Australian mainland and has their case as a refugee accepted may not be able to gain a protection visa in this country, and that is a national disgrace.
Further, he said:
The Prime Minister is selling out our national sovereignty. This tragic and discriminatory policy does not come cheap. Taxpayers are paying for the maintenance of offshore detention centres at the cost of $3 million to $4 million a month. They are much more expensive than detention centres in Australia. We have the worst of all worlds—an expensive, discriminatory and tragic policy.
He summed it up by quoting the convention on refugees, which says:
The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.
Finally, he said:
I appeal to the better angels of the nature of those opposite. Some have already expressed their unwillingness to support this legislation.
I think that pretty much sums up the hypocrisy of the people that occupy the government benches. It shows the hypocrisy of members like the member for Banks, the now member for Werriwa, the member for Melbourne Ports, the member for Jagajaga, the member for Lyne, the member for Grayndler and the member for Sydney, to name but a few, because they lack conviction. One of the things you have to be very careful of in this place is that when you make a speech and you say something on the record it is there forever. Those words that I have quoted are their words, not words that I am putting into their mouths.
But what are we going to see today? We will see them all line up. At that time they called on people like the then member for Cook, the member for McMillan, the then member for Kooyong and, of course, the member for Pearce to have the courage of their conviction and to cross the floor because sending people to a country that is not a signatory to the refugee convention was immoral and a disgrace. We say to them today: act upon your conviction and your principles. Cross the floor and support an amendment that dictates not an individual country but basic human rights protections. I quote the paragraph we wish to include:
(d) the designation of a country to be an offshore processing country need be determined only by reference to the fact that the country is a party to the Refugees Convention or the Refugees Protocol.
It cannot be any simpler than that. The country must be a signatory. I go back to what I said earlier, wherein I quoted the UNHCR website about Malaysia. I have no problem with Malaysia. They have their own laws, they have their own values and they have their own views but, unfortunately, they are not a signatory to the convention. The UNHCR website says:
Malaysia is not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its Protocol.
… … …
By law, refugees are … vulnerable to arrest for immigration offences and may be subject to detention, prosecution, whipping and deportation.
Those members that I named previously had a lot to say when they were in opposition about offshore processing, how inhumane it was and how terrible it was that we were not standing by the convention to which we subscribe. I say to them now: here is your opportunity; reject your own bill, which goes against the very essence of your own conviction and your previously stated statements to this House, and support the opposition. Will they have the absolute conviction to stand up for what they believe in, and what they have already said, and support the opposition? It may not be what they truly want, but what they are going to vote for with this government goes against every grain, everything they have said and everything they have stood for. In the years after they leave this place, as one of the members I mentioned said, how will future generations look upon the actions that they have undertaken?
This is fairly simple. The government will be given a licence for offshore processing in a country of the minister or the Prime Minister's choosing, provided it is a signatory to the refugee convention. I restate what the opposition's policy will be if we come to government: we will institute offshore processing, we will institute temporary protection visas and we will turn the boats around. It worked once before; it will work again. It is only this Prime Minister's absolute stubbornness and conceitedness that stops her from progressing in this vein. (Time expired)
Mr RANDALL (Canning) (12:21): I am pleased to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. I have a passion and an interest in migration because it is one of the most important issues in our community today. You cannot go to the shops, you cannot go down to the local sporting club, without people having an opinion on this and having something to say about it. I want to analyse why we are here today. We are here today because this is a government that is in real trouble, diabolical trouble, on a number of fronts. This government's troubles on this migration issue are of its own making.
Let us examine the history of why we are here today. Ten years ago the Howard government had to deal with the Tampasituation—a situation I know well because I was elected in 2001.
Mr Hartsuyker: And what a great member too. A wise choice they made.
Mr RANDALL: Thank you very much. I was the only member from Western Australia elected in the 2001 election and that had a lot to do with migration issues. Ten years later we are still going through the same issues and Nauru is still an issue. We had a problem and we found a solution. The solution was that we would process offshore the people who arrived unlawfully. Thousands of people, until this action was taken, were arriving unlawfully and there had to be a solution. Offshore processing did a number of things. It made sure that the UNHCR assessed people properly in an area not on the Australian mainland. It was important we did this because Australia was seen as a soft touch and an easy destination.
What has changed since then? The Labor Party, after the 'Kevin 07' election, came to government. In February 2008, within three months of coming to office, the Rudd government moved to dismantle the Pacific solution by announcing the closing of the Nauru detention centre. The Pacific solution had worked because, as we know, when the Rudd government came to power in 2007 there were only four people in detention that had come by boat. Disregarding any analysis of success or otherwise, we had gone from thousands of people arriving to just four in detention being processed.
In May 2008 the then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, dismantled temporary protection visas. They were the other very important element of the Pacific solution. Temporary protection visas allowed people to stay on the Australian mainland for two reasons: firstly, while their refugee bona fides were being checked and, secondly, until the country of their origin was deemed safe to go back to. With much fanfare, earlier this year the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Bowen, came into this place and said how they had struck a wonderful deal with Afghanistan to return people not deemed to be refugees. Do you know how many people have gone back to Afghanistan as a result of that agreement with the Afghan government? Not one. Not one person has returned even though a bilateral agreement between both governments was reached.
Recently I went to Afghanistan with a number of my colleagues, including a Labor members. On the basis that the Afghans are being given refugee status in Australia, the whole of Afghanistan could come to Australia. Everyone in Afghanistan could deem themselves as being in an unsafe environment and being either persecuted or targeted and fearing for their own or their children's safety. On that basis, under the easy tick-and-flick method, the whole of the Afghan nation—if they could get to Australian shores—could come here and receive a visa. It is just bizarre.
In July 2009 the Rudd government—before the Prime Minister was politically assassinated—was boasting that the dismantling of the Howard government's asylum seeker policy had been achieved. It is their dismantling of a successful policy which has led us into the dire migration situation we find ourselves in today. There have been many different views. Remember it was Prime Minister Gillard that came to the position of Prime Minister just over 12 months ago because the government had lost its way. It had lost its way in several areas: one was carbon tax, another was the mining tax and one was migration issues. None of those have been fixed.
This Prime Minister, 12 months later, is in a bigger mess. Before the last election she was fishing around trying to find a solution so she said she was going to organise a regional processing centre in East Timor because East Timor would be a good location. The only problem with that was she did not tell anyone in East Timor she was going to do it. In fact, the ones she did tell were the wrong people and they became somewhat offended. The East Timorese knew that a processing centre in that setting would provide for asylum seekers entitlements and amenities far superior to what many of the people themselves in East Timor were receiving in the way of food, health, education, communications and pay. So that was canned. It was a serious issue, and this was done on the advice, we are told, of people from the department.
I am not one to criticise departmental officials but I will point out a level of hypocrisy evident in the parliament yesterday. I happened to be fortunate enough to be in the Main Committee and hear the member for Canberra railing against Bob Brown for slurring departmental officials. As the member for Canberra—and we know there are a lot of bureaucrats and public servants in Canberra—she was protecting her constituency. She was railing against Senator Bob Brown from the Greens, saying how he had terribly slurred the bureaucrats and the people giving advice to the government and how shocking it was. In question time the same member got up in this place and asked the Special Minister of State for Public Service and Integrity about how shocking it was that anyone would slur the bureaucrats. What was the answer from the minister? It was the fault of the coalition that these people were being slurred. The member for Canberra had one position in the morning and she had another one in the afternoon. All advice is given objectively but it is not always correct because the proposal for East Timor obviously was not something that could fly. So then what did the Prime Minister do? She started fishing around for another location. She tried to find another location which was Malaysia. I say to the Labor Party backbench in particular: walk through your shopping centres and ask anyone if they think the five-for-one swap is a good deal. The government then said to Malaysia: 'Have we got a deal for you. We'll take 4,000 of yours at great expense, and at great expense we'll give you 800 of ours and we'll pay for the lot. Guess what? We think that's a good deal.' I would really like the Prime Minister to be my bank manager because I could put a dollar in and get five dollars back every time. What a ludicrous situation. But somehow this seems to be a good result.
What is worse than that is the fact that the Prime Minister and the Labor Party, particularly during the Howard years, were against offshore processing. We have heard my colleagues one after the other outlining the statements of members and ministers who in the past have said that it was a shocking thing that the coalition did in sending people to offshore processing areas like Manus Island. They said: 'How shocking. Manus Island, what a shocking place to send people.' They said that it was inhumane and it was against all human rights principles in the conventions that we have signed up to. The Prime Minister's original objection to Nauru was that it was not a signatory to the UN conventions that we have signed up to. These conventions have been listed and I may refer to them in a moment.
Then what happened? There seemed to be a conversion not on the road to Damascus but on the road to Kuala Lumpur. This conversion on the way to Kuala Lumpur was that we do not have to send people to a country that is a signatory to the convention because we have such a good deal—the five-for-one deal—that we have to send them there. I say that the government are so bogged down on this that they are now almost obliged to try to keep going with it.
We know about the Labor left on the other side. The member for La Trobe, I understand, seconded the motion in caucus brought by Senator John Faulkner against this. We know a whole lot of people spoke about how terrible it was that people were going to a country that had not signed the convention. Yet we see the dishonesty of those, particularly the Left members on the backbench, because you will hear them speak today supporting this motion even though we know they spoke in caucus against it. This has been reported and they have not denied it. They are going to endorse this crazy deal that the Prime Minister wants to do to continue to try to send asylum seekers to Malaysia.
We have given the government an out. We have an amendment to this bill. We have said, 'Yes, we will amend the bill to allow the minister of the day to send people to a country that is a signatory of the convention.' That is a very simple amendment, a very logical one, and I will give you an example of countries in the region that are signatories where they might want to send asylum seekers. Papua New Guinea is a signatory, the Philippines are a signatory, Samoa is a signatory and the Solomon Islands. I have been to Tuvalu, a nice place—
Mr Hartsuyker: Tuvalu.
Mr RANDALL: It is pronounced Tuvalu and the capital is Funafuti for those who cannot say the name of it. The Labor Party seem to want to say it is our fault because we will not give them the discretion to go to Malaysia because, in their own words, it is a place that did not sign the convention. They still seem to have a problem with Nauru even though this was a facility that was run by Australians and managed by Australians. We knew that the treatment of the asylum seekers there was well and truly monitored by Australians. Dare I say this is just political bloody-mindedness—they have a solution and, because it was something that we did, they are not going to do it.
We have heard the Prime Minister and others say, 'It's too far away and it's too dear.' It was not too far away before. We saw a plane parked up at Christmas Island detention centre for days and days waiting for the decision on the Malaysian solution—so much about expense. They were talking about a billion dollars to reopen Nauru. Many of the huts are still there, much of the infrastructure is still there. In the six years of the Pacific solution, which included Manus Island, the total cost was $289 million. Where do you get a figure of a billion to use Nauru now? It is a figure just plucked out of the air. I hope they do not blame the bureaucrats for that and say it is a figure given to them by the department, because I would like to see the justification for that. In fact I would like to see the figures on how they arrive at a billion. It is a very expensive option. It must come with jacuzzis and spas and everything else if it is going to cost a billion.
We need to maintain the offshore solution. I know the Left and the Greens want an onshore solution. I even heard Michael Raper from the Red Cross this morning, who used to be from ACOSS—this is part of his core business, this is how he gets employed—saying that he wants to see an onshore solution. He said, 'It's just a handful of people; there are many more people that come as overstayers.' Those who are overstayers have a very much reduced success rate of getting a visa. Those who come by boat—and that is why they pay a people smuggler up to $20,000—have closer to an 80 per cent success rate of getting a visa. So why wouldn't you try to come by boat when you have a successful outcome like that?
This is, again, a mess that the Labor Party have found themselves in. It is a mess of their own making. Paul Murray in an article on 21 September said:
This problem is all Ms Gillard's. And the next boat is another policy failure for her, no one else.
This is a self-made problem, a self-inflicted wound and we are not going to bail them out. We have given them a solution. Unless they take it, it is their problem.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (12:36): I am the great-grandson of a boat person and an illegal immigrant. He was a Swedish seaman who jumped ship in Albany in the 1890s to try his luck in the goldfields of Kalgoorlie. As matters happened he did not have much luck and he found his way east and worked on the wharves there for the remainder of his working life. He made a great contribution, and I would argue his offspring have made a great contribution to this country. The issue of migration is no less vexed a debate today as it was when Gustaf Carlson jumped ship in the 1890s.
As a wealthy democracy and an active member of the international community, Australia has a duty at home and abroad, a duty to uphold our obligations under international law, a duty to ensure we carry our fair share of the burden when it comes to helping and resettling people who are fleeing persecution in their country of origin and a duty to ensure that when we accept people as refugees we help them integrate into the Australian community. Further, we have a duty here as parliamentarians and leaders in the Australian community to ensure that we lead a debate that is based on facts and values not on fallacy and fear.
We are lucky that in the 100 years since Federation we have never had to face a civil war. While we have on several occasions had to repel attempts at invasion, including the bombing of Darwin, the overwhelming majority of Australians have not had to witness the sorts of wars and conflicts that cause so many to flee their homes and seek sanctuary in another place. Perhaps if we had we might think and talk differently about this matter.
Despite our relative isolation, Australian governments have played an important part in crafting the international arrangements to deal with human rights and refugees. Australian Labor has been at the forefront of this. As Australia's Minister for External Affairs, Doc Evatt worked with Jessie Street to found the United Nations. They were at the centre of the negotiations, the drafting and the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Doc Evatt was President of the General Assembly of the United Nations when it adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, in article 14, says: 'Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.'
In the aftermath of World War II the international community decided that in times of civil war, persecution, and ethnic cleansing special conventions were needed to protect vulnerable minorities such as children, Indigenous people and refugees. In the wake of the holocaust that preceded the agreement we realised that any of us could some day be in need of shelter. In July 1951 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and on 22 January 1954 the Menzies government ratified it. Australia's signing to that convention was the trigger point that made the refugee convention operative as an international treaty.
I entered this debate calling for more facts, less fallacy and a bit more perspective. According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, at the end of 2010 there were 43.7 million people of concern, including 10.6 million in the care of UNHCR and another 4.8 million Palestinian refugees in care. As an island nation that gave protection to the people of East Timor and Vietnam, we do know that asylum seekers generally look for protection in their region of origin. Seventy-five per cent of all refugees reside in countries neighbouring their own country.
In 2011 there are 500,000 refugees needing permanent resettlement but only 100,000 resettlement places available. Of the 10.6 million refugees currently in the care of UNHCR, 80 per cent have sanctuary in developing countries. Many Australians may be surprised to learn that Pakistan, one of those developing countries, hosts both the most refugees, 1. 9 million, and the most compared with the size of its national economy. The second prize goes to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and third prize to Kenya.
In 2010 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees put it succinctly. He said:
Over half of the refugees for whom UNHCR is responsible live in protracted situations. There are 25 such situations today, in 21 countries. This burden is borne disproportionately by the developing world, where four-fifths of all refugees live. Combined with the continuing impact of the global financial and economic crisis, the resources of host countries are under serious strain … A new deal on burden-sharing is essential to ensure that the generosity of host countries and communities is matched by solidarity from the developed world.
In absolute terms, some of the poorest and most politically volatile countries host the largest refugee populations. These include Iran, Syria, Kenya and Chad. Not all of these countries have signed the refugee convention yet they are, by far, carrying the greatest burden of hosting refugees on our troubled globe. They have limited resources to deal with large inflows of displaced people that put additional pressures on their weak governance structures and fragile political situations. Despite these social and political pressures, these countries honour the spirit of the refugee convention by allowing people to stay in their territories until more durable solutions are found.
For its part, Australia has settled around 700,000 refugees since the Second World War. Asylum seekers represent only two per cent of Australia's annual migration intake. A little over 8,000 people claimed asylum in Australia in 2010, amounting to a little over one per cent of the global total. Most asylum seekers arrive in Australia by air. From 2001 to 2010 boat arrivals accounted for 24 per cent—that is, less than one-quarter of Australia's total asylum claims. While Australia has had an increase in the absolute number of asylum seekers it receives, it is still far below those recorded by other industrialised countries. I paint this picture quite simply to make the point that Australia can and should do more. I welcome the fact that the agreement that we have reached with Malaysia will lead to an increase in our refugee intake. I would like to think that it is the first instalment in what we can and should do as a wealthy nation, a democratic nation and a civilised nation in a troubled world and region.
I would like to talk about the values that should underscore our actions in this area. I do not believe that on this issue there are any moral absolutes. I do believe, however, that our actions should reflect our values, and that we must be able to clearly articulate this both as a party in this place and to the nation.
For Labor, our actions must stem from our proud history as trailblazers and as innovators. We must be willing to stand on the shoulders of men and women like Doc Evatt and Jessie Street and like the architect of our post-war migration program, Arthur Calwell. We must be able to say that what we are doing is consistent with our Labor heritage. The core Labor values of fairness and equity must form the bedrock of this approach. It should build on our history of leading the nation.
I have already said that I do not believe that it is fair that this country, a country that is so relatively wealthy when compared to our regional neighbours, should do proportionately less when it comes to refugee intake. This, quite simply, is not equitable. I further argue that we should not lay out a process that has the effect of giving preference to those who can pay over those who cannot, whether that payment is by way of a plane ticket or a ticket on a boat. It, I argue, is not consistent with the Labor way, to give preference to those who can afford to pay over those who cannot.
Nor should we give preference to men over women in our refugee intake. We should be able to determine the regions from which we take our refugees and where we think they may best be settled and form an important part of the Australian community. These are all principles that I argue are consistent with Labor values. It is critical that we in this place are able to articulate this clearly to the Australian community.
The final observation that I wish to make goes to the quality of public debate and our obligations to lead. Many who have contributed to this debate so far have used the unfortunate language of 'solution'. I find that incredibly offensive and politically misleading. It is historically problematic, and that is a point that I should not have to labour to any in this place. But it is also incredibly politically misleading because it lifts the bar so high. Whether the former government or the current government, neither of us can argue that we have a final solution that would put the barriers up and prevent anybody from coming to this great country of ours. That is not true. It is hardly surprising that a country which is as wonderful as ours, situated in such a troubled region, will be an attractive place for anybody to come. Try as we may, there is no ultimate barrier which will prevent that. We can put policies in place which may enable us to control it, but there is no ultimate bulwark.
Can I say something about the notion of deterrence, because that has been at the centre of this debate as well? There are many things we can do to deter people from coming here. Our obligation as parliamentarians is to ensure that what we do is moral and consistent with our values. There is no shortage of things that we could do to deter people coming to Australia, I am sure. Most of them could not be contemplated in this place.
It is said, and I believe it, that the purpose of the deterrence value of the Malaysian arrangement is that it negates the purpose of the journey in the first place, the importance of Malaysia being that this is often the first point of departure for people in transit from Afghanistan, Pakistan and places within that region. It is argued, and I believe it, that if people are returned to Malaysia as a part of this process then it negates the arrangement that put them there in the first place.
The same cannot be argued for Nauru. The deterrence value of Nauru is quite simply that it tortures those who make the journey. It does not return them to the place of their original departure, it simply locks them up on an island isolated from the rest of the world. It leaves them there with very little control over their future and very little certainty. It tortures those who have made the journey and, if we are to believe the history of those who found their way to Nauru under the policies of the previous government, around 68 per cent of those were ultimately resettled in Australia and around 95 per cent of those were resettled either in Australia or in New Zealand.
It was a tortuous arrangement, and it was a solution to nothing. It was barbaric in most regards and ultimately it did not stop the people. If we are to accept the arguments, and I do, that are put to us by those who have spent most of their lives operating in this area, the advice that was given to our government and which was provided to the Leader of the Opposition was that, even if some were to accept that Nauru ever did work, it is within the wit and will of those who ply their trade in people smuggling to work out exactly what went on and to put in place arrangements which will negate the effect of it in the future.
I end my contribution to this debate in the place where I started: I think it is critically important that we as parliamentarians fulfil our obligation as leaders to ensure that we have a debate based on facts and values, and that we are able to clearly articulate the values that underpin our policy—not a debate which is based on fallacy, on fear, on deception and on opportunism. We do have an obligation to uphold our duties under international law, a duty to ensure that we carry our fair share of the burden when it comes to helping resettle people in our region—people who are fleeing persecution in their country of origin—and a duty to ensure that we accept people as refugees and do everything that is within our power to ensure that we can integrate them into the Australian community so they can make the contribution that we on this side are confident that they can make, that they have made and that they can continue to make to this great country of ours.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (12:51): I rise also to speak on this bill and the amendment that we have proposed. I will take a moment to reflect on the member for Throsby's contribution because I know that this is an issue which is very important to him. He has been reasonably brave, it has to be said, in defiance of his party's position on this through their processes, in the caucus and in public explaining that he does not agree—and I think he did it very well in his contribution to the parliament just now—with the direction that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship are taking on this matter.
What the member for Throsby did not say in his contribution is that he supports the bill. I think it reflects very poorly on the Labor Party that they have got to this point with this bill. When I first became involved in politics my first involvement at a federal level in an election campaign of a serious nature was Trish Worth's Adelaide campaign in 2001. Trish Worth served in this parliament for some time and it is fair to say she had a humanitarian bent when it came to this issue. In the 2001 election campaign the Australian Labor Party, its candidate Tim Stanley, its campaign manager and people involved in the campaign, including the current member for Adelaide, sought to make the most vicious politics of this issue against Trish Worth. They sought to make the most outrageous suggestions about members of this side and about people involved with the Liberal Party—to the extent that a current very senior serving union official in South Australia, who may have been the union official who went to a gunfight with the Premier but forgot his gun a couple of months ago, made claims—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): Order! I remind the honourable member that we are dealing with an amendment. It is a wide-ranging debate but there are limits to what can be brought into the debate.
Mr BRIGGS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am talking about the history of migration policy—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I reminded the honourable member about the debate. I do not expect him to then come back at the chair. I have said it is a wide-ranging debate but the honourable member is talking about issues which are not the history of migration in Australia but are about other matters involving campaigns.
Mr BRIGGS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the 2001 election campaign this was a major issue, and it was the first time I had been exposed to the issues around migration and boats arriving in the northern parts of our country. We on this side all remember on the day of the 2001 election the vicious nature of the Labor Party officials and supporters who were claiming that we were race baiting, that we were rednecks—the member for Wakefield nods his head—that we were without hearts, that we were dog whistling and that we were xenophobes or were playing xenophobic politics and John Howard was pushing buttons in the community. There was all this kind of language. People were accusing others of being racists for being involved in public forums. They were yelling across tennis courts at people. We all remember that, and some remember more than others.
So, it is with great surprise that we stand here debating this proposal from this Prime Minister—this proposal from this Labor Party who have moralised on this issue like nobody else, maybe except for the Greens. I absolutely agree with the member for Throsby when he says on this issue that there are no moral absolutes. I have heard him say that in other places before, and I am sure he has said it in caucus as well. That is exactly right. This is a very difficult issue, and people look at this issue and develop policies on this issue in different ways.
I respect the fact that the Greens have had a policy on onshore detention—in fact I think they would even go so far as to say that they do not even support detention, at their core. They are entitled to pursue that policy, and they have for a long time. For 10 years now we have supported offshore processing as a deterrent to people getting on these boats in Indonesia, largely. The Labor Party has been all over the shop but members of the left wing of the Labor Party moving motions in their own caucus against this policy shows how far this Prime Minister is willing to go to avoid the politics of an issue. It is a very sad day when the left-wing members of the Labor Party are forced to stand in this parliament and support sending people to countries which have not signed the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Just last year the Prime Minister said she would never agree to such a proposal.
I think it is with a heavy heart that the member for Throsby and his colleagues on the left of the Labor Party stand here today. They should support our amendment so we can continue with offshore processing in a place which is signed onto the UN convention, and that would continue to act as a deterrent. Some 10 million people around the world are genuine refugees, as deemed by the UNHCR. Each year Australia accepts 12,000 or 13,000, on average. I understand that that is still the highest proportion of genuine refugees accepted per capita, and we should continue to accept those refugees. In fact, I believe we should take more—and we can take some more, in the right circumstances. People right around the world are in horrific situations. The situation in the Horn of Africa right now is terrible. There are millions starving and there are millions dying. We should do our bit to help those people who have been in these situations for many, many years.
When the member for Throsby says there are no moral absolutes on this issue, he is right because of this: who gets to decide who gets an opportunity to come to our great country, the best country on earth? Who makes the decision that they get that opportunity, as the member for Throsby told us his great-grandfather did in jumping ship and getting his opportunity here? Do these opportunities go to people purchasing a ticket for a boat trip or to people who have been living for years and years in circumstances which are beyond belief?
The person the Labor Party has derided more on this issue than even John Howard is the member for Berowra, who was the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in 2001 when this most vicious campaign was run by the Australian Labor Party and its friends. The member for Berowra has visited nearly all these refugee camps across the world. He has seen these situations and he understands how bad this is. He makes the right point that Australia should control who we allow to take each one of our privileged places each year. That is the absolute right policy for us to pursue. We cannot take 10 million people even though this would give us a good feeling. We cannot possibly accept all the genuine refugees who sits in camps across the world. It is just not possible.
We need to maintain reasonable control over our program because (1) we should decide who gets that opportunity and (2) we need to continue to have Australian public's support for what we do. A point John Howard often made was that if you lose the confidence of the Australian public on this issue that is a terrible step backwards. The problem with what this government is doing in mishandling this issue, which has led to this appalling piece of legislation, is it is losing the confidence of the Australian public on this issue. The Australian public listened to the Prime Minister before the last election and heard her say we cannot have a processing centre on Nauru because it is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention. She said she would never send people to a country that had not signed that convention. She said she would not open any more onshore detention facilities. She said all this prior to the last election, just 12 months ago. We now see this appalling piece of legislation, which is morally contemptible. We have seen the additional onshore detention facilities, including in Inverbrackie in my electorate. We have seen the lack of regard for communities on this issue. We have seen people lose faith in the government knowing how to run an immigration program properly.
I think that there is an opportunity for Labor members of parliament to refuse to support this legislation and to refuse go down this track. We know that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is not part of this debate, does not agree with the shift to the right on this issue. We know that because he said in a press conference the night he was being rolled that he did not support the Labor Party lurching to the right on this issue. This is not just a lurch to the right; this is falling off a cliff on the right side of the mountain. This is an absolutely appalling piece of legislation. The member for Throsby talked about Labor values and said we should be moral and consistent with our values. I would like to hear just one Labor MP tell the parliament how this is morally consistent with their values on this issue.
Sending people to a country which has not signed the UN refugee convention and which has a record of mistreating refugees is a terrible step for this parliament to take. For people who have campaigned on this issue and have accused those on this side of parliament of being rednecks, xenophobic and racists this is hypocrisy writ large.
Mr Sidebottom interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: There has been a consistent policy approach on this issue from the member for Braddon over the years. He used to stand on this side of the chamber and throw the most horrific abuse at the former prime minister and at the member for Berowra when he was a immigration minister. Now the member for Braddon supports this legislation. Good luck back in Tasmania telling people how removing all the protections in this legislation is a good idea. I am sure this will be really popular in the cafes in Launceston. I think it would be decent if you had a public meeting to tell people why this is such a wonderful idea.
It is an appalling idea. This bill should not be supported. At the very least our amendments to this bill should be supported. There is a better way to handle this issue. It is important that we handle this issue properly. It is an emotive issue in the community. It is an emotive issue in this place. It deals with people's lives. It deals with people in very difficult circumstances. Politics is being played by all players in this debate, not just one side. This issue should not be resolved by creating a bill which removes all human rights protections in this legislation. It is a disgrace. It is shameful. The Labor members of parliament should not support this bill. They should not support this direction being taken by the Prime Minister.
We should not be debating this bill today. We are debating it today to avoid a leadership spill on the other side. The Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs and the future leader of the Labor Party laughs, but we know he will get a promotion if there is a spill. We know he is conflicted on this. We know that his boss will look favourably upon him, but I know in his heart of hearts he does not think this is the right way to go. I know the member for Wakefield does not think this is the right way to go.
Mr Champion: I do.
Mr BRIGGS: And I certainly think the member for Throsby knows this is a terrible way to go because he did not once say that he supports this bill, and nor should he. The parliament should not support this bill. It is a disgrace and the other side should be ashamed of themselves.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (13:06): I strongly support the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill and I have strongly supported it since we first started discussing it. In 2007 this country decided to give compassion a go. The Labor Party were not alone in this. The coalition did not oppose the end of temporary protection visas. They had the option of moving a disallowance motion in the Senate and in the House, but they never did it. Indeed, in 2009 Sharman Stone, who was then the shadow minister for immigration, said on Lateline:
We don't need the Pacific Solution now, that's Nauru Island and Manus Island, because we have the Christmas Island centre completed.
She went on to say:
So we don't need alternatives to Nauru and Manus island, we have Christmas Island.
It is untrue to say that it was just the Labor Party who supported these changes. The opposition did as well, by their actions and by the fact that they did not act, did not disallow regulations and did not attempt to oppose the changes in this parliament.
Obviously since that time we have had increased boat arrivals and we have had a terrible tragedy on our coast at Christmas Island. I was on the committee that looked into the Christmas Island tragedy and I was profoundly affected by it. If those listening want to know what has changed Labor Party opinion, I think it has been that tragedy. It is a graphic reminder of the risks that are taken. There were 30 dead, and there was evidence from people like Mr Raymond Murray, who on page 35 of the hearing transcript says:
Standing right out on the edge of the rocks, there were times … that the boat was closer than you are to me now. I will never forget seeing a woman holding up a baby, obviously wanting me to take it, and not being able to do anything. It was just a feeling of absolute hopelessness.
It is testimony like that that has changed my mind, and I think it has changed the mind of many in our country. After hearing the evidence to that committee, I greatly worry about the risks taken by our border protection forces—people in the ADF, in Customs and in the Federal Police. We heard testimony from Mr Mathew Saunders, who says on page 5 of the Hansard transcript:
… that is the thin line of risking your life to save someone else's. I think we were right on the edge of that …
That echoes Lieutenant General Hurley's high praise for those involved on the Triton and on HMAS Pirie; he said:
They put their own lives at risk in extremely dangerous circumstances to rescue 41 people from the sea.
So this is not an easy debate. It has not been an easy debate for a decade; I think the member for Mayo was right about that. It has excited people's passions, and unfortunately there has been a lot of politics in it, and there has been a lot of politics in the debate today—a sickening amount of politics. What has changed my mind is that tragedy and hearing the evidence before that committee.
There has been a lot said about the Malaysian transfer agreement by the minister and by our opponents, and I do not think recounting that or going over it will do much good, but I would like to point out that the UNHCR has said:
… the Arrangement will with time deliver further protection dividends in the two countries, as well as the region …
That is what the UNHCR has said about it. With all this talk about human rights from those opposite, they do not talk about what the UNHCR has said about it. The UNHCR has also said about the arrangement with Malaysia:
The Arrangement and its implementing guidelines contain important protection safeguards, including respect for the principle of non-refoulement; the right to asylum; the principle of family unity and best interests of the child; humane reception conditions including protection against arbitrary detention; lawful status to remain in Malaysia until a durable solution is found; and the ability to receive education, access to health care, and a right to employment.
The right to employment is a pretty important right. It is a right that is not there in Nauru. One of the problems with Nauru was that people were just left there; that was the deterrent. We just left people on an island for years, going crazy and doing nothing, with no option to work or to have their claims advanced. They were just sitting there for years and years and years.
When you get right down to it, with the Malaysian transfer agreement the proof will be in the pudding. If we are allowed to implement it by this parliament—if the Liberal Party would just get out of the way and let us implement it—we will be judged on its effects, and we are happy to be judged on its effects. I am proud of what the minister has done in this area since his appointment. I think he has done a very good job of getting people out of detention and forming an agreement which deters people from taking a dangerous journey that risks their lives and the lives of others and which will dismantle the people-smuggling rings and stop their trade, at the same time as increasing our humanitarian intake. That is the right approach. It might not please those opposite and it might not please the Greens, but it does do those things.
I heard the member for Melbourne, 'Captain Compassion', talking about Vietnam. He talked a bit about how 2,000 people came here by sea, and he said there was not the same reaction that there is today. He is quite wrong, of course; it is a very selective view of history. In actual fact there was quite a bit of consternation in the public arena. But both sides of politics decided to resettle a large number of people, some 55,000 people, by processing them in other countries—places like Thailand and Malaysia—and we dramatically increased the intake to do that. The Greens move an amendment and they say that all of our problems will be fixed and people will stop taking boats if we process more people in Indonesia and Malaysia. But their own policy only increases the humanitarian intake to 20,000 a year, and that is simply not enough if you are going to stop the boats. If Poindexter really wants to stop the boats by increasing our humanitarian intake, it is going to have to be a lot more than 20,000. So I think the challenge to the Greens is that there are four million refugees in our region. If they are really serious about stopping the boats through increasing our humanitarian intake, they have to increase it a lot more. Otherwise their claims to compassion are just politics. They are the politics of gesture and emotion and they are not a practical plan to really stop the boats. He ended his speech talking about votes and talking about seats, because that is what it is about for the Greens. It is not about practical solutions to these problems; it is not about deterrence; it is certainly not really about increasing our humanitarian intake, because what we got is this token increase to solve a very big problem. If he is serious he is going to have to talk about resettling hundreds of thousands of people, not 8,000 a year. So the test for the Greens is to come up with a real, workable policy. If they claim they can stop the boats through increasing the humanitarian intake they had better start working a lot harder at it now, otherwise it is cant, otherwise it is politics.
We see a lot of that; we certainly see it in the opposition. As I said before, in 2007 they were quite happy to go along with the changes moved by this government. They were quite happy to see Nauru closed, to see Manus Island closed and to see TPVs removed. That is the reality. They did not move a disallowance motion and they did not campaign against it.
Mr Simpkins: You claimed a mandate.
Mr CHAMPION: But you did not do anything. For all their talk now, they say they have been consistent, but it is not true. They and the rest of the country, to be fair—we did this together, but events have since proved that we have to take a different approach.
The Liberals, Tony Abbott and all the backbench, have been going on like a broken record about stopping the boats. They have been talking tough, demanding government action. I have never heard them talk about the UN before—never. I have never heard them talk about humanitarian concerns. And now, on the grounds of compassion and the UN fiat and officialdom, they say they are going to oppose offshore processing. There was an interview with Bob Brown on Meet the Press on 18 September and he said:
What happens if Tony Abbott votes down the Gillard position and we will be, you end up by default with Tony Abbott supporting the Greens position, now that's where this country should be. The majority of people should want that—wrong motive, right outcome.
So we will have the Liberal Party basically endorsing the minority position. That is what Bob Brown says; that is where he sees this going. He is only too happy for the Liberal Party to block this amendment bill.
It is a very dangerous position for the opposition to take, given their rhetoric of 'stop the boats, stop the boats, stop the boats'. And, given their rhetoric about the Greens, they now propose to join an unholy alliance with them, just as they did around carbon trading in the last parliament, defeating sensible action on climate change through the emissions trading system. It was not that different—and I note the member for Wentworth was interviewed on Lateline the other night—from what we are debating in the parliament today. The systems were broadly the same but an unholy alliance of the Liberals and the Greens blocked action on climate change. Now they are blocking offshore processing and preventing an effective deterrent against taking a dangerous boat journey.
I do not think the Australian people are going to be terribly impressed when they see Abbott and Bandt, after all this rhetoric, voting together in the House of Representatives. And I do not think they are going to be very impressed when they see Brandis and Bob Brown together in the Senate, and it will be more than one vote, voting together to end offshore processing. The dangers are pretty apparent, given the Christmas Island tragedy. This is not an issue that you can delay on or play politics with. It is not an issue that you can afford some partisanship on. It is an issue of critical importance. It is an issue of life and death.
The one thing the member for Mayo said that was right was that this has been a difficult journey for the Labor Party. We have agonised over it; we have agonised over the debate. It was a tough debate to have, but we are not playing politics with it. Frankly, it would be easier to do what the Greens want to do and it would be easier to do what the Liberals want to do. There is just one problem: neither of those policy outcomes will work. They are high on emotive political appeal. They are not practical, though; they just will not work and they will be counterproductive.
Perhaps the Liberal Party should pay some heed not to me but to Bill Hassell, who is a former Western Australia state leader of the Liberal Party. He said in an opinion piece in the West Australian today:
This would not prevent the Opposition from expressing reservations, exposing the deficiencies of the plan and putting forward an alternative solution.
He proposes that the bill should be passed. As he says, that will not stop those opposite criticising. He goes on to say:
The Australian public will not thank the Opposition for more boats and onshore processing, the inevitable outcome of their unholy alliance with the Greens.
That is what conservatives are saying. The former leader of the Western Australian Liberals is saying that it is an unholy alliance, that it will not be welcomed by the Australian people. That is true.
The Liberals' position is fundamentally inconsistent. They claim now that the UN convention is all the reassurance that one needs, and yet they never used it in government. Their speeches are full of cant and politics and humbug, and the speech of the member for Melbourne was full of the same—emotive appeals aiming at getting votes. One party, the Greens, is aiming at the inner city, and the other, the Liberal Party, is aiming at the outer suburbs.
We in the Labor Party, however difficult and agonising this debate is, are determined to do the right thing because these are life and death issues. They are issues which tug at the heart, but we are determined to do the right thing. This amendment bill serves that purpose.
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (13:21): I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. The coalition strongly support offshore processing. In fact, we developed an effective program for offshore processing, one that worked. It worked under us. It worked for many years under us. It worked so well that, when the Labor Party took office in 2007, there were just four people—four, not even a handful—in detention. It was a remarkable success. Yet 12,000 people have arrived by boat since that time.
We oppose the government's Malaysian proposal because it is bad policy. It is bad policy because, firstly, for every asylum seeker Malaysia takes, we receive five back here. It is not an acceptable arrangement. It is not a sustainable arrangement. It will work, if at all from that point of view, on a one-off basis. What happens after the 800 have arrived? There has been no satisfactory answer. In fact, when the Prime Minister was asked that question last week, you could see from her body language that she had not thought it through. She was all at sea. She had effective spin prepared for every other question that day, but, when it was put to her in question 8 last week, 'What will you do when you reach the 800,' she clearly had no idea. There is no plan B.
It is, on all grounds, a policy conceived out of politics. It has been continued because the Prime Minister is too pig-headed to eat humble pie for a day and do the effective thing. I think everyone expected, after the Labor Party formed government at the most recent election, that politics would be put aside and the Prime Minister would pick up the phone to Nauru and seek to get an effective solution in place. It would have involved 24 hours of some egg on the face, but people out there really do not care who conceives an effective policy. They do not give points according to who the idea came from, whether it was from Tony Abbott or anyone else, for that matter. They just look to the government to adopt effective solutions. And, in the end, a government will be rewarded for adopting effective solutions—but not this Prime Minister. The only thing standing in the way of a return to a proven offshore model is the stubbornness and pigheadedness of the Prime Minister. She does not want to lose one skerrick of face by conceding that there may be already in place, already available, a proven offshore model.
The other ground on which we oppose this Malaysian proposal is that it provides no guarantee of protection. The High Court itself disallowed this arrangement in the first place, and in our view there are still no guarantees. There are just good faith obligations. That is all there is in this proposed bill. There are good faith obligations but no guarantees that the human rights protections that should sit around any offshore arrangement—or any onshore arrangement, for that matter—are there. There is a very real prospect, in fact, that the High Court would also rule this legislation invalid because, although the government, in this week's version of the legislation, as distinct from its version last week, has reintroduced the protections that are the essence of the UN refugee convention, those basic requirements do not have any legal backing, such as Malaysia signing up to the refugee convention. So, if legally challenged again, the government will most likely end up with a black eye again.
This sums up four years now of incompetence on this issue. This has been a running sore for the government for four years. Try as they might, on all sorts of fronts, the one thing they are determined not to do is to take on a proven model, because the proven model is associated with their political opponents. That betrays a lack of political confidence, and the government are paying the price. They are paying the price for their lack of confidence in themselves to take a proven model and put it into effect. Their handling of this issue not only displays remarkable incompetence; it also displays a lack of principle.
Just before I came into the House, I received a note from my neighbour member, the member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby, along with a publication from Freedom House. Of course, the member for Melbourne Ports has a strong and well-deserved reputation for defending freedom and human rights. It has been a hallmark of his career in this place. Michael, whom I consider a friend, sent me this booklet, Freedom in the World 2011, which assesses the level of freedom in different countries. In his note to me, he says: 'In my view, this Freedom House survey gives you the big picture on the overall situation in any given country, and some context to political developments that affect democratic rights.' The categories for countries are 'free', 'partly free' and 'not free'. I looked up the definitions. The booklet says:
A Free country is one where there is open political competition, a climate of respect for civil liberties, significant independent civic life, and independent media. A Partly Free country is one in which there is limited respect for political rights and civil liberties. Partly Free states frequently suffer from an environment of corruption, weak rule of law, ethnic and religious strife, and a political landscape in which a single party enjoys dominance despite a certain degree of pluralism.
A Not Free country is one where basic political rights are absent, and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied.
I then went to the very comprehensive table in this publication recommended to me by a member of the government who has a very well deserved reputation for defending freedom and civil and human rights. I see that Australia is listed as a free country. On political rights and civil liberties respectively, Australia has scores of one and one. The scores go from one to seven, with one being the optimum score. I then looked at how Nauru is classified—for all those years, were we, the coalition, sending refugees to a country which was not free and did not respect political rights and civil liberties? Nauru is classified by Freedom House as a free country and also gets top ratings—one for political rights and one for respect for civil liberties.
I then had a look at the classification of Malaysia. It is classified as partly free. I remind the House that a partly free country is one where 'there is limited respect for political rights and civil liberties. Partly free states frequently suffer from an environment of corruption, weak rule of law, ethnic and religious strife, and a political landscape in which a single party enjoys dominance despite a certain degree of pluralism'. On a scale of one to seven, Malaysia rates four on political rights and four on respect for civil liberties.
This confirms the fears that we have had about the protections which are embodied in the UN refugee convention not being guaranteed. Malaysia militates against respect for the civil liberties and political rights of those that come there. All of the anecdotal evidence associated with immigration cases that has been presented over the last five years—30,000 canings associated with immigration, and much more—is confirmed by those ratings of four and four. This is one of the reasons why we have been so strongly opposed.
There is a workable alternative. It was working and it respected human rights. Yet we were told by Prime Minister Rudd that it must change because there was a more compassionate way of dealing with this issue. My friend and colleague the shadow minister for immigration personally inspected the circumstances under which the 95,000 or 100,000 refugees are currently living in Malaysia. When I asked, 'What is it really like, Scott?' he said, 'You wouldn't send your worst enemy to those refugee camps.' Forget about the kids—of course they should not be there under any circumstances—but 'you wouldn't send', he said, 'your worst enemy'. Yet here we have a party which has had a proud history of at least supporting human rights issues and it is now unilaterally pursuing an approach which is, in all likelihood, going to have no guarantee that fundamental human rights will be adhered to.
That might be a hard choice for a government if there was no alternative, but obviously there is an alternative that has worked, and I will recount what happened. We were told that there had to be a change because of push factors: the Afghani action and the Iraq war. The invasion of Afghanistan started in October 2001 and the Iraq war started in March 2003. We saw: in 2001-02, 19 boats; in 2002-03, no boats; in 2003-04, one boat; in 2004-05, no boats; in 2005-06, eight boats; in 2006-07, four boats; and, in 2007-08, three boats. Throughout seven years of action in Afghanistan and six years of war in Iraq, we saw a handful of boats and four people left in detention.
This is unacceptable. The community is hostile to queue jumping, the community saw a boat program that worked and the community sees this proven system not being pursued because of pig-headedness. The bill must not be supported; the amendment must not be supported. (Time expired)
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (13:36): I come into this not having had a detailed knowledge until the last few days. I seriously have to say that I do not understand what is taking place here. The current figures that I have been given say that 85 to 95 per cent of people who get on a boat end up in Australia as Australian citizens. So a person in one of these countries where the people climb on the boats says, 'If you get on the boat, you've got near enough to a 90 per cent chance of becoming Australian.' And they say, 'Mate, come to Australia. If you've got a wife and three kids, you get pretty close to $80,000 a year and you do not even have to work.' I would think that half the population of Asia would be on a boat tomorrow. We do not have the wherewithal—even the good Lord said the poor will always be with you—to look after the world. We could not even remotely go close to looking after the world.
People in this place must have electorates that are very different to mine, because I have many people who are finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet. When we had a meeting of 15 towns, I was very surprised that people there were having enormous difficulty paying their electricity charges. We cannot pay electricity charges and yet we are able to take tens of thousands of boat people in each year. My position is: stay on the boat. They came here on the boats. I do not believe in drowning them or anything of that nature, of course—you provide them with diesel, food and bedding or anything—but you just do not have the right to simply walk in here and say, 'I am an Australian. I am seeking asylum.' These people are self-smugglers; they are smuggling themselves into Australia.
I represent some of the finest Australians and the finest modern migrant group that there is in this country; the Sikh people from India are very big in the Kennedy electorate. They are absolutely exemplary patriotic people who come to this country and within three seconds are proud, flag-waving Australians—and I do not mean to denigrate other groups by saying this. If you say that we are going to take these people in and process them here and that 90 per cent of them will stay here, I am telling you: my mob are going to be hopping on the boats, and I will be wishing them well. I will be out there waving to them and saying, 'Come here, fellas, that is a bloody great idea.' As far as I am concerned I would be letting huge numbers of those people into Australia. They have proved themselves in every single respect. I do not come here to praise a particular racial group. All I am saying to you is: it is so unfair to those people that they are kept out of this country by self-smugglers who arrive here and say, 'I am an asylum seeker.'
It would not be news to any informed person in this place that the Sikhs have not had a particularly happy road in India. They are not a majority group there. Many would argue that they suffer and may even still be suffering today. They can make as strong a case as anyone else to come here. Much as I love these people, we just do not have the wherewithal to take all these people in.
I have stood up in this place 100 times, maybe 200 times, and said, 'Please develop the water resources to the north.' We can take 100 more—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr KATTER: Don't come up with your hypocrisy. You were in government for 12 years and we did not get even a heap of concrete across a gutter-way. So don't come up with your hypocrisy.
The electorate of Kennedy can probably sustain a population of 70 million or 80 million people. The rivers in the Kennedy electorate have half of Australia's water run-off. Most of those are in the gulf, which is flat country—no rocks; absolutely fantastic farming country. I am not saying we would be able to use a million acres of the thousand million acres that are up there, no matter how many dams we built. I do not want to pretend what I cannot deliver.
Most certainly it is considered opinion that on the example of the Murray-Darling, with eight million megalitres, we can most certainly double or triple that figure in the gulf and peninsula. We can support a population of 60 million people because the Murray-Darling supports a population of 20 million people. I have always advocated an increase in population coming into this country. I see absolutely no problem. In fact, I think one of the preferred groups have very similar religious beliefs to the religious beliefs of this country. They have had democracy for 70 or 80 years; they have had rule of law for maybe 100 or 200 years. Whatever criterion you want to use for fitting in and feeling at home in this society is met, the fact that they have already proved themselves to be good citizens would be another element in that equation.
Similarly, the population of Queensland in the late 1890s was predominantly not European; it was predominantly Chinese. I would also have to say that the Chinese have proved exemplary citizens in North Queensland. It would be hard to name a family that was not related somewhere in the past or the present to people of Chinese descent.
We do not stand up here today to advocate a lowering of the boom; we are here advocating that the door is not open to anyone who wants to jump on a boat and call themselves an asylum seeker, when in actual fact they are self-smugglers. There may be very good reasons why they are self-smuggling. I am not denying that. There are a hell of a lot of people in the Punjab in India who could put up a very strong case indeed, in fact a stronger case, than half the people who are sneaking in now—and I use the words 'sneaking in'.
I voted against the Malaysian decision last time because I am not for handling them in Nauru or Malaysia or anywhere; I am for keeping them on the boat. They chose to get on the boat; that is their business. If a person chooses to go on a boat and can therefore automatically become an Australian citizen, which is the mechanism and machinery, then we have very serious problems indeed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! It being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue his remarks.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Big Science Competition
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:45): I recently had the pleasure of attending an award ceremony here at Parliament House to see a small group of science students chosen from 31,000 students from around the country receive their prizes for the Rio Tinto Big Science Competition. I was particularly proud to cheer loudly for Michael Gow, a year 12 student from Indooroopilly State High School in my electorate of Ryan. Michael was one of only eight in his year 12 category to win a prize in this competition which aims to enthuse our students and encourage them to study science and to consider science based careers. It should also be noted that Michael is a year younger than interstate year 12 students. I speak of Michael and his achievement in winning this award not only to congratulate him personally but also to recognise his teachers both past and present who will have played a role in his success by their own hard work and dedication.
The Rio Tinto Big Science Competition is a one-hour paper that tests students' critical thinking and problem-solving skills as well as their scientific knowledge. Each year the top-scoring students, with their teacher or parent, are flown to Canberra for the award ceremony at Parliament House. Competitions like these are an excellent way to encourage hardworking students who may one day be responsible for scientific achievements that can benefit all of humanity, and I therefore commend all those involved for their contribution to this exceptional program.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (13:46): As I have done in previous years, last Monday I met with five Latter Day Saint young adults—Perona Ho, Emily King, Matthew Krull, Naomi Paton and RJ Wright—who were visiting Parliament House as part of the annual Latter Day Saints young leaders visit to Canberra. The young people I met raised with me their concerns about some of the critical social challenges facing people around the world, including here in Australia, and asked how they could help. They were particularly concerned about drug abuse amongst young people and talked about what they could do to assist local community drug prevention programs.
Having often visited the Modbury Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, having attended Latter Day Saints events and knowing many of the church leaders, I am familiar with much of the good work the Latter Day Saints church community is doing within my own local community and abroad. I therefore know of the sincere desire of the young people I met with to assist others in need and their preparedness to make their own sacrifices in order to assist others. I also commend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for its commitment and support in preparing young people for future leadership roles and for organising the annual visits to Canberra. The young people I met with were impressive Latter Day Saints ambassadors. It was heartening to meet with emerging young future leaders who are driven by their values and sense of social justice.
Henty Machinery Field Days
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (13:48): The Henty Machinery Field Days is a three-day expo promoting all things country. The event, which this year celebrates its 49th anniversary since the first field days, winds up today on the Cookardinia Road just off the Olympic Highway, midway between Wagga Wagga and Albury. The catchy traditional jingle used to promote the Henty Field Days is:
Going to the Henty Field Days, a lot of good people there. See you at the Henty Field Days, there's nothing like it anywhere!
There were a lot of good people at this year's event. And they had two common themes. What do you think they were? Change the government and no carbon tax. The Nationals Riverina Electorate Council chairman, Wes Fang, said people were so keen to register their protest against this insidious, unwanted and unnecessary tax that they used up all of the petition sheets. 'We weren't soliciting support,' he told me, 'they were coming up to us.'
The Liberal state member for Wagga Wagga, Daryl Maguire, said he had queues 10 deep of people signing a similar petition. More than 1,000 signatures were collected and only one person, just one, declined because he believed in the concept—1,000d to one. It sounds like a Labor asylum seeker policy. Debate in this chamber on the carbon tax may be guillotined to rush through the legislation so the alternative Prime Minister, Senator Bob Brown, can get to Durban and spruik it at a world climate conference. What a disgrace! How undemocratic!
F1 in Schools Program
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:49): I rise to express my congratulations to the Brooks High School Pentagliders from Launceston, who won the world championship title in the Fl for schools program in Malaysia last night. This week in the House I have already given two updates on their progress, and I was most proud this morning to hear of their fantastic success on the world stage.
The Fl in Schools Program is a science, technology, engineering and maths based education competition implemented in high schools around the world. Over 35,000 Australian students take part each year. This year, a team made up of current and former students from my local high school in the electorate of Bass—Brooks High School, a working-class area in the northern suburbs of Launceston—has continued Australia's tradition of achievement in this program.
I am also pleased to announce here in the House today that they also took out the fastest car and best engineering awards. These young people should be very proud of their achievements. I understand the kids have been presented with their trophies and scholarships to London City University. Amy, Tristan, Jack and Nathan: well done. We are extremely proud of you. To their teacher, Murat: it has been a long hard road to the top, but you have done an excellent job. You have made Tasmania—indeed, Australia—proud.
Treasurer
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (13:50): The Australian people have been subject to a great political swindle. Wayne Swan, we are told by Euromoney magazine, is the world's greatest Treasurer. We knew things were bad in Europe but not that bad. The Treasurer's record in economic management is so poor that giving him this award is like making Ronnie Biggs deputy sheriff or Lehman Brothers bank of the year.
Wayne Swan is, in Mark Latham's words, a 'machine man' whose performance in the role has been 'insipid'. A burgeoning bureaucracy, a ballooning budget deficit, lower productivity and 19 new taxes is not much of a fiscal CV, not to mention a reregulated workforce, a greater incidence of sovereign risk and a higher debt ceiling—all characteristics of classic tax-and-spend Labor.
Anyone can throw money at a problem, but the trick is to know where to spend, how much to spend and when to stop. Wayne Swan fails on all counts. The Australian people are right to ask this government: where are your big economic reforms to overcome infrastructure bottlenecks, to streamline the financial system and to save the proceeds from the China-led boom? To paraphrase Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, Labor is missing the opportunity to fix the roof while the sun is shining.
In awarding Wayne Swan this award, I cannot help but believe this is a case of mistaken identity. It was Treasurer Peter Costello who delivered a 20 per cent increase in real wages, two million new jobs, low inflation and the lowest unemployment in 30 years. He would have been a much more deserving winner.
Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (13:52): Today I had the pleasure of hosting with the member for Moore, Dr Mal Washer, a seminar on the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative, DNDI, relating to non-profit drug research and development.
We know that each year millions of people in developing countries die from preventable and treatable diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, HIV/AIDS and lesser-known diseases such as sleeping sickness, leishmaniasis and Chagas. In fact these are poverty-related deaths. The central problem is a lack of effective drugs, vaccines and diagnostics to identify, prevent and treat infectious diseases. Unfortunately, most R&D funding is for diseases found predominantly in developed countries. Only 10 per cent of the world's health research spending is on diseases that account for 90 per cent of the global health burden.
Our speakers—Dr Rowan Gillies from Medecins Sans Frontieres, Dr Mary Moran of the research group Policy Cures, Andrea Lucard from Medicines for Malaria Venture and Dr Wayne Best of Epichem—explained how public-private product development partnerships are enabling the development and delivery of new, affordable drugs for neglected diseases. This has led to a decrease in malaria by 20 per cent in Africa in the past decade and to almost eradication of meningitis within the African meningitis belt. A PDP Chagas consortium between Epichem, Murdoch and Monash universities and the DNDI has developed a compound that has cured the parasitic Chagas disease in mice and it will soon be trialled on people, promising profound benefits for millions of people in Central and South America. This is a good-news story about how Australia can leverage its world-class infectious and tropical disease R&D expertise in support of its development aid objectives.
Asylum Seekers
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (13:54): To put it in baseball terms, the ultimate umpire of the government's policies is the people, and the people in the electorate of Dawson have delivered their decision to me on the government's handling of the illegal immigration crisis. They have ruled that it is a crisis of the government's own making. When Labor stepped up to the plate in 2007, they inherited a system put in place by the Liberal-National coalition that effectively stopped the boats. The coalition had been on a winning streak, with only 16 illegal boat arrivals in six years. But Labor cried foul and caved in to the commentariat, the Greens and the left-wing luvvies. They stopped the home runs by scrapping the Pacific solution, scrapping temporary protection visas and reintroducing onshore processing. In almost four years, they have turned a solution into a problem and turned that problem into a crisis.
Since Labor cried foul on the coalition's tough border protection laws, 241 boats have reached our waters, bringing 12,262 unauthorised arrivals to our shores. Now we have a government in panic trying to catch their own curve ball and an immigration minister who has failed to fix this crisis at every base across the Pacific diamond. He failed with East Timor, he failed with Manus Island and now he has failed with Malaysia. That is 'three strikes and you're out', Minister. It is back to the dugout for the minister—time he handed in his resignation. Next batter up!
Freedman, Mr Bernie
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:55): I rise today to draw the House's attention to the life and work of Bernie Freedman, one of the legends of the press gallery, and the only cockney, who recently passed away.
Bernie Freedman was born in 1924 in London's East End. Following service in World War II, he migrated to Australia, where he worked for various newspapers. In his career, he interviewed two legends of Australian politics, Ben Chifley and Sir Robert Menzies. During his time in the press gallery he reported on some of the leading stories of the 1950s. He was a leading journalist in bringing public attention to the defection of the Petrovs in 1954. Bernie also spent many years with Immigration, promoting the highly successful post-war migration program.
I met Bernie in the early 1990s when I was working on the racial vilification legislation with the Attorney-General's Department and he was with the Australian Jewish News, whose press gallery office he opened. Apart from his work in the press gallery, Bernie also kept busy with many charitable and community activities and he was a keen traveller deeply interested in his own Jewish heritage.
In 2007 Bernie was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to journalism. Bernie will be deeply missed by his family, his press gallery colleagues and his many friends in this, his adopted and much loved home.
O'Rielly, Mr Shane
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:56): I rise to speak about a young man, Mr Shane O'Rielly, who died recently. Shane was not famous. He was not an Olympic athlete and he never found great fortune. Shane died suddenly at the age of just 21, and he lived his whole life with cerebral palsy. He lived his entire life in a wheelchair, unable to speak, and requiring his family, his mother and his loved ones to feed him. I had great pleasure in meeting Shane and his mother, Sue, before he died. Sue has been a great advocate for disability services. She drew my attention to a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers report which found that the average age of carers would increase significantly in the next 20 years and that their poor social wellbeing would lead to a crisis situation. It warned that, because a large proportion of care and support for people with a disability is provided informally by family and friends, carers suffer high rates of mental health problems. They also suffer great financial hardship. The report found that 30 per cent are finding it hard to even pay their electricity, gas or telephone bills.
Our disability sector is in disarray. Our carers are in crisis. We have to be honest about this: our system of disability care is completely broken. It is not caring for our families and it is not caring for our carers. We have a national disability scheme on the table but we cannot wait seven years. Seven years is too long; we need to bring this on now.
Queensland Cup Rugby League
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:58): Early yesterday morning, despite the parliament sitting past midnight, I went on Brisbane radio with Spencer Howson to talk about my campaign to make sure that the ABC does not consider cutting the broadcast of Queensland Cup Rugby League fixtures—easily the second-best league comp in the world. I love my ABC—and Warren Boland is the prince of commentators—and I love my rugby league. I was even my hometown player of the year back in the stone ages. So I thought that launching a petition was a legitimate thing to do. After all, a national sport like bowls was already in the ABC's crosshairs and I think the Constitution still says we have responsibility for broadcasting. But then professional spin doctor and my previous Liberal-National Party opponent put out a slick press release calling me a liar and saying that televising Queensland rugby league is not an important issue. This is the same bloke who wrote to the Moreton electorate claiming he was local, but he forgot that he did not grow up in Moreton, did not live in Moreton and did not work in Moreton and his kids did not even go to school in Moreton. When this 'mistake' was pointed out to the so-called professional spin doctor, LNP headquarters, not my opponent, apologised for the 'mistake'.
Only a fool would say that a federal government MP should not closely watch what the ABC is up to. I believe that Nationals MP John Forrest raised similar concerns in the Opposition party room this week. To say that broadcasting Queensland rugby league is not important you would have to be either a fool or, worse, a New South Wales supporter. To the member for Warringah, the No. 1 Manly ticket holder, I say one thing: go the Broncos!
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 2 pm, the time allotted for members' statements h as concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:00): I advise that the world's greatest Treasurer will be absent from question time today. The Assistant Treasurer will be answering questions on his behalf.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order! Before we commence question time I remind people that over the next few sitting days there are some important votes to take place. I hope that members' behaviour indicates to me that they value those votes and does not lead to me having to take action that might deny them a vote at a certain point in time. It would be helpful if the chamber were conscious of that and that each individual modifies their behaviour.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Asylum Seekers
Mr ABBOTT ( Warringah — Leader of the Opposition ) ( 1 4:01 ): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that a year ago she said that Labor had lost its way on border protection. Since then the government has had an East Timor policy, a PNG policy, a Malaysia policy, last Friday's version of amendments to the Migration Act and then Monday's version. So I ask the Prime Minister: once the Malaysian people swap reaches its limit of 800 people, what policy will the government pursue next?
Ms GILLARD ( Lalor — Prime Minister ) ( 14 : 02 ): To the Leader of the Opposition I say the following: first and foremost, the government will always be committed to a strong border protection policy. The Leader of the Opposition today is filibustering debate on protecting our borders, despite the shadow minister saying that they would facilitate a debate with the government, so that he can send to people smugglers a message which says, 'Come on down.' The Leader of the Opposition today has made it very clear he is putting his political interest before the nation's interest.
Opposition members interjecting —
The SPEAKER: Order! I invite members again to read standing order 65 and prepare their case around why they think that they can ignore it. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: The Leader of the Opposition is ignoring the nation's interest. The nation's interest today requires that we deal expeditiously with the migration amendments which are before the parliament and that the legislation is passed so that the government can implement its arrangement with Malaysia and so executive government can have the power it needs to make appropriate arrangements for offshore processing. Instead of that, the Leader of the Opposition in this place is filibustering that debate; the Leader of the Opposition in this place is determined to defeat offshore processing; the Leader of the Opposition in this place is determined to see more boats landing on Australia's shores. When it comes to this debate it is incredibly clear that the only thing that has ever motivated the Leader of the Opposition is his narrow political interest. Well, the leadership questions that this nation faces are not about narrow political interest or about base political interest by the Leader of the Opposition; they are about answering the policy questions of our age responsibly, and that requires the Leader of the Opposition to work expeditiously on the debate before the House on the migration amendments and then to pass the government's amendments, not to wish for more boats arriving.
Mr ABBOTT ( Warringah — Leader of the Opposition ) ( 1 4:04 ): Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister say that it is base politics to oppose he r Malaysian people swap when her Malaysian people swap was struck down by the High Court and is opposed by half her own party, including Senator Faulkner, one of the most principled men in this parliament?
Ms GILLARD ( Lalor — Prime Minister ) ( 14 : 04 ): From the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition we hear John Howard's rallying cry—'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come'—and changed it into a cruel joke. The Leader of the Opposition knows that the amendments that the government has brought to the parliament would enable the government to implement its preferred way of processing and dealing with asylum seekers and it would enable the opposition to do so as well if it were ever elected to government. It was put forward in good faith. It was put forward as common ground. It was put forward to restore to the executive the rights that it should have to make policy decisions about refugees and asylum seekers. I take it from the Leader of the Opposition that, contrary to Prime Minister Howard and contrary to the former minister for immigration, Philip Ruddock, he now believes that deciding asylum seeker policy in this country should not be in the hands of the executive government; it should be in the hands of the High Court.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition: I believe executive government should stump up and make these choices. They are difficult—they are not easy—but we stand here ready to implement a responsible plan which we have been given the strongest possible advice will create the maximum deterrence for people travelling to this country in leaky boats where they could lose their lives. Nothing, no amount of spin from the Leader of the Opposition, no amount of slogans, no amount of carry-on procedurally in this parliament and no amount of filibustering will ever change the basic fact here. The basic fact here is that, if you are to have strong border security, you must empower government to act. We seek that government have that power; the Leader of the Opposition seeks to deny that power to government because he is hoping in his heart of hearts that we see a lot more boats.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:07): Order! I inform the House that we have in the gallery today students and teachers from the Willowra School in the remote Northern Territory. The students, aged between 10 and 14, have been attending school regularly and have been doing well in their studies. They were rewarded with a trip to Canberra to learn more about the government, the parliament and Australia's capital. I extend to them a very warm welcome and congratulate them.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Asylum Seekers
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. What steps is the government taking in the parliament to protect offshore processing of asylum seekers? Why is it important for this issue to be resolved in a timely manner?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:08): I thank the member for Greenway for her question. As the parliament meets today, Australians are paying attention to what happens in this parliament; and so are people smugglers. They are looking to see whether or not this House of Representatives today sends a message of resolve to protect Australia's borders or whether it sends a very different message.
A little bit earlier this week the opposition appeared to understand that dealing with the amendments to the Migration Act was indeed a matter of some urgency, and they appeared to understand that it was the kind of matter on which the government and the opposition should work together. So, for example, we have seen the shadow minister for immigration, who represents the opposition on the question, saying in this place and beyond that they would be prepared to work with the government in order to deal with this legislation in an expedited way. Of course, that was the position of the opposition until it came to the moment to get it done; but now it is clear that the opposition will filibuster this bill, that they will drag it out and that they want to make sure that the message sent to people smugglers is that Australia is open for business. The opposition want to see more boats arriving on our nation's shores for the sake of their base political interests.
I am asked what the national interest requires in this circumstance. The national interest requires that executive government have the power it needs to implement the offshore processing arrangements that it believes to be the best. Throughout this whole issue, the government have never sought to say to the opposition that they should endorse the government's plan. But what we have said to the opposition consistently is that they should pass amendments to the Migration Act which would put this government in the same position that the Howard government was in, with the freedom to act that that implies. Instead of that, the Leader of the Opposition has engaged, of course, in reckless negativity every step of the way. He has been asked to choose between the national interest and his personal political interest, and on every occasion—including today—in the handling of this debate his personal interest has come first.
That is not leadership, and on an issue of this importance it is not what should be dominating the views of the opposition. What should be dominating the views of the opposition is ensuring that government can act to protect our borders and that our government can act to protect genuine refugees. The Leader of the Opposition at every stage has had the best of the expert advice to government, but despite that he continues to peddle a solution that he has been advised will not work. He continues to deny the expert advice that Malaysia is the strongest deterrence message we can send. Why is he doing that? It is not because he is confused; it is because he wants to send a green light to people smugglers because he wants more boats.
Asylum Seekers
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (14:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the following statement in today's Financial Review. It reads:
After a decade of policy failure, Gillard needs to reject this nonsense and embrace the proven success of the Howard government strategy: offshore processing at Nauru and Manus Island and the reintroduction of temporary protection visas. As ever in public policy, what matters is what works.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to insist on the Malaysia people-swap deal when even former Labor leaders such as Mark Latham are able to see that it is an inferior policy?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:13): I say to the Leader of the National Party that I agree with him: what matters is what will work. The Leader of the Opposition has sat with the same experts who advised the Howard government—and this cannot be denied, and the Leader of the Opposition has never denied it because he cannot deny it as it is an undeniable truth—and sought from them the best of their expert advice in the same way as this government does, and they have advised him that the Malaysia plan has the best deterrence value. So if, as the Leader of the National Party says—
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: the Leader of the Nationals' question was about the Prime Minister's views; yet for some reason she obsessively talks about the Leader of the Opposition, about whom she was not asked. Yesterday and all last week you made it clear that these answers—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will respond in a directly relevant manner to the question.
Ms GILLARD: I was asked about what works, and I am indicating to the Leader of the National Party what is the expert advice we have and the opposition have. So I ask the Leader of the National Party, if he is genuinely interested in what works: why is the opposition repudiating that expert advice? Why aren't they listening in opposition to the same experts that they listened to when in government? Why indeed do they go out and trash that advice and deny its force publicly? They cannot deny they have received it, but certainly through these questions and the things they say publicly they seek to deny the force of that advice? Why do they do that? There is only one answer, and that is that, in this debate, they are actually not at all concerned about what works; it never enters their mind what works. In fact, they want to make sure that the most effective policy this country can have today is denied this government, and they want to do that because they are motivated by their base political instinct.
The Leader of the National Party asked me about opinions in today's newspapers, and I thank him for that, because my eyes have gone to an opinion in today's newspapers, too. Former state Liberal leader Bill Hassell, in the West Australian says:
What seems to be possible now is to "stop the boats", to use the catchcry of Tony Abbott from the last Federal election.
Now the objective is within grasp it seems Mr Abbott and the coalition may stymie it.
That is, they spent all of the last election campaign saying that they stood—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume her seat. To moderate the behaviour of the whole chamber means that everybody has to moderate in every section of question time, and I would invite the Prime Minister to directly relate her material to the question asked.
Mr Pyne: Hear, hear!
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: I was asked about effective policy and what works, and I am drawing the House's attention to a directly relevant statement in today's newspapers. That statement is from Bill Hassell, a former Liberal leader. He says:
The Opposition is baulking. It suggests that the only solution is the one it favours, which is offshore processing in Nauru.
It suggests, apparently in distinction from the Government's legal advice … that the Nauru solution can be achieved within the parameters of the High Court decision on the Malaysian solution.
The article goes on to say how false these views are and then says that the opposition 'should not seek to insist on an outcome which amounts to the implementation of coalition policy,' and:
The national interest demands a solution to the constant flow of boat people.
So I say to the Leader of the National Party that, if he is truly concerned about what works, he will direct members of the National Party to vote with the government and to vote in favour of the government's amendments to the Migration Act so that we can implement the policy that the experts who advise this government and the former government tell us has the maximum likelihood of working. That is what he should do in the national interest.
Asylum Seekers
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (14:18): My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Will the minister outline the importance of the government's legislative amendments to the Migration Act for the delivery of effective border protection and asylum seeker policies?
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (14:18): Today the House is, of course, debating the amendments to the Migration Act, introduced by the government. We believe that this government and future governments should have the ability to manage Australia's borders in the national interest.
Today the House faces a choice: do we walk away from the progress made with regional partners over the last year or do we not? Do we walk away from the first opportunity in a long time to increase our humanitarian intake and give people who cannot or will not use a people smuggler the chance of a better life in Australia or do we not? Will we give the green light to people smugglers and say that it is okay for people who can afford a people smuggler or wish to use a people smuggler to feel that they will have a preferential chance of resettlement in Australia or do we not? Do we walk away from the regional framework negotiated in Bali or do we not? These are the questions facing the House today.
We know the Leader of the Opposition likes to say no. Today he can say no. He can say, 'No, we won't walk away.' The Leader of the Opposition can say that he disagrees with the government on so many things, as is his right and as is his role, but he agrees that people risking their lives on high seas is above politics and he can show leadership. He can say that Australia's national leaders should work together.
The Leader of the Opposition says, 'You can have any model of offshore processing you like'—provided it is his model. The Leader of the Opposition says the government of the day should have the power to implement its policies—providing it is a government that he leads.
The Australian people will judge a political party that says that it is okay to send boats to a country that is not a signatory to the refugee convention and with no protections negotiated, but you cannot send planes to a country that has given commitments and undertakings to the Australian government. That underlines the hypocrisy and the approach of this opposition.
Mr Simpkins interjecting—
Mr BOWEN: The Australian people will be able to judge a political party that says that it cares about human rights but that it would be okay to send asylum seekers to Zimbabwe or the Congo or, yes, even Iran. The Australian people will judge a political party that says that it believes in offshore processing but it will not vote to make it law.
Mr Simpkins interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Cowan will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a) for one hour. If he believes that he can act like a foghorn on Sydney Harbour and not be disturbing the person with the call, I would like to see how he could argue that way.
The member for Cowan then left the chamber.
Mr BOWEN: This is about every member of the Liberal Party and every member of the National Party walking into this chamber to vote against offshore processing. As the Prime Minister has said, today we have heard from Bill Hassell, the former leader of the Liberal Party in Western Australia. He disagrees with the Leader of the Opposition. He says:
… allowing the Government of the day to govern, to have the legislation that it put up adopted by the Parliament seems to me what should and must occur.
He goes on:
The Australian public will not thank the Opposition for more boats and onshore processing, the inevitable outcome of their unholy alliance with the Greens.
Every member of this House knows there is a time and a place for politics. We are all practitioners of that art. But there is also a time and a place for leadership in the national interest. That time is today and the place is this chamber.
Asylum Seekers
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (14:22): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise whether the government will continue to receive the additional 4,000 refugees at a cost of $216 million from Malaysia, regardless—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bennelong has the call. He should be heard in silence and then I would be able to know what he was asking so that I could then adjudicate whether the response was directly relevant.
Mr ALEXANDER: Thank you. Will the government continue to receive the additional 4,000 refugees at a cost of $216 million from Malaysia, regardless of whether they are able to proceed with their Malaysian people swap? If so, will those refugees form part of the current humanitarian program or be in addition to the current intake?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:23): I remain determined to implement our arrangement with Malaysia and, in that determination, I remain determined to give 4,000 genuine refugees, who are in Malaysia now and have been appropriately processed, a new life. Many of them have waited for years for a chance at a new life. But, yes, I do want to implement the Malaysia arrangement in its entirety—that is, I want to take the action we have been advised will be the most effective to deter people from getting on leaky boats, so that we do have the transfer arrangement with Malaysia and we do take 4,000 people and give them a new life.
To the member for Bennelong who asked this question, I do ask him to reflect on this: what is wrong with the government having the power it needs to implement the plan it believes is the best to give 4,000 people a new life, properly provided for, costed and appropriated within the government's budget? What is wrong with that? Apparently the only thing that is wrong with that, from the point of view of the opposition, is that it does not serve their base political interest. So the opposition, if it continues on the course that it is on now, will deny this country the ability to process asylum seekers offshore. The opposition will have on its conscience the increase in the number of boats that set sail to this country. They will have this on their conscience having facilitated people smugglers by sending them a message that this country is open for business. The government remains determined to implement the Malaysian arrangement. If the member is concerned about people who are genuine refugees getting a new life, he should vote for the Migration Act amendments.
Poker Machines
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:25): My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Minister, the government's poker machine reforms will help tens of thousands of problem gamblers. Families, minds, and even lives will be saved, and some of the $12 billion lost each year will instead be spent in local economies. No wonder the pokies industry is thrashing around, intimidating local members, lying and frightening people with unadulterated nonsense. Clubs Australia and Clubs New South Wales are even threatening to sue me. It seems the pokies industry is after another poor bastard's house, and this time it is mine. Minister, please update this House on the progress of these historic reforms.
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) (14:26): I thank the member for Denison for his question. I think he knows, and every single member of this House knows, that many Australians do like to have a bet. But I do think every member of this House also knows that gambling can be highly destructive and addictive and does lead to many, many families having a very miserable existence. We do know in particular that poker machines can be a serious problem. In fact, it is the case that three-quarters of people who have a gambling problem have a problem with poker machines. I am sure the member for Denison, like me, has received representations from many, many people around Australia. I would just like to share with the House the words of one woman who wrote to me. She said:
My life has been irreversibly damaged. At my worst it was not a rare event for me to sit there for 12 to 15 hours. I literally lost a fortune playing them.
Problem gamblers, of course, as we know from the Productivity Commission report, spend on average $21,000 a year. Whether that is money lost on poker machines, we know that that is money that is not being spent on food, bills or paying the family mortgage. So we do know that poker machines are really leading to very serious problems for many, many individuals and families, where the lives of both the adults of the families and their children can be ruined. That is why this government is taking action. It is because families' lives are being ruined.
That is why, back in 2008, this government asked the Productivity Commission to do the major inquiry that it has now presented on the whole issue of problem gambling. They brought down a number of recommendations about the best ways to help problem gamblers. At the time when we asked the Productivity Commission to do this inquiry, we had the support of the opposition, the industry and the community sector—many people recognising just how difficult this problem is and how important it was to do a proper investigation.
The Productivity Commission themselves recommended that we should introduce a full system of precommitment technology as the most effective way to help problem gamblers. The idea behind this is that precommitment technology provides a tool to individuals to make sure we give them help as they sit down to play the pokies. Before they start playing, they themselves can decide how much it is that they want to spend on any one day or night. They can set their own limits and then they can stick to them with the help of precommitment technology. We are bringing in this system of full precommitment. We intend to deliver it in 2014 for the big gambling venues, and by 2018 for the smaller pubs and clubs with 15 machines or fewer. We have involved a lot of different organisations in the discussions on this. Most importantly, I am pleased to inform the House that all the states and territories now agree that precommitment technology should be available on every single poker machine in the country. I think that has been a very significant agreement. We have begun work on the Commonwealth legislation and we will proceed with that if we do not get agreement with the states and territories. (Time expired)
Mr Craig Kelly: Have you signed off on this, Daryl?
The SPEAKER: Whilst the member for Banks is the innocent party, if the member for Hughes continues I can get you both to have a discussion outside. That would be very harsh on the member for Banks because he is being very well behaved.
Parliament
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (14:30): My question is to the Leader of the House. Will he outline for all members why it is so important that all members of parliament work together in a consistent way to ensure that legislation is dealt with in a timely manner?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:31): I thank the Chief Government Whip for that very good question. Indeed, he would be aware that this government has had some 195 pieces of legislation passed—195 passed, none defeated. The government is able to function effectively in a parliament that is functioning effectively in spite of some of the bizarre strategies we have seen to circumvent the parliament being able to determine the direction of legislation. This week alone we saw, firstly, more than 12 hours of debate on the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill. It went until after midnight. It took until 10:30 for the opposition to realise that the filibustering was not going to get them anywhere because the legislation, based upon the unanimous agreement of the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office, was going to be passed by this House. We know that they had 70 billion reasons why they wanted to oppose that legislation but their filibustering did not work.
Last night there was a procedural debate to facilitate five extra sitting hours on the clean energy bills—something that the opposition said they wanted. What was their response? Not to support it but to talk it out for 90 minutes.
Mr Pyne: We are supporting it.
Mr ALBANESE: The member opposite says, 'We're supporting it.' But they talked it out and filibustered so that there would not be a vote on it, preventing not only the 20 additional speakers on Tuesday, 11 October, but also six additional speakers last night. But it gets more bizarre.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. Under the strictures that you have placed on answers by ministers I would not have thought that the response of the Leader of the House was in order. It is simply an uncontrolled attack on the opposition.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House is talking about matters. He has not entered into a debate about individuals or collectives.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! I think that if you have listened carefully you will have found that is the case. This might be leading to a contest of ideas, but sometimes ideas are not agreed.
Mr ALBANESE: Looking at the public comments that have been made, one area where I would have thought there was broad agreement from the majority of this parliament is offshore processing. There is legislation before the parliament right now in order to ensure that can occur. Yesterday when that legislation was introduced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the shadow minister for immigration stood at the dispatch box in this House and said—
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister must be careful now where he goes.
Mr ALBANESE: He said that they would be pleased to accommodate the debate on that legislation. What is more, it has been said that the opposition would be happy to accommodate it immediately. We then had a media offensive throughout yesterday, with them saying it should be brought on and determined. What we did was bring it on, and when we did those opposite claimed credit for us bringing it on. First they said they wanted to bring it on, then they said the government was responsible for it being brought on and then, when it was brought on, they tried to talk it out. That is what has been going on.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Those interjecting will cease interjecting.
Mr ALBANESE: They asked for the debate, claimed credit for it and then talked it out. That is not leadership; that is weakness.
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will conclude.
Mr ALBANESE: We will ensure that these issues can be determined. They cannot argue on the one hand that this is urgent, as they did all day yesterday, and then walk away from a determination of that legislation. It is vital that this parliament be able to determine that legislation. The government is determined to ensure that is the case. Those opposite are, by their own words, hoist with their own petard.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am seeking leave to table the speakers list, which shows there are still 10 Labor speakers on the migration amendments debate.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr Albanese: I am surprised he is still here, Mr Speaker, but no.
Leave not granted.
The SPEAKER: I am happy to allow reflections from the chair to glide, but they will be remembered.
Asylum Seekers
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra) (14:38): My question is to the Prime Minister. Nauru provides the government with an immediate offshore-processing option. In the debate they might dispute that—
Government members interjecting—
Mr Dreyfus: Not according to the High Court.
The SPEAKER: Stop the clock. I would invite the member for Berowra to ignore the interjections and for learned colleagues of his and mine to study standing order 65 and ask themselves what gives them the right to take the call without being granted it. The parliamentary secretary can consider himself lucky.
Mr RUDDOCK: Nauru provides the government with an immediate offshore-processing option. Prime Minister, it could start now. Prime Minister, it has been shown to work.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Berowra should avoid debate.
Mr RUDDOCK: I set it up and I know that better—
The SPEAKER: The member for Berowra should avoid debate.
Mr RUDDOCK: Prime Minister, why won't you swallow your pride and open up Nauru, as it is the real option? Is the real reason that the government refuses to open Nauru that the government is afraid it might work?
The SPEAKER: I remind the House that, given the question was replete with argument, that sometimes has consequences.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:39): To the member's question I say not one fact asserted in it is true. The member who asked the question knows more than many others the obligation for accuracy in this debate. First and foremost, to the assertions in the member's question, it is not true, it is wholly untrue, and it is completely misleading to say to any Australian that Nauru could be immediately opened. It is wholly untrue, completely misleading, and anybody who says that is just trying to mislead and cover up their true intentions. Point No. 1: the High Court case, as we are advised by the Solicitor-General, creates huge legal risk in relation to Nauru. The member shakes his head but he cannot, by shaking his head, wish away the reality of what the Solicitor-General has advised. I say to the member: why is he, in this parliament, and why is the opposition, more generally, trying to mislead and misconstrue that advice because they are?
Secondly, the opposition tries to mislead and misconstrue the expert advice from people who advised the member when he was minister. He every day relied on their advice. He valued their advice and those very same people, exactly the same people in whom the member when he was minister for immigration placed so much trust, are advising this government, and they have provided the same advice to the opposition, that Nauru will not work. Those advisers have told us Nauru will not work.
I say to the member who asked the question: how is he, of all people, going to feel when he walks into this parliament and votes to destroy offshore processing? How is he, of all people, going to feel about that? How is he, of all people, who fought so hard to have executive government in the driver's seat, not the High Court, when it comes to refugee and asylum seeker policy, going to feel about voting to destroy offshore processing and voting to destroy the ability of executive government to determine policy in this area? The member who asked the question served as immigration minister for a very long time. It was a very controversial period in Australia's history.
I say to the member who asked the question he should recognise that he, if the opposition stays on its current course, will come and vote to destroy offshore processing and to destroy the right of executive government to make decisions on refugee and asylum seeker questions. The member who asked the question, more than anybody else in the opposition, should be reflecting on how they will feel when that causes more boats to set sail. How will they feel when more desperate people get into leaky boats, risking their lives because of the way they have voted in this parliament? How will they feel when more people come in greater numbers because they have sent a green light to people smugglers? That is what is under debate in this parliament. No amount of spin, no amount of sloganising and no amount of trying to deny the facts covers that up. The opposition are proposing to vote to deny the right of executive government to have offshore processing for a base political reason. They want to see more boats—full stop. That is it; that is all that is motivating them.
Border Protection
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice. Why are the government's amendments to the Migration Act a vital part of an effective border protection policy to deter people smugglers and to prevent loss of life at sea?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice) (14:44): I thank the member for Fowler for his question. This government takes border protection very seriously. We know that border protection can be very dangerous work. For the men and women of Customs and Border Protection and for the men and women of the Australian Federal Police, this is not something that is just chatted about at workplaces at lunchtime. This is not just chatted about in pubs or in front of televisions. Indeed, it is not about a debate in parliament. For those men and women, border protection takes place on the high seas. Border protection takes place in villages in Indonesia and at cliff faces on Christmas Island. They know that without us stopping this insidious trade there will be more maritime disasters in this country. 19 October is the 10th anniversary of SIEVX, the tragic loss of 353 people, 65 men, 142 women and 146 children, who perished on that day 10 years ago—a terrible tragedy. In April 2009 five people tragically died in the explosion of SIEV36 and of course we know on 15 December last year approximately 50 men, women and children perished after their vessel foundered on the rocks at Christmas Island. Indeed, that would have been worse if it were not for the brave, selfless deeds of Customs and Border Protection personnel who literally plucked people from the water.
I say to this parliament that those people, the AFP and the Customs and Border Protection personnel, know something about this issue and they deserve to be listened to. I want to say particularly to the Leader of the Opposition that the Australian Federal Police and Customs and Border Protection believe that the Malaysian plan is the most likely plan to deter people from getting on these unseaworthy vessels on perilous journeys. That is what they believe. You know what? They deserve to be listened to for what they know and what they do every day. That is what they deserve. Indeed, it is true to say that that has not been listened to by the opposition. What sort of political leader does not listen to police on criminal matters? What type of political leader does not take border protection advice from border protection agencies? Indeed, what type of political leader puts his own interests—
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will be very careful of the way he uses material.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: ahead of those of men and women of Customs and Border Protection?
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is unnecessary, it is offensive and I would ask you to require the minister to return to a more sensible answer to this question.
The SPEAKER: Yet again, sometimes when people are interjecting they might not hear that I invited the minister—I forget now what I invited him to do—to come back to the question. I am happy for him to mention that he is speaking to the chamber and in particular to a member but, I agree, when he then starts to berate, debate or argue, that is not helpful. I attempted to do that. At the same time I have people interjecting and people jumping up to give points of order. The minister will pay attention to the comments. The minister will relate his material in a directly relevant manner to the question.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: I have been asked about potential maritime disasters and I am saying to this House that I believe it is incumbent upon the parliament in considering matters to consider the advice that we receive from Customs and Border Protection and the Australian Federal Police. That is what I am saying to this House. I say to the House that those agencies are of the view that the Malaysian plan is the most effective deterrent. My view is that, in his heart of hearts, the opposition leader knows that. In knowing that, it is one of the most unconscionable acts, one of the most reckless acts, to ignore that advice because the consequences may well be—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister must not overly argue the question.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: not only people on leaky boats perishing but people on our boats, in our uniforms, who protect our borders.
Palestine
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:49): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the impending vote at the United Nations about Palestinian statehood. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has advised that Australia should abstain from the vote? Has the Prime Minister spoken to the foreign minister this week about Australia's position on this issue and will Australia vote yes, no or abstain?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:49): The position of the government was outlined in an opinion piece by me published in newspapers during the course of this week. She would have seen in that opinion piece that the text of the resolution is not yet available. The government will make its final decision, as was made clear in that opinion piece. Apparently, the opposition does not follow foreign affairs or read the newspapers on these questions. I refer them to the exact sentence in that opinion piece about the question of text. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read it. The opinion piece represents the position of the government.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister has concluded.
Economy
Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (14:50): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. What reform is the government undertaking to strengthen Australia's economy for the long term and how is it underpinned by a transparent and accountable budget process? What would be the implications if a transparent budget process were not followed?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (14:51): I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. I know she is interested in reforms to strengthen Australia's economy for the long term. In fact, if you want to reform the economy for the long term you have to get the fundamentals correct—fundamentals such as keeping people in jobs and creating jobs, fundamentals such as encouraging foreign investment, new enterprise and sustainable industries and making sure that you have strong fiscal settings and a robust budget bottom line.
It is because these fundamentals are strong today that we can do some of the long-term reforms that are required in our country for tomorrow, the next week, the next year and the next decade. Fundamental change such as putting a price on carbon pollution. Fundamental change such as a National Broadband Network to harness the potential of the digital economy. Fundamental change such as lifting compulsory retirement savings so that people in Australia do not have to work their whole lives and retire poor. Fundamental change such as improving our social welfare support and developing the foundations for a national disability insurance scheme.
Members opposite should by now be well aware that we intend to ensure that some of the Guinness book of record profits being made by some of Australia's richest mining companies are shared throughout the whole of Australia—through decreasing the corporate rate of tax, through supporting small business and through lifting compulsory retirement savings. That is the fundamental change we are talking about. Yesterday we announced further reforms of a fundamental nature to improve the superannuation system to make sure that when people are having their money compulsorily saved the investment managers, the fund managers, and all those who get to handle those investment retirement savings, do not charge excessive fees and excessive rates for handling people's money.
We are introducing new low-cost default superannuation funds called My Super. We will be consolidating accounts—the 30 million accounts which 11 million Australians have—and we will be improving the electronic back office of the administration of superannuation. We will be applying strong fiscal discipline and economic management to what we are doing. It is important that we have these fiscal frameworks. By establishing a new Parliamentary Budget Office, an independent costing service, we will have greater accountability and transparency in policy making.
For the first time ever, members of the opposition, individual members of parliament and senators, will have an opportunity to have an independent and confidential costing service outside a general election period and also during election campaigns. One of the reasons this change is important is we never again want to experience the sort of 2010 election campaign when those opposite tried to sneak through an $11 billion black hole.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Assistant Treasurer should be very careful. The Assistant Treasurer can debate the matter.
Mr SHORTEN: Obviously I would not wish to debate that unfortunate bit of history. When we look forward we understand that, whilst this economy is going very strongly, the world economic environment is still a precarious place. That is why it is important we are able to return the budget to surplus. That is why this government is engaging in the fastest fiscal consolidation that we have ever seen and why it is important that whoever wants to form the government is able to explain how they will fund their policies. That is why it is important that we do not have the $70 billion black hole that those opposite would inflict upon Australia.
Minister for Foreign Affairs: Overseas Travel
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (14:55): My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the foreign minister sought and been granted permission, in writing, each and every time he has travelled overseas since September last year? In each case, has the Prime Minister warned the foreign minister that accommodation costs should be kept to an acceptable minimum?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:55): In answer to the member's question, of course there is a travel approval process through my office for the foreign minister and all ministers who travel. The foreign minister and all ministers who travel are frequently told that they need to do all things necessary to be prudent with taxpayers' dollars and keep costs down.
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table correspondence between the foreign affairs minister and the Prime Minister showing that—
Leave not granted.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. I have warned the minister about that as well. The minister will behave himself.
Fair Work Australia
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, Minister for the Arts, and Minister representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations. Will the minister inform the House how the implementation of the Fair Work Act has improved the working conditions of Australians? How does the government intend to protect those conditions?
Mr CREAN (Hotham—Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts) (14:57): I thank the honourable member for her question and know her commitment to protecting workers' conditions in this country, like all of those who sit on this side of the House. I was asked, first of all, how we have worked to improve the working conditions of Australians. The most effective way we did that was to get rid of Work Choices. I was also asked how we intend to protect those conditions going forward and the answer to that is pretty simple too: by not returning to any aspect of Work Choices.
This is a position that we hold firmly and are convinced about because we saw in the government that we replaced a continuous and progressive dismantling of workers' rights in this country. The first instance of that most graphically came in 1998 with the Patrick's dispute, a dispute that saw the mass sacking overnight of an entire workforce and the replacement with another workforce, a scab workforce, and legislation passed at midnight by the cabinet, or approval passed at midnight by the cabinet, that allowed it. We also saw, in 2000, the workers' entitlements stripped away in the case of National Textiles and then special legislation to protect only one employer in this country—the Prime Minister's brother. So there you had, in the previous government, legislation on the one hand to strip away workers' rights and on the other hand no action on legislation to protect workers' rights. That is what we replaced.
2004 saw the culmination of this encroachment with the stripping away of workers' rights. It was called Work Choices. It removed unfair dismissal protection and it made it easier to move to individual contracts in this country. Those individual contracts collectively were responsible for stripping away even more workers' rights, because two-thirds of the individual contracts that were entered into in this country saw a reduction in annual leave loading and a reduction in penalty rates. Half of those that were introduced in this country saw a reduction in shift loadings, in overtime, in rest breaks and in holiday pay.
So much for Work Choices—these were workers that had no choice. They were told, 'Take the job and the cut in conditions or no job at all.' That is not the way this country functions. We believe in the dignity of working people in this country—you give them dignity and they return benefits to the nation. Under us, we saw fairness restored—the requirement to bargain in good faith and the protection of workers' rights. As a result of that, we saw job security. And, in four years, the largest number of jobs ever was created because of the fairness and dignity that we reintroduced to the workplace by the Prime Minister when she was Deputy Prime Minister.
The economy also benefited from all of that. Why would we move away from it? Who wants us to move away from it? There are members of this House who want us to move away from it. The member for Mayo said as much the other day, and the member for Higgins wants us to move away from it. And I could name a lot more of them. They are being spurred on by the cheerleader, the person who introduced the balaclavas, Peter Reith. He wants them to return to Work Choices. Say no to the return of Work Choices and you will only get— (Time expired)
Ministerial Conduct
WYATT ROY (Longman) (15:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the excessive travel costs incurred by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the Prime Minister commit to examining the foreign minister's phone records for his current trip to ensure that he has not been making excessive phone calls back to Australia?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:02): I can see why they got the member who asked the question to ask this one. Can I say to the member: the government will continue to do all things that are necessary so that when ministers travel there is prudence about the expenditure. I presume they asked the member who did ask this question to be the person who asked it in the parliament because none of the former Howard ministers wanted to ask the question, presumably because they used to be advised every day to spend up.
Carbon Pricing
Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister update the House on the impact of a carbon price on business, households and the economy? Minister, why is it important that fundamental economic reforms are accompanied by robust analysis?
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (15:03): I would like to thank the member for Braddon for his question. As the Treasurer indicated yesterday, the Treasury has released the updated macroeconomic modelling of the carbon price. The updated modelling clearly shows that the economy will grow with a carbon price while we at the same time cut our emissions. The Treasury modelling makes absolutely clear that gross national income is projected to grow at 1.1 per cent per year to 2050 and employment will also grow strongly—in fact, 1.6 million new jobs are projected by 2020, with or without a carbon price. The economy will continue to perform very well under a carbon price. The modelling is independent. It provides a sound economic analysis that allows government to make reasoned, economically responsible policy decisions and choices.
That basis, and the basis upon which policy has been developed, contrasts very strongly with some of the quite ridiculous statements that have consistently misrepresented the economic impacts and the price effects of carbon pricing. The community has heard it said at various times: 'The hit on Australians' cost of living is almost unimaginable.' It has also been said:
… the carbon tax ultimately spells death for the coal industry …
And the community has heard:
Whyalla—
a steelmaking town—
will be wiped off the map … Whyalla risks becoming a ghost town, an economic wasteland if this carbon tax goes ahead.
Statements like that are of course designed to deceive people; they fly in the face of evidence and facts, and they create fear, uncertainty and insecurity in the community. What is important in formulating any economic and environmental reform of the nature of a carbon price is that the policy decisions and the communications to the community more broadly are underpinned by facts and robust analysis.
The comments that I have quoted are attributed to the Leader of the Opposition. He is responsible for those statements, and they deserve to be tested against some of the facts. In relation to the price impacts, the Treasury modelling shows that the price impact is the equivalent of 0.7 per cent of the CPI, whereas of course the GST had an impact almost four times as great. And nine out of 10 household under the carbon price arrangements will receive assistance to meet those modest price impacts. In fact, an average of $10.10 per household per week will be received, compared to an average cost of $9.90 a week. This shows that the opposition's arguments are completely antithetical and this exposes the comments that the Leader of the Opposition has made as the rubbish that they are. But let's look at the coal industry and the facts in relation to that as well. The allegation made is that the industry will be destroyed; the fact is jobs will grow. Investment is growing—$70 billion of investment—19 new mines are coming. The statement made by the Leader of the Opposition is completely fallacious. In relation to Whyalla: not only has OneSteel stated that its operations at Whyalla are continuing and that the government has responded to the issues it raised but in fact new investments are to be made. The statements we have heard have caused fear, insecurity and uncertainty; they are completely fallacious and totally unbecoming of anyone in political leadership.
Member for Dobell
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement regarding the member for Dobell in this House on August 16:
I look forward to him continuing to do that job for a very long, long, long time to come.
Does the Prime Minister stand by that statement?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:08): I stand by that statement and any other past statement in relation to the member for Dobell.
Education
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (15:08): My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. How is the government investing in education to equip Australians with the skills they need for the jobs of the future?
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (15:08): I thank the member for Kingston for her question, because I know that she works very hard in that electorate for schools. She is making sure that we continue to deliver a really profound reform agenda in education not only in South Australia but right around the country.
I doubt whether anyone would have imagined pre-2007 that a federal government would double the investment in education over the quadrennium. That is what this government has done. We are now spending double, in terms of investment, what the coalition spent on education—some $65 billion investment in schools, trade training centres, the transparency agenda and, most importantly, lifting up those kids in schools around Australia to make sure that they are well equipped to come out of school and into a further learning or working experience.
We are driven by a central conviction that education in Australia is the great enabler and that every single Australian student is entitled to the best and fairest education that they can get. We have a number of directed investments specifically geared to that aim. It is not just Building the Education Revolution; people tend to think of it as bricks and mortar. It is true that we are improving the infrastructure in schools in ways never seen before but that also improve the teaching and learning conditions in the school. When teachers and kids walk into new assembly halls, new science labs, and new classrooms—with whiteboards up on the wall—they are learning well. They are being taught well. That is the kind of investment that really counts and it is also the kind of investment that is a legacy of the decisions that have been taken by this government and by the Prime Minister in her former role as Minister for Education.
We are not just talking about university and academic pursuits—important as they are; we are also talking about recognising that, if we are going to meet the skills shortages of the future, we need to make sure that young Australians have an opportunity to get on the skills pathway whilst they are still at school. That is why we are investing $2.5 billion in trade training centres, giving kids the opportunity to get on that skills pathway with good learning at an early age. These investments are making a profound difference to education right around Australia and they are enabling young Australians to be confident learners and to be successful as they take on their careers post school.
As well as that, we have investments in transparency, with the My School website, a national curriculum and national standards for the first time. It is like railroad tracks with different gauges in different states; our teachers should have the same national standards. Our kids should have the same national entitlement to the curriculum. These are serious, substantial education reforms that lie right at the heart of Labor's agenda and right at the heart of our national purpose.
I want to make the point that all we hear from the opposition is negativism. They wanted to take $2.8 billion out of the education budget—
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will bring his response to a close.
Mr GARRETT: These investments are making a profound difference to the opportunities that young Australians in every state have. Regardless of where they live, regardless of how much their parents earn, regardless of which school they go to, under this government every young Australian will get the best and fairest education they can, because we are providing that investment.
Carbon Pricing
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (15:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to facts provided by the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency yesterday which will reveal that, on a per person basis, Australia's carbon tax will cost $1,130, while Europe's scheme will cost $290 per head. With a world economy unsettled, our unemployment rate rising and our economic growth forecast being slashed, how can this be the right time to introduce a carbon tax that is more than four times larger than Europe's?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:13): May I remind the shadow Treasurer that there are bipartisan commitments in this country to cut carbon pollution by five per cent by 2020. Either the shadow Treasurer is suggesting that the opposition no longer holds that commitment—and I do not hear him suggesting that—or he is suggesting that that remains the commitment of the opposition. If it remains the commitment of the opposition to reduce carbon pollution by five per cent by 2020, then the questions that need to be answered are: when should we start to do that? And how should we do it?
I say to the shadow Treasurer: if he is concerned about adjustments in our economy, then it would make sense, wouldn't it, to start soon and that there is not some form of dramatic dislocation in 2018 or 2019 because you have not started until then. You would start soon—that is what we are intending to do—and you would use the most efficient method possible. The shadow Treasurer would be studying his economics, I am sure, to fulfil his role as shadow Treasurer. If he were doing that, he would be well aware that reputable economists here and around the world recommend that the least cost way of cutting carbon pollution is by putting a price on carbon that big polluters pay. That is exactly what we are proposing to do. The shadow Treasurer, I believe, if he brings economic rigour and principles to bear, would have to look with disgust at the opposition's policy, knowing that it will be wasteful, knowing that it will be inefficient, knowing that it will be more costly, knowing that for every tonne of carbon abatement it will cost more and, ultimately, it will add up to a cost for Australian families of $1,300 per year.
Mr Hockey: Mr Speaker, on a point of order—it does go to direct relevance: I asked the Prime Minister why now is the time to have a carbon tax in Australia four times larger than Europe.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will respond and she understands the requirements of the standing orders.
Ms GILLARD: On the question of timing of starting to address carbon pollution, I have been addressing that. I presume the shadow Treasurer must stand for starting in 2019 and trying to do it all in 12 months at some hideous cost per tonne of abatement rather than having our economy adjust over time, using the most efficient mechanism possible.
I presume in his question the shadow Treasurer was referring to some advertisements and comparisons that were done by the Australian Trade and Industry Alliance about the Australian scheme and the European scheme. As the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency made clear yesterday, those advertisements compare an overinflated number for Australian permits with only auction revenue from the introductory phase of the EU's emission trading scheme—or, put more simply, it is an apples to oranges comparison that does not stack up.
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen) (15:17): My question is to the Minister for Trade. Will the minister advise the House of the importance for Australia's trade relationships of maintaining an open and competitive economy? What would be the consequences for the nation of walking away from these core economic principles?
Dr EMERSON (Rankin—Minister for Trade) (15:17): I thank the member for his question. It is very important that Australia maintains its open, competitive economy. It is those reforms that were initiated by Bob Hawke and Paul Keating and carried forward in places by John Howard that have laid the foundations for 20 years of recession-free economic growth. It is true that there is a sense of rising protectionist sentiment around the world, and that itself is a threat to the completion of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations. Those protectionist sentiments are not being expressed just overseas; they are being expressed here in Australia, both outside and inside the parliament. We have seen that expressed through a bill that would have prohibited the importation of apples from New Zealand. We have seen it expressed through a private member's bill that would have required the labelling of palm oil in a way that is inconsistent with Australia's World Trade Organisation obligations.
We have seen proposals in relation to dumping measures, and I commend the customs minister for a very comprehensive and sensible WTO-consistent set of measures to deal with dumping, but there is in fact a dissenting or minority report from the Senate which basically says that we should be looking at a reversal of the onus of proof in relation to anti-dumping—that is, you are dumping unless you can prove otherwise. We have had expressed in this parliament the view that that particular measure is a sensible measure and it should be taken seriously and we should proceed with that.
That is notwithstanding the advice of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which says the amendments would result in a breach of Australia's international obligations. This is the problem: we have proposals in this parliament for measures that would breach our international trading obligations. Why is that important? Because we rely on the World Trade Organisation to have a set of rules to protect our Australian businesses from unfair practices by others. That is why we have a set of world trading rules, but if we do not play by those rules, if we do not comply with them, we open ourselves up to retaliation. We have had in this parliament, expressed in relation to international carbon-linking, statements about Iran, Venezuela, Syria and Yemen. Those have not come from this side of the parliament but from the other side.
It reminds me, with this sense of economic Hansonism that is going on, of a statement that was actually made not by a coalition member but by a Labor member, a predecessor of the member for Canberra, who once said that traditionally most of Australia's imports come from overseas. I think that is true, that traditionally they have, but the opposition is on to it now and it has realised that in order to engage in international trade we must engage with foreigners—these rascally, pesky foreigners. The opposition leader is saying he is not against international trade, just so long as it is not with foreigners. The only foreigners that the opposition leader likes are the people smugglers, to whom he is saying, 'Start your engines; come on down!'
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will conclude.
Ms Gillard: Mr Speaker, that being 20 questions, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I simply ask: is it in order for the Prime Minister to claim 20 questions when in fact only 19 have been asked?
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister has asked that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Questions in Writing
Dr STONE (Murray) (15:21): Mr Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention that I have a number of questions in writing which have not been answered in the prescribed time. They are questions in writing Nos 398, 399 and 400 all addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations. I ask that you make sure that these questions are answered.
The SPEAKER (15:22): I will do as I am required under the standing orders.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER: I present report No. 33 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in today's Hansard. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to private Members' business and the consideration of bills introduced 19 to 22 September 2011
1.The committee met in private session on 21 and 22 September 2011.
2.The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made—
Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry:
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Horticultural Code of Conduct) Bill 2011; and
Constitutional Corporations (Farm Gate to Plate) Bill 2011;
Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts:
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Significant Incident Directions) Bill 2011;
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services:
Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011;
Standing Committee on Education and Employment:
Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill 2011;
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Tuition Protection Service) Bill 2011;
Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Bill 2011; and
Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011;
Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications:
Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Community Consultation) Bill 2011.
3.The committee recommends that the following items of private Members' business listed on the notice paper be voted on:
Orders of the Day
AQIS export service rebate (Mr Cobb)
Coptic Christians in Egypt (Mr C Kelly)
National standard for fertiliser products (Mr Pyne)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 (Mr Bandt).
4.The committee amended its determination of 14 September 2011 in which it referred the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011 to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry for inquiry and report, to set a reporting date of 2 November 2011.
The SPEAKER: I apologise that the copies are not placed on the table, but this gives me an opportunity to indicate that the head chamber attendant, Cheryl, has been away all week because she was in an accident on the weekend, with another member of the department's staff, and we wish them both a very speedy recovery.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 7 of 2011-12 and Annual Report for 2010-11
The SPEAKER: I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 7 of 2011‑2012 entitled Establishment, implementation and administration of the infrastructure employment projects stream of the Jobs Fund, and the annual report of the Australian National Audit Office for 2010-11.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
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:
Intelligence and Security—Parliamentary Joint Committee—Review of administration and expenditure—No. 8: Australian intelligence agencies—Government response.
Medibank Private—Report for 2010-11.
Reserve Bank of Australia—
Equity and diversity—Report for 2010-11.
Payments System Board—Report for 2010-11.
Report for 2010-11.
Sydney Airport Demand Management Act—Quarterly report on movement cap for Sydney airport for the period 1 April to 30 June 2011.
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—Report 116: Treaties tabled on 24 and 25 November 2010, 9 February and 1 March 2011 and Treaties referred on 16 November 2010 (part 3)—Government response
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Publications Committee
Report
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (15:25): 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. I move:
That the report be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Carbon Pricing
The SPEAKER (15:25): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The impact of the carbon tax on the cost of living.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:25): I move:
That the business of the day be called on.
Question put.
The House divided. [15:30]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and calls on the Government to end offshore processing and process all asylum seekers' claims for protection onshore."
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (15:35): Continuing on from what I was saying before, it seems I am, yet again, a minority of one in this place insofar as I have a policy of: stay on the boats. If people choose to be self-smugglers then I do not think the government of Australia should assist them in that. I repeat, as I said before: if the government and the opposition persist in their policies, then people, like the people from my own electorate—the Sikhs from the Punjab in India—would be taking to the boats, and I think it would probably be a good idea for them to take to the boats as far, as I can see. It appears to me that 70 per cent of the people that get on a boat—we are receiving all sorts of figures and they are all different, ranging from 64 per cent up to 94 per cent of the people—end up in Australia. So we are not sure which set of figures to believe, but clearly the vast majority of the people who get on the boats end up as Australian citizens. One group of people who have proved themselves to be wonderful Australians is the Sikhs. They are very patriotic instant Australians who fit in immediately and are extremely popular. If you look at any of the demonstrations that I am associated with in North Queensland, you will see that among the people at the front are the people in the turbans, because people like them, and if the Sikhs are going along with the demonstration then it is a good thing to be part of. If we were going to take in people who come in on the boats, then I would think it would be highly preferable that people such as the Sikhs should be taken in. But this country does not have the wherewithal to take an unlimited number of people who walk in off the street any time they like. If you lead these people to believe that Australia can do that, you will do so at the expense of social welfare in this nation.
We had 15 meetings—which were just for our supporters, actually—in the year before the last election in 15 different towns, and in every one of those towns people raised the issue of electricity charges, which they could not afford to pay. It seems to me that, whatever solution we choose in order to deal with the question of people arriving on boats, we are still going to end up with thousands of people coming into the country every year. Other governments stop people from coming to their country, and clearly we should be doing something to stop people from coming to our country. Endeavours to do this have been made on both sides of the House, but they have fallen well short of proper and responsible government. If you want people to come into the country, I would say that you should by all means expand your immigration intake—I have always been very pro-migration—and I would plead with whoever is the government of Australia to look with sympathy upon the claims of people who will blend harmoniously with the greater Australian population. Once again I use the example of the Sikhs, from whom I get numerous and continuous requests, all of which I have enthusiastically supported, to come to Australia.
The issue of people arriving on boats is very difficult and complex, and I think that people on both sides of the House have worked extremely hard to come up with acceptable solutions to it. In fairness to the government's position, I must say that if a person is contemplating coming to Australia, and they know that 70 per cent—I will choose that figure—of people arriving on boats are going to get into Australia, then it is a pretty fair bet that they will get in too. If I were a betting man, I would say, 'That's not a bad bet—you've got a three to one chance of getting into the country.' If you are a husband, a wife and three kids and you are on social welfare, you will get pretty close to $80,000 a year, believe it or not, including rent subsidies and various other benefits. That is a pretty good deal, as far as I can see; you would be a mug not to have a go at it.
But the statistics are very deceitful, because we have been told—and I do not know whether this is correct; I am very suspicious of all the figures I am getting—that some 500 people have died trying to get into this country. It would be good if the government could get that message—'There's also a chance that you may not get here; you're going in very second-rate ships, and some of them are simply shipwrecked or sink, and some of you will die in your endeavours to get here'—out to the people who are intending to come to this country. It would also be good to get the message out that, if these people go to Malaysia, they will not be at the front of the queue but in a very, very big queue and that they will have to stand in line with 100,000 Burmese who are coming to this country.
So there is some definite appeal in what the government is putting forward here. It would seem to me that if you get to Nauru you are also in a queue, but you are at the front of the queue. The government's arguments would seem to me to be very cogent, but I find myself in a situation where neither of the options appeals to me even remotely. So I will stay, it would appear, as a minority of one in this place. Once again I make the point that if— (Time expired)
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (15:42): Earlier this week the member for North Sydney gestured across the House to ask whether in my heart I could support this amendment to the Migration Act—whether someone who is associated with human rights and has a close association with many migrant and refugee communities in this country could endorse it. Later in the week, my convictions were questioned by the member for Mitchell. He has nothing better to do with his time than to rush to his local paper boasting about how he has been thrown out of the House and that he had said as he departed: 'I remember when Laurie was a lefty'. These people are stereotyping this debate and making it extremely simplistic.
It is no surprise that today they were joined in their analysis of this debate by the member for Melbourne. As we know from listening to a previous speaker, in a recent radio program, Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens, who does not believe in any offshore processing—and, of course, he is joined by Senator Hanson-Young and the member for Melbourne in that belief—indicated that the eventual outcome of this debate would be that offshore processing would be destroyed. Today, we are going down that road for certain.
The contribution of the member for Melbourne to this debate today was as infamous as his misunderstanding earlier this week of the history of the Vietnamese who entered this country. He said that they had all come by boat; he had no knowledge of the processing wait in Hong Kong and no knowledge of the situation of the Vietnamese in camps in the Philippines, which can be seen in the film In Limbo. Furthermore, he made the extremely erroneous allegation that Labor was advertising to the Australian people that it was sending people to be caned in Malaysia. He went on to say that poll after poll in this country has endorsed onshore processing. One poll, a recent Fairfax poll, has endorsed that position. The question has been rarely asked of the Australian people. Surveys from May 2009 to July 2010 from Morgan, Galaxy, Age/Nielsen and Essential Report showed that over 60 per cent of Australians said that they supported a tougher policy in this area. In one of those polls they actually asked about offshore processing, and 62 per cent of people said that they endorsed a stronger policy on offshore processing.
I refer the member for Melbourne to the work by Professor Goot, Population, immigration and asylum seekers: patterns in Australian public opinion 2011. He may get some worthwhile knowledge by reading that publication. There is nothing right necessarily about Australian public opinion. Basically, you should only utilise it when you feel it is right. But he has come here today and said that the Australian people want onshore processing. That is totally incorrect and he knows it. He has described this as a grubby debate and a race to the bottom. As with those Liberal members, he is making this very simplistic. There is nothing wrong with offshore processing, even if you support a strong humanitarian refugee migration intake. There is nothing wrong with endorsing offshore processing, if you are concerned about people being in the camps for two decades and are concerned about the people who live near the camps.
Essentially, there is a real moral question here and people can take different positions on it and understand it in different fashions. I strongly endorse offshore processing, and I do not think you are going to see too much inconsistency from me on this matter. At the same time, I do believe that the number of boats arriving has a relationship with events in other countries. It is not just about what Australia does. It is not just about how available the boats or the smugglers are. We do not exactly get refugee claimants on boats from all lands on this earth. At the moment we are getting the Tamils from Sri Lanka, Iraqis, Afghans et cetera, and there is a clear relationship with events in those countries.
The opposition is now coming forward, at a very late stage in this long debate, saying that the be-all and end-all is whether people have signed up to the international convention and that Nauru is justified because it has signed up and others have not. Earlier today I heard the member for Goldstein quoting Freedom House about the situation in Malaysia compared to Nauru. We all know that Nauru is not a long-term option. I spoke to a person this week who is very involved in refugee policy who has recently been there. I heard that part of the camp is currently being used for schoolchildren. There are water shortages. The water is cut off for a few hours every day. There is no work available on the island for the people if they are let out. The situation is chronic indeed. What are they going to do when 1,500 people are there?
Those opposite are talking about what a failure this has been because all the boats have come. If they did not think the boats were going to come—under either side in government—why did they spend $317 million of taxpayers' money on Christmas Island? If they had solved the problem, if boats were never going to come again, why did they build that facility? They built that facility because they knew there was always going to be a challenge to Australian immigration policy and the right of the government of the day to have some say in our refugee and humanitarian program and where refugees come from. When the laws were changed with respect to temporary protection visas—the new nirvana; the new glorious solution—those opposite stood there like stunned mullets and let the legislation go through. Dr Stone, the member for Murray, said at the time that it had outlived its purpose. And now, today, it is Nauru or nothing.
The member for Goldstein quoted Freedom House on the situation in Malaysia. Freedom House said that Malaysia got eight out of a possible 14 with respect to human rights—14 is the worst case; it got eight. Those opposite say that everyone has to sign the convention, and it is very interesting to look at the other countries that have signed the refugee convention. Those opposite say that we cannot send them to Malaysia. Malaysia have a court system. When Anwar Ibrahim was basically set up by the government, he could fight his way through the legal system. They have a democratic political system. They have recently legislated with regard to getting work rights for refugees in the country. They have got rid of their internal security legislation.
It is interesting to see who has else has signed the refugee convention—and we can send them there, those opposite reckon. Afghanistan got 12 out of 14, China got 13 out of 14, the Democratic Republic of the Congo got 12 out of 14, Iran got 12 out of 14 and Zimbabwe got 12 out of 14—and we ceaselessly hear opposition members, particularly those from Western Australia, telling us how bad Zimbabwe is. These countries which have signed the convention—which is the one thing those opposite think a country needs to have done for us to send people there—are the countries which we receive many of our refugees from. And those opposite are saying that those countries are good enough to send people to.
There has also been the statement that they can tow people back to Indonesia. The shadow minister's nice bit of language about this was: 'Oh, we can't send them to Malaysia because it has not signed the convention, but we can tow them back to Indonesia'—which is in a similar class. While supportive of reforms and change in Indonesia, I do not think there are many people here today who would say that Indonesia is that much more democratic, liberal or tolerant than Malaysia.
Mr Danby: And there is no agreement with them.
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON: And, as was indicated, we have no agreement with them. Nauru is a recipe for failure. Those opposite say that we have had so many boats and so many claimants since we suggested Malaysia. They know very well that in the same sort of period, after they suggested Nauru, the boats kept coming. The numbers in that lead-up period—a very similar time frame—were very strong.
Those opposite can argue that a lot of the people from Nauru eventually went to New Zealand and they did not all come to Australia. The fact of life is that the overwhelming majority went to New Zealand or Australia, and anyone who follows immigration knows that New Zealand is often the first step to migration to Australia. That is why Australia had some concerns a decade ago with regard to the huge number of Fijian-Indian claimants that New Zealand was taking because, in a very short time, they would be coming here afterwards. So the policy that supposedly stopped the boats led to most of these people eventually coming to Australia—the overwhelming majority of them. The cost of this has been assessed as $1 billion—$1 billion of taxpayers' money will be needed for this useless, senseless alternative with respect to Nauru. The situation is the same with regard to TPVs. Most of these people eventually came here, but it was after individual human suffering.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON: It is right, member for Sturt. The overwhelming majority of them came here, but they were separated from their families for years on end. Basically, there was no effective retardation of the eventual success of their cases.
We do need offshore processing because, quite frankly, onshore processing is a recipe for people to have decades-long cases against the Australian legal system. In the last fortnight, a person walked into my office—admittedly, he had arrived by plane, but it is the same picture as when people get so much access to our system—who had been fighting the Australian legal system for two decades from a baseless case. I heard from a Hazara last Friday on a rejected spouse case. He had come by boat and he is now complaining that there are so many Hazaras coming by boat with fraudulent claims. This is the kind of situation we have. We do need to have a deterrent to dissuade people from paying people smugglers and to dissuade people from believing that they will be successful if they arrive.
People cite to me the huge approval rate of people who arrive by boat. I say that they are inflated figures. I say that the 90 per cent pass rate—and recently it was a 70 per cent rate—does not necessarily indicate the bona fides of cases. The reason the pass rate is so high is that many of these people cannot be sent back to their homeland, even when they are rejected. Even where we have agreements with countries, we return very few under Labor or Liberal governments. We find it difficult to disprove their cases because they either do not have identification or they destroyed it on the way here. The contrast for the people in the camps is that they are in situ. We can seriously look at their claims on the spot. We can investigate them more thoroughly.
I very strongly endorse the government's proposals that we must in some manner give people in the camps and those living nearby a bit of room in this intake. We cannot have the intake totally dominated by those who come by boats and planes. We have to ensure that the government of the day has some say and can respond to the UNHCR's request as to what it sees as the most needy peoples around the world at any point in time. If the arrivals are totally dominated by boats and planes, then the government of the day, Labor or Liberal, can have no say when it is said that we should react to the labour situation in Burma or we should have something to say with regard to Bosnia; we should respond and support what the UNHCR says is the demand of the day.
People criticise Malaysia. In recent times we have seen them get rid of the emergency situation and we have seen them agree to work rights. Perhaps work rights are of no interest to the opposition. I noted the comments of their then spokesperson in the report Immigration detention in Australia, when it was proposed that we give work rights to released claimants. Dr Sharman Stone, at 1.7 in the report, said:
As unemployment continues to climb, it cannot be assured that asylum seekers can readily step into and keep employment. As well the perception of additional competition in the work place will cause more stress to Australians in the workforce as they compete to gain or hold what work is still available …
Today, we see the alliance between the Greens, the Leader of the Opposition and the coalition—a desperate attempt to make sure that the government cannot operate the Malaysian scheme, which they are very fearful will succeed. They are very fearful that the number of boats will be reduced, that the rhetoric about the process being out of control will diminish and that the ammunition will disappear.
Quite frankly, the situation is that it is important in this country that the Australian people, who are fair but not stupid, can have confidence in the government of the day that is operating the system, and that the department of immigration is determining who are the humanitarian refugees. Every day of the week in Europe we are seeing growth in the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the Old Finns, the Freedom Party in the Netherlands, and other parties in Europe. There must be confidence that the government of the day can operate an offshore program and that it can determine that people will be dissuaded from attempting to come here. I strongly recommend the legislation.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (15:57): I acknowledge it is the end of a long two weeks of sitting and most members want to go home, but I also acknowledge that this is important legislation that government does need certainty on. I would hope that the House acknowledges the responsibility of dealing with it, no matter how long it takes this evening. I do not support the Labor Party or the Liberal Party or the National Party or the Greens on this issue in the way it has been framed to date. I do support and strongly back a nine-year regional cooperative process, started by Alexander Downer in 2002, known as the Bali Process. If we place an emphasis on that and codify that, we will start to clean up bad law domestically, which I think was reflected on and interpreted by the High Court ruling last month. I think it is the roadmap and the process for the future in starting to, in the long term, clean up bad law regionally.
It is for that reason that I flag that I will be moving an amendment to this legislation that does the following. Under subsection 5(1), I will be looking to insert a definition of the regional cooperation framework, with the following:
'Bali Process' means the process known as the Bali Process, established at the Regional Ministerial Conference on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime held in Bali in February 2002.
I also will be looking to insert, at schedule 1, page 3, after item 4:
'Regional cooperation framework' means the framework agreed to in the co-chair's statement issued at the 4th Regional Ministerial Conference on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime held in Bali on 30 March 2011.
I will be looking to insert at schedule 1, item 25, page 6, after paragraph 198AA(a)—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! I am reluctant to interrupt the honourable member for Lyne, but there will be an opportunity for the honourable member to move his amendments later.
Mr OAKESHOTT: I understand, but I will explain these. It is important. This is new for many members of the House. As to the reason why this legislation in its current form fits within the future direction and the regional cooperation framework, I will be looking to insert:
Australia's commitment to engagement through the Bali Process, including the implementation of the Regional Cooperation Framework, informs Australia's response to people smuggling, trafficking in persons and related transnational crime …
Finally, at clause 198AI, I will insert:
The Minister must, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a report setting out:
(a) the activities conducted under the Bali process during the year ending on 30 June; and
(b) the steps taken in relation to people smuggling, trafficking in persons and related transnational crime to support the Regional Cooperation Framework during the year ending on 30 June; and
(c) the progress made in relation to people smuggling, trafficking in persons and related transnational crime under the Regional Cooperation Framework during the year ending on 30 June.
This has been a poor debate framed on the division of onshore versus offshore, of Malaysia versus Nauru, of Labor versus Liberal, of deterrents versus humanitarian issues and of the perception of many that we are being invaded by our neighbours versus those who are wanting to cooperate with our neighbours. Unfortunately, I think this House has been choosing a path of fear for fear's sake, of division for division's sake and of politics for politics' sake. In my view, it has been to date a fake disagreement when we already have a genuine process of real agreement that has been led by various immigration ministers since 2002. I am not sure whether this is about responding to dynamic slogans such as 'Stop the boats' or 'We decide who comes here and on what terms they come' but, even if that is the case, I hope we keep our eyes on working with our regional neighbours through the cooperative framework, a process that is working and delivering and that involves at least 33 countries. There are 43 countries engaged in this process, but at the most recent meeting there were 33, including Nauru and Malaysia. It is not an either/or debate that is being presented in this chamber and to the Australian people.
I urge people, using Google or any other means, to type in the words 'Bali process' and to have a look at the most recent document, the Fourth Bali Regional Ministerial Conference on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime. I think it outlines a good policy direction for Australia. It is the road map for the future. I think, therefore, we should work on codifying it in law. In reading through the High Court six-to-one decision, I could not see any reference to the Bali process. I think it is a reflection missed by the six learned judges. In response to that, I think there is a need for this parliament to codify these agreements in law and, from that, to start a process of cleaning up domestic, regional and international law and working on a cooperative framework. The clean-up on domestic law is in and around some legislation from 2001—the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) Act and the Migration Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Provisions) Act—that looks to be in conflict with what regional agreement was trying to achieve at the most recent meeting of the 33 countries, including Nauru, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia and all who met as part of that nine-year process. I think there is a need to clean up some domestic laws. Hopefully, if we can codify this agreement as a road map forward, it can flow on the back of that agreement by the parliament. Our request to the executive is to focus on this document.
Likewise, rather than the slogan of 'Stopping the boats'—and I understand it and certainly acknowledge that it is an aspirational goal for all of us—I hope that, regionally, we can think about reframing this process and working on lifting the boats. We need to lift whatever the 43 countries involved in this agreement need, in a cooperative manner, to reach a humanitarian status that allows us to work on law enforcement and border security together. We need to do what we can with both genuine refugees and the not-so-genuine movement of people throughout the region, both in transit and at the source. It is through regional cooperation and regional agreement that we are going to deal with this issue, not through domestic politics and division and disagreement for partisan gain.
As I said before, I urge all members of this House to have a good read of those general principles from the most recent meeting on the Bali process and to reflect on their positions. Hopefully, as part of stopping the boats we can also stop the games that have been going on in this political debate. Those amendments will be moved shortly and I would hope to get as much support in this House as possible.
The only other point I would like to make, which I hope all of us reflect on, is that words and language matter. It is incredibly disappointing to listen to the debate and hear the way we make many parts of this very complex issue faceless in the way the law is written and language is used. Language is important in both our public and our private lives. It can shape the way we think about people and problems. All of us should think about the word 'processing', for example, when talking about asylum seekers and those genuinely seeking refugee status. This word, in my view, dehumanises these people. They are not products on a factory line. They are people who are seeking to have their claims for refugee status assessed by our country. I ask the House and the Australian community to think about replacing the word 'processing' with the word 'assessing' or some other more respectful word for what actually is going on in what is a complex area of public policy. I know it is a small step but it is an important one, in my view, in bringing some humanity back to this difficult issue.
As well, I hope we reflect on some other language in migration law. Terms such as 'offshore entry persons' completely dehumanise what is going on, remove the faces and allow us all to be emotionless about this very complex issue. With that in mind, I know the Commonwealth Ombudsman is on a plain English campaign. I will be writing to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to ask him to think about choosing the Migration Act as a starting point for that plain English campaign. Hopefully, he will take up that offer and we can start to put some respect and values back into the way we write law and the way we deal with all people in and around Australia.
I look forward to the support of the House in the regional framework. It has at various times in the last nine years had the very strong support of both political parties. It will be an interesting test of whether we are seeking good public policy or just some partisan politics. I hope it is supported for the long-term interests of better public policy. The regional solution, in my view, is the real solution. I urge the House to consider the amendments.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (16:10): I rise to support the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill. Ours is a great country. It is a welcoming country, a warm-hearted country, but most significantly it is a country that has been built upon mass immigration. We are very fortunate to have one of the most successful and cohesive multicultural societies that the world has ever witnessed.
There is a number of important elements that have underpinned that very successful and cohesive multicultural society. I believe there are three elements that have underpinned the success of our society as a multicultural nation. Firstly, we are a generous people, but the control of people movements into our country has always been considered an important question of national sovereignty. Secondly, the power to do this, to exercise this control, has always been considered to be the prerogative of the government—the executive government. Thirdly, the exercise of such control has always been one of the most essential and the key ingredients of the very vibrant, non-discriminatory multicultural policy that we have. These not only are elements that are underpinning that which we as Australians hold dear but also are Labor values. That is why Gough Whitlam would, on the one hand, resist Vietnamese boat arrivals but, on the other, dismantle Australia's White Australia policy. That is why Bob Hawke embraced thousands of Chinese students post Tiananmen Square but resisted boat arrivals from Cambodia. That is why the Keating government could champion multiculturalism like no other government before it but, at the same time, introduce mandatory detention.
The question of control has been an important and an ongoing part of our immigration program. It is important because we believe that sovereignty is a key issue and that the very success of our multiculturalism relies upon us maintaining that control. When I look at the bill that is before the House I see that is very much consistent with these principles. Most significantly, it is about restoring the notion that control in these matters is within the hands of executive government. It should be the prerogative of executive government to determine the policies that are put in place in order to achieve that control and to maintain an orderly migration program. We all know that the High Court has taken a decision that overturned the position as we previously understood it. The opportunity now rests with this parliament to amend the law and to restore the position to that which was previously understood.
Much has been said in this debate from a number of members in their contributions about approaches that have been put in place in the past. There has been considerable attention to the efforts to manage the flow of people throughout the post-Vietnam War period. The flow of Indochinese people throughout our region and, indeed, in many cases to our shores was often held up as a great example of how these matters should be resolved. I think in some of this discussion people often misread or misrepresent what actually did occur back then. It is worth noting that at that time there were a number of boat arrivals to Australia. At that time people were accepted, processed and determined to be refugees. In total there were about 2,000 who came directly to Australia's shores by boat.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! Would honourable members on my left, if they are going to converse, do so quietly. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer has the call.
Mr BRADBURY: An important part in dealing with that challenge was that countries like Australia were involved in international efforts to resettle people who were displaced as a result of the Vietnam War and the regime that was installed as part of that war. If we have a look back into history, we see that at that time the Comprehensive Plan of Action was entered into and under that program Australia welcomed 16,800 refugees over a period of years. They were refugees that were accepted through an offshore program. They were not people who arrived by boat. They were people that this country, as part of meeting its international obligations and pulling its weight internationally, determined should be given an opportunity to start a life in Australia. I think that was an appropriate policy. It was appropriate because the Australian executive government was able to take the necessary steps in order to enact that program. That is the question that is up for debate in this bill: whether or not executive government should continue to have the ability to take decisions to control people movements into our country.
Significantly, in the context of the Vietnamese boat arrivals debate people often overlook the fact that thousands of Vietnamese people died on the high seas in the course of trying to make their way to countries like Australia. Estimates vary greatly but Elizabeth Becker in her book When the War Was Over cited UNHCR figures to suggest that some 250,000 Vietnamese people died on the high seas trying to flee their country and come to countries like ours.
The challenges that we face on the high seas and at our borders today are very different. In some respects it is easier for people to make it to the shore. It is easier for people to make it to Australia. There have been various technological developments that make it easier for people to sail even leaky boats and to get closer to Australia Even if they do not make the mainland because of our increased capacity to patrol our waters, there is a greater chance for people to make it by boat to Australia. In part that has led to an increase in the numbers of people that have been seeking to make it to Australia by boat.
I mentioned the Indochinese example of the 70s and 80s because I think the Malaysian arrangement that has been brought forward and put in place with the agreement of the Australian government and the Malaysian government is very similar in many respects. The fact that we are prepared to embrace and welcome an extra 1,000 refugees into our country each year but in doing so insist upon the ability to exercise some control over the flow of people in our region, indicates to me that this proposal is very much in keeping with the history and tradition of the way in which this country and the Labor Party have been able to manage people flows in the past.
The Malaysian arrangement has a number of key elements that protect the human rights of those that will be relocated to Malaysia to be processed there. I think it is important to acknowledge that. I know the debate that has occurred in this place around this bill has centred largely on whether or not there are sufficient protections put in place to protect the humanitarian interests of those that might be sent back to Malaysia. I also want to introduce into this debate the humanitarian interests of those that might be waiting in refugee camps in Malaysia already or those that might be waiting in refugee camps in other parts of the world.
I want to introduce into the debate the story of a Sudanese person in my electorate who has consistently approached me about the difficulties that they have been having to have a family member resettled from a refugee camp in Egypt—a person who has already been determined to be a refugee but has not yet been resettled. This has gone on for several years. I want also, on a more positive note, to reflect upon a Bhutanese refugee who, as a result of the decision of this government just a few years ago to increase our intake of refugees from Bhutan and from camps in Nepal, came to Australia. That person resides in Western Sydney as part of a growing Bhutanese community in the Greater Western Sydney region and has recently represented Australia as a soccer player. Importantly, in the latter case, I make the point that they arrived in Australia because Australia, through the exercise of control over its migration programs, has ensured that they have been given that opportunity. I think that these elements are important to preserve as part of the approach that we bring.
The principal criticism that has been raised about the arrangement with Malaysia is that it is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention. I will make a few observations on this point. Those making these criticisms were all too happy to send asylum seekers to Nauru when it had not been a signatory to the convention. They were all too happy to turn boats around on the high seas and not only risk the lives of Australian defence personnel and border protection personnel but also risk the lives of those asylum seekers—by turning them around and taking them back to Indonesia which, like Malaysia, is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention.
They are the same people who have suggested a range of other alternatives, which include sending some people back to Pakistan to process them. Pakistan is not a signatory to the UN convention. I make the point that being a signatory to the UN convention is not in itself a guarantee of human rights' protection. If we look at the list of countries that are signatories to the UN convention, we see ones that do not always have the best record on human rights. They are countries like Afghanistan, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen, Zimbabwe, Iran and Somalia. But what is even more instructive is the list of countries—in particular, those in our region—that are not signatories to the refugee convention. It includes Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and India. Many of these countries are source countries or transit countries for people flows in our region.
I think it is odd in the extreme to take the view that we would not be prepared to undertake offshore processing in those countries that are at the very heart of people movement challenges in our region. I understand the opposition has a policy on Nauru. I think the arguments have been very strongly made about the cost of Nauru and that people realise people smugglers are telling prospective customers of theirs, 'If you go to Nauru it will only be a short time before you end up in a country like Australia.' For these reasons I do not think Nauru will work in the way that some suggest.
Regardless of whether you support Nauru or support offshore processing in any other part of our region, to tell the executive government that they do not have the capacity to enter into an arrangement and process asylum seekers offshore in countries that are not signatories to the UN convention is to handcuff the executive government—not just the executive government of today but the executive government of the future. It means the government is not able to enter into reasonable or meaningful agreements with key nations within our region. You cannot have a regional solution if you take the position that only those that are signatories to the UN convention can be a part of it.
An important part of arrangements like the Malaysian arrangement is that it gives agencies like the UNHCR an opportunity to lift the standards available to those who are in camps like the Malaysian ones. A statement made on 25 July 2011 by the UNHCR on our Malaysian arrangement, says:
UNHCR hopes that the Arrangement will in time deliver protection dividends in both countries and the broader region. It also welcomes the fact that an additional 4000 refugees from Malaysia will obtain a durable solution through resettlement to Australia. The potential to work towards safe and humane options for people other than to use dangerous sea journeys are also positive features of this Arrangement. In addition, the Malaysian Government is in discussions with UNHCR on the registration of refugees and asylum-seekers under the planned Government programme announced in June on the registration of all migrant workers.
This is an opportunity to work with countries that are shouldering a very large part of the burden of people movements in our region. It is an opportunity for us to regain control of people movements in our region and into our country but to do it in a humane way and in a way that ensures we increase our refugee intake and deliver a strong program and a fairer opportunity for people to come to and contribute in Australia. (Time expired)
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (16:25): I am pleased to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. This is an important piece of legislation for a number of reasons. The government's proposed changes to the Migration Act fail to provide the protections previously provided under the coalition's legislation and fail to properly quarantine ministerial discretion from being open to judicial interpretation. More importantly, rather than seek to uphold the protections that have been a feature of the Migration Act for over a decade now, this amendment bill gives people smugglers back their business model.
Under my colleague, then minister, and member for Berowra, the coalition established section 198A of the Migration Act to enable offshore entry persons to be processed in another country. Under that section the minister could make this declaration provided it had some essential safeguards in place. Those safeguards were very important. They were: access to effective procedures for assessing a person's need for protection; protection for persons pending determination of their refugee status; and protection to persons given refugee status while they awaited return to their own country or were resettled in another country. I hear the hypocrisy of those who speak on the other side about a humane way of doing things. It also made sure the standard of human rights was protected.
The government's response to the High Court decision has been to abolish these protections in this bill, to allow the minister to make a determination without any such protection. To support this bill in its current form the coalition would need to walk away from a decade of policy that has supported such protections contained in the act. We will not do that. Unlike this government, our policy has always been consistent and transparent. Our policy was proven to work and our policy had the experience.
This amendment highlights yet again a government failure. It flips, it flops, and it shows its inconsistency all over the place. More deeply, it goes to the heart of everything that is wrong with this government. It is not consistent, it does not have the courage of its conviction, in this area of migration policy it flops and changes its policy every second week and, deeper than that, it cannot be trusted to manage the borders of this country.
How do we know this? We know this policy does not work. It has not worked so far. We have had 241 boats turn up with over 12,000 people. So who do the Australian people trust to manage these borders? This government has had a consistent failure on record of boat arrivals. The government has embraced policy failure after policy failure and the government is now, again, coming to us, the opposition, and asking for a blank cheque for another policy that will be a failure. It wants to implement its already failed Malaysian proposal, which has led to 1,000 people turning up since it was announced. That is more than half the 800-person quota since the agreement was signed. We had a bizarre situation in parliament yesterday when the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship said to the shadow minister, the member for Cook, 'Well, if you don't think it's going to work why don't you vote for it anyway?' Have you heard of anything more absurd, more illogical and more stupid?
This government might be used to voting for very bad policy, but the coalition are not, and we are not going to vote for bad policy.
The only reason they want the bill in this form is so that they can implement the Malaysia solution. We have given them an amendment that will allow them to choose to open up the processing centre on Manus Island or on Nauru. They can choose from over 148—
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper): Order! It being 4.30 pm I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Repatriation of Pemulwuy's Skull
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:30): I am delighted to have the opportunity tonight to speak on the adjournment about a very important historical matter for Australia's Indigenous people but also for the Australian population in general. This is the unfortunate situation, of the skull of Pemulwuy being in the British Natural History Museum in London.
Many members of the House might be unaware of the historical significance of the Aboriginal figure Pemulwuy. Pemulwuy was born in 1750 and he was executed in 1802 by the government of the colony of New South Wales. He was one of the very few early figures in Australian history who actually fought the British when the British first came to Australia. He was of the Eora tribe, and he was quite determined at that time that, rather than simply acquiesce to the colonisation of Sydney, he would make a stand on behalf of his people. He fought pitched battles against the British and he was extraordinarily successful. He invested the Governor's residence at Parramatta and invested it successfully. He broke the law, of course, that had been created in the time by the British Empire, and he paid the price, eventually being captured and decapitated. He is a very important figure in Australian history because he is an example of an Indigenous Australian standing up and fighting the British.
I am a part of the people who colonised Australia. My family came to South Australia in the 1850s, and Australia is the great country it is today largely because of the last 200-plus years of colonial history. We have moved on from those debates about invasion, Mabo and native title. I do not wish to debate those matters tonight. What I wish to say tonight is that it would be a very gracious act on the part of the British government to instruct the British Natural History Museum to return Pemulwuy's skull to where it belongs, Australia. There are few examples left where the remains of Indigenous Australians are outside Australia. One of them is the example of Pemulwuy.
I am pleased to say that Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, when he was in Australia in 2010 at Redfern promised that he would help facilitate the return of Pemulwuy's skull to Australia. I will be writing to Prince William, inviting him to work with the team of Australians who are working to bring that skull back to where it belongs, in Australia.
Eric Willmot, who was the former Director-General of Education in South Australia and the ACT, wrote the book in 1987 Pemulwuy. He had heard the story from drovers and Aboriginal people when he was a rodeo rider and decided to write it. He wrote a very good book about Pemulwuy, and in doing so he put on the map a story that otherwise might not have been told. Eric Willmot still campaigns to bring Pemulwuy's skull home to Australia, and he has been joined by Alexander Hartman, who might be well known to many people in this place because he was one of the very first people appointed to the board of headspace. I appointed him to the board of headspace when I started headspace—the youth mental health initiative—in the Howard government.
Alex Hartman is leading a team of people in London from Australia who are trying to bring back the remains of Pemulwuy. I know that Prince William will work with Mr Hartman and Mr Willmot to ensure these remains are returned to Australia, where they belong. I think it would be an act that would be very much welcomed by Aboriginal people. I also note that Michael Mundine was one of the very first people that Prince William made this pledge to, and I know that Mr Hartman has been meeting this week with representatives of the British Natural History Museum. He has been assisted ably by our high commission in London, and I wish him the very best of luck with this quest.
Liberal-National Party Coalition
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (16:35): I thank the House. Tonight I want to speak about the performance of the opposition throughout this current sitting week. I would like to talk about the performance of the opposition over the last year or more, but, of course, in this short debate I do not have the time. In any case, the antics of the opposition throughout last year and the antics of the opposition throughout this week have been very similar.
Filibustering has been practised in this place for many years—indeed, decades; in fact, it goes back to Federation and the very origins of this parliament—but this week, it has to be said, the opposition have taken filibustering to dizzying heights. We would not mind that so much if they seemed to have a coherent strategy. Of course, this week we have seen no coherent strategy from the opposition whatsoever. They want to debate the carbon bills but they do not want to debate the carbon bills. They want to debate the clean energy bills but they do not want to debate the clean energy bills. In fact, it got so bizarre last night that they spent 90 minutes talking to each other, having a debate amongst themselves on that side, to argue against a motion from the Leader of the House to extend the debate on the carbon bills.
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim that the government is rushing through the carbon bills without giving them due consultation and consideration and argue for longer speaking opportunities, and then come in here and have a 90-minute argument with themselves to negate what was a very reasonable proposition from the Leader of the House. In fact, the proposition from the Leader of the House was designed to give every member in this place, including the member for Wentworth, an opportunity to speak on the clean energy legislation, one of the most important economic reforms we have seen in a decade. But what do they do? They take the wrecking ball out again and simply say no, no, no.
I am glad the member for Cook is in the chamber, because yesterday he was saying: 'They have to bring the migration amendment bills on for debate and for a vote. They must bring them on for debate tomorrow, because this is so important to the Australian nation.' When we announced that we were bringing them on for debate, he suddenly changed his tune. 'They are driven by guilt,' he told ABC radio, I think it was. Throughout the course of the day we saw the panic and mayhem that has been so obvious in the ranks of the coalition since the government decided to offer that debate up to the parliament throughout the course of today and beyond as necessary.
The Australian people are starting to see through this. The tactics are becoming fairly obvious. When people like the member for Berowra and the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition, start attacking the Labor Party from the left on the question of migration policy, people start wondering what is going on out there. When they see members of this place who sit on that side talking to themselves for 90 minutes to negate a motion to give members greater opportunity to speak on the clean energy bills, they start to work out that something funny is going on. When they see the Leader of the Opposition almost on a daily basis change his position on these issues, the Australian public start to work out something funny is going on.
In this new paradigm, we are all learning, we are all doing things differently and we are trying to accommodate all the processes which we now face. It would be very wise and, I think, more productive for the Leader of the Opposition to cooperate just a little—forget about the no, no, no, forget about the filibustering and forget about the constant shift in policy position on a daily basis, which is undoubtedly either driven by polling or driven by his political instinct.
This side of the House stands ready to complete the debate on the clean energy bills, to pass the clean energy bills, to have a debate on the migration amendments, to pass the legislation on the migration amendment and to get this parliament running and functioning in an orderly manner. Mr Abbott, forget about the no, no, no.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:40): In parliament this week a new and important campaign was launched to challenge Australian governments to address housing affordability. Australians for Affordable Housing is a coalition of national housing, welfare and community sector organisations. They say housing affordability is the single biggest cost-of-living issue facing Australians.
I know that in my electorate of Melbourne people are under enormous housing stress. Rent hikes, a shortage of housing, mortgage stress and a market that locks out first home buyers all contribute to the problem. Housing costs are both the biggest item in household budgets and the fastest increasing cost, rising by 55 per cent over the last six years and causing enormous housing stress. In the last 10 years house prices have risen by 147 per cent while incomes have risen by only 57 per cent. In the last five years rents have risen at twice the rate of inflation. From the 1960s to the 1990s median home prices in Australia were between three and four times the average annual income. Since then they have gone through the roof to between seven and eight times average incomes.
The high cost of housing puts enormous pressure on other areas of essential spending, such as food, health care, transport, education and health. According to the housing coalition, households across the country are paying more than they can afford for housing, with over 740,000 renters and more than 380,000 mortgaged homeowners reporting significant financial stress.
The housing market is also locking out young people from buying homes, with home ownership amongst 25- to 44-year-olds declining by 15 per cent in the last 20 years. It is also particularly bad for students in my electorate who struggle to live close to their university or TAFE. During the election campaign, I met someone living in an unremarkable three-bedroom brick house in Collingwood, paying $190 a week in rent—the rent for the whole house was $540 a week. The $190 he was paying is more than his youth allowance. Many others are in the same boat.
This week I asked my followers on Twitter and Facebook what their experience of housing stress in Melbourne was like. I got an avalanche of responses, and here are some of them:
On a higher-end public servants wage, no way I could afford to buy in electorate Melb. A lifetime of rent ahead?
Long term stability at the bottom of the market is absolutely lacking. I've lived in three houses since I first moved here in 09.
Would like to see some kind of rent control implemented. Non-house owners need some security.
I used to live in Melb LGA. Had to move out as student due to affordability issues. Very frustrating.
Housing affordability also has an impact on the wider economy. As Australians for Affordable Housing correctly point out, existing housing is a non-productive investment. In other words, that investment does not directly generate wealth or add to production once it has been constructed. So high prices mean that Australians are spending a large proportion of their income on a non-productive asset that would otherwise be spent on wealth-generating investment.
The most extreme manifestation of the failure of the housing market is the number of Australians who do not have a place to sleep—over 100,000 on any given night. Homelessness is a difficult problem with a complex set of causes, but we will never come to a solution to homelessness without affordable housing. It is time we had a national plan to return fairness and equity to the housing market. There are a number of elements that need to be part of that plan. We need to look at everything, from the tax system to greater investment in social housing.
In my electorate of Melbourne, at the moment the rule seems to be: if there is an old warehouse or spare space, knock it down and build expensive apartments. This includes sections of public housing land that is tagged for private development. This is a twofold loss to the community: a loss of public land and a lost opportunity for more affordable housing. Councils must be better able to place requirements for social and affordable housing as part of development projects. Social housing targets should be part of structure plans and strategic statements. It also means greater investment on the part of state and federal government in public and social housing.
It is time we had an economy that puts people first. It is time that we addressed the enormous housing stress that people are experiencing. It is time for our governments to fix Australia's broken housing system. In the coming months I am looking forward to working with members of Australians for Affordable Housing and my Greens colleagues to address this burning issue. Now is the time for action and a concerted effort to make a difference to people's access to housing.
Parliamentary Budget Office
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (16:44): I am prompted to speak this afternoon as a result of the earlier contribution by the Chief Government Whip, reflecting on what has occurred this week and more specifically on what has not occurred. We saw earlier this week an exhaustive amount of time expended by the opposition through the debate on the establishment of the Parliamentary Budget Office. People will recall that the Parliamentary Budget Office was triggered by two things. The first thing was the incredible situation we had where the coalition turned its back on the legacy of former Treasurer Peter Costello in establishing the Charter of Budget Honesty, requiring of parties to demonstrate that the election promises they put forward are costed properly but, more importantly, can be delivered once in government. Instead, we had the experience of the opposition going to some lower tier accounting firm in the back of WA in an effort to try to dress up costings that simply could not tally with what they were dishonestly putting to the Australian people.
The next thing was that Treasury clearly saw, after the election outcome when the costings were put for both parties' policies, that there was a massive shortfall in the opposition's costings—an $11 billion black hole. A commitment was made for a parliamentary budget office as a result of negotiations between the parties to ensure that there was integrity of election costings and that the public could be sure those costings were thorough and robust and that the promises made could be delivered. The Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office inspected that commitment and came up with an idea of how to put the Parliamentary Budget Office forward. The coalition members on that committee agreed on the need to have this office and then, at some point, the shadow Treasurer turned to the shadow finance minister and said, 'Do you know what this means?' It was then the penny dropped that, in any future discussion about what costings are put forward in an election context, the opposition would need to be able to verify what they were promising and to back it up. They did not want to have the sunlight shine on their election promises.
What happened? We had the work of this chamber delayed as we saw filibustering over 12 separate amendments to the Parliamentary Budget Office legislation put forward by the other side in a desperate effort to stop and to stymie the office proceeding, yet it was clear to the Independents in particular that that was simply an unacceptable outcome. Secondly, every single amendment, when it was clear that they were not going to get them up, the opposition still put up for a vote.
Why do I reflect on this? Because, frankly, the government has, as has been demonstrated by the Leader of the House, in a minority government where people were predicting we would be unable to get a legislative agenda through, been able to deliver 190 different pieces of legislation. We have demonstrated that this parliament can work. Not satisfied with their inability to frustrate that agenda, the opposition have now sought to embrace a new tactic, which is to waste the time of the chamber, frustrate the program and stop us from being able to get legislation through. We saw, as the Chief Government Whip said, prevarication, flip-flopping between whether or not we would discuss the clean energy bills. As I said before, we had the issue of the Parliamentary Budget Office and the delay and chewing up of time in relation to that. Now we have a situation where, in the interests of their grubby attempt to fundraise, we are unable to proceed with other votes because they want to get out of the House, again demonstrating that if they cannot run the country they will wreck the parliament and that if we cannot govern in the national interest we have to put their interests first. It is simply a disgraceful arrangement that reflects poorly on them, but it is something we have expected from these guys time and time again.
Mr Morrison: Mr Speaker, I ask the member to withdraw his imputation.
The SPEAKER: To suit the convenience of the House and to assist me, I ask the member to withdraw whichever imputation it was.
Mr HUSIC: I withdraw unreservedly.
The SPEAKER: I thank the member.
Small Business
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (16:50): I rise today out of concern for the economic commercial health and wealth of small business in the electorate of Flynn and also the rest of Australia. It is true that the two-speed economy in some industries is doing extremely well, but it is also true that a lot of small to medium businesses who are the life and breath of regional communities are facing severe financial difficulties. After talking to several of my colleagues around Australia, it is not isolated to Queensland but, sadly, is the case in all states and territories.
Why is this? It is, in part, a problem caused by the government itself. Constantly I have businesspeople in my office complaining about too much red tape, too many government charges, too many government regulations, unfair and debilitating taxes, public servants who have no idea whatsoever of how a commercial operation runs and too many government departments who will not allocate government contracts to local businesses. The list goes on and on. I take the recent BER scheme. Local builders were told they could not work because they were not certified by the government. How ridiculous is this? In one instance, the Wowan State School in my electorate wanted to engage a local builder for almost half the cost of the government's preferred builder, but even though this local builder was a registered builder under the BSA he was passed over for a national builder who used drive-in drive-out workers. This story has been repeated throughout Australia. Another example of how the government and authorities can get it completely wrong is the case of a sawmill in Eidsvold in my electorate. The Eidsvold sawmill produced electric light poles and it was a growing business. It wanted to process another four truckloads of poles per week, meaning that it would increase its workforce by another five workers, from 19 to 23. The government stepped in and demanded that the company upgrade a perfectly good road in front of the property at a cost of $237,000—not the company's road but a council road. Then the electricity company demanded that the power to the site be upgraded. The original cost of the power upgrade was acceptable to the company, but, as negotiations went on, the company was asked to contribute a further 40 per cent above the cost of providing such services. It was prepared to pay 18 per cent above cost, but 40 per cent was out of its range and blew it out of the market. The sawmill could not afford these unreasonable costs, so it shut down and now the poles are being produced at another sawmill 200 kilometres away. This move put 19 workers, 17 of them Indigenous workers, on the unemployment roll.
Eidsvold has a population of 600 people. According to the latest figures 58 per cent of the population are in full-time employment. The unemployment rate was already 9.6 per cent, so now, because of this uncaring, immovable policy of the government, unemployment has gone up by another 19 people, presumably lifting the unemployment to level to above 12 per cent.
Stories like these are well known all over Australia. The transport industry and regulations ruling that industry need to be brought together throughout the states, and the state transport ministers should unify the rules so that truck drivers and the trucking industry can work no matter what they state they are in. The cost of registration for a B-double cattle truck is approximately $26,000, and a truck can sit idle for six months because of poor road conditions and wet weather. This is a pretty poor reflection on the government.
Parliamentary Budget Office
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (16:55): Earlier in this debate, my friend and colleague the member for Chifley made reference to the behaviour of those opposite during the debate on the Parliamentary Budget Office. I would like to explore this theme a little further. This was an important piece of legislation. It means that for the first time we will have an independent body which is well resourced and has access to the data and the expertise to independently cost promises made by members and parties in the lead-up to an election. We can understand why those opposite spent so much time filibustering and trying to frustrate the passage of this legislation. When this legislation finds its way into law there will be no excuse for those opposite to try to slide into an election campaign, like they did with the 2010 election campaign, without having their promises properly costed. We all know the story of their $11 billion black hole, and that was embarrassing enough for those opposite, but we now know that their fear is that if this parliamentary budget office gets up and running, is well resourced and has the capacity to do its job, their great fraud—the $70 billion black hole that exists within their budget costings—will be verified and available for all to see. That is what they fear the most.
During question time and after question time, we are entertained and admonished by the member for Sturt, who regularly admonishes us for doing what he calls slagging and bagging of those opposite. I believe he may have been in the chamber during some of the debate the other day when we saw one of the most outrageous attacks on a distinguished public servant that I have ever heard in my life. The former head of Treasury, Ken Henry, a public servant of high standing who has served under both sides of politics, was terribly defamed and attacked by the member for Mackellar during that debate, and not one word of defence was heard from those on the other side of the House. It really was a shameful display. But that was not the last we heard of that sort of behaviour, because yesterday they raised a matter of public importance on economic issues. I thought that it was going to be an important opportunity for us to join in a serious policy debate around the important economic issues facing this country. But after 40 minutes we had not heard one positive contribution towards economic policy from those opposite. Indeed we saw a platform for the member for North Sydney to launch into a litany of potty jokes—ridiculous jokes that would embarrass any year 7 kid in the playground. He went on to continue a theme that is all too prevalent from those opposite by taking the micky and making fun of foreigners. We know that they have some concern with Malaysia and the affairs in that country, but the behaviour we saw from those opposite—particularly from the member for North Sydney—during the MPI debate was nothing short of disgraceful.
Members might recall that, when the member for North Sydney was referring to the Treasurer's award for international finance minister of the year, it was too difficult for them to do the decent, dignified, graceful thing and pass a simple 'congratulations' across the chamber. Instead they decided that they were going to have a shot not only at the Treasurer but also at everyone else who had ever received the award. I pay tribute to Crikey, who have done some investigative journalism on this. He was making fun of previous recipients—a Slovakian, a Serbian, a Nigerian, a Bulgarian and a Pakistani. We later found out that the Pakistani minister, who later became the Prime Minister of that country—Shaukat Aziz—went on to become a significant figure in the IMF and was credited for bringing their shambolic public finances into order. We also heard them make fun of the Nigerian recipient. That was Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who went on to become the Director of the World Bank. We know that they do not like foreigners, but they have no regard for public order and proper behaviour in this place.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 17:00
NOTICES
The following notice was given:
Ms JULIE BISHOP: to move:
That this House:
(1) condemns the:
(a) Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel; and
(b) targeting of Max Brenner chocolate cafes as part of this campaign;
(2) rejects this tactic as counterproductive to the promotion of the rights of Palestinians;
(3) reiterates Australia's support for the two-state solution and the right of the Israeli and Palestinian people to live peacefully within internationally recognised borders; and
(4) urges the leaders of the Israeli and Palestinian people to resume direct negotiations.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 09:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Parliamentary Seniors Advocacy Group
Mr IRONS (Swan) (09:30): I rise to inform the House of a new parliamentary seniors advocacy group that I have established with the member for Shortland, the Parliamentary Friends of Seniors and Ageing. The member for Shortland and I decided to form the group as a response to Australia's ageing population and the challenges that this has brought to the nation. We both sit on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing and it became clear to us through this work that a parliamentary friends group was needed to explore in detail the multitude and complexity of issues to do with seniors. I am pleased to say that PFSA is a bipartisan group. I hope that all members and senators will get involved in proceedings over this parliamentary term and beyond. We have now been recognised by the Speaker as an official parliamentary group. I thank the Speaker for that recognition and for his support for the organisation.
On Tuesday we scheduled our first meeting and I am pleased to say that we were honoured to have the Council on the Ageing attend. COTA spoke about important issues, such as housing security for seniors and its response to the Productivity Commission report. The meeting was a success. I thank the members who attended. It was a great way to kick off proceedings for our parliamentary group.
One of the areas that I am particularly keen to take action on and explore with the PFSA is the aged crisis in Australia. There is a shortage of beds. The government funding model and demographic pressures caused by the ageing population put pressure on the industry, which is teetering on the brink. I have taken a particular interest in this issue in my electorate of Swan, which has many aged-care facilities, such as SwanCare in Bentley Park and Southcare in Manning. I held an aged-care industry forum that was extremely well attended by executives from across the local area, as well as a seniors forum with the member for Mackellar at Bentley Park that sought the views of seniors on this issue.
The message that I took away from these forums is that seniors worry about aged care and want to know that their future is secure. At the same time, the industry is struggling. The issue of bonds is a controversial one, but it is an issue that desperately needs to be looked into. I know from speaking with stakeholders in my area that bonds are a real issue and have been since about 1998, when the Howard government first mooted them for high care. I see now what is happening to some of the high-care facilities in my electorate. Funding by banks has been withdrawn. So they have to reclassify themselves as low-care centres so that they can get bonds so that they can survive and keep the wood in the door. This is an issue that will be faced by many governments and it is something that we need to look at carefully and take action on.
The Productivity Commission report into the restructuring of the aged-care industry was released by the government on 8 August. As yet, the government has not responded to that report. There are 58 recommendations, too many to discuss in the time that I have left. In conclusion, I hope that the House will welcome the establishment of the Parliamentary Friends of Seniors and Ageing.
Active After-School Communities Program: Illawarra Primary School
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services) (09:33): I want to talk about a recent visit of mine to an active after school program. The Illawarra Primary School has an active after school program at the Kingborough Sports Centre in my electorate. The Kingborough Sports Centre have built a new gymnasium with $1 million of federal government funding, some state government funding and some local government funding. It is a fantastic facility down there and I had the pleasure of officially opening it.
On this occasion, I was down there with the active after schools group. Over the last several years of being a federal MP, I have had many parents, teachers and students write to me about what a wonderful program the Active After-school Communities program is and how much the children enjoy it. I have been very privileged to attend quite a few of these in my electorate, from playing basketball at St John's at Richmond to playing football with the students at Bellerive. I have also had the opportunity to do some dance and DJ'ing with the students from South Arm Primary School. But on this occasion we were playing some games in the new gymnasium down at Kingborough with the Illawarra children. Approximately 5,500 primary school students in Tasmania participate in this program, so it is very popular in Tasmania, with around 90 schools and outside school hours care programs participating in this wonderful program. I was really pleased that Minister Arbib committed $43.9 million to continue this program as part of the recent federal budget. I know that that decision has been very well received in my electorate. Certainly the Illawarra Primary School children have been participating in the program since 2007. Some of the things that the Illawarra children have done just this year include cheerleading, skateboarding, archery, Zumba and soccer.
I also had the pleasure of meeting one of their local coaches, Les Richardson. Les has been doing 40 soccer sessions for Illawarra Primary School over the last 12 months and he was recently presented with a five-star Community Coach award, so I want to congratulate Les on that award. It was really pleasant to be with him to see him work and to see the pride he is instilling in his young pupils while teaching them soccer skills in the gymnasium. Certainly his enthusiasm for the children and for the program is second to none. We all know that it is coaches like Les and other people working on a program such as this, people who give their time and effort, who make these government programs such a success.
I also want to talk about the Active After-School Communities office in Tasmania being run by Blair, Aaron and Kerry, who do a fantastic job in organising local sports. They have a very large range of opportunities for the students to participate in. As you have heard, from all the sports I have talked about, it is a great program; it is very well run in Tasmania and the Tasmanian students just love it.
Tangney Electorate: Independent Living Centre
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (09:36): Canning Vale Primary School's Education Support Centre's new Independent Living Centre made a great impression on me. Led by principal Dianne Harper, the centre is embracing gen Y technologies such as interactive whiteboards and iPads to transform the lives of children with profound disabilities. With specially designed applications, or apps, students with otherwise limited communication abilities are now interacting freely with their teachers, families and friends.
There was much ballyhoo a number of months ago when Malcolm Turnbull began to use his iPad during question time in parliament. Similarly, Labor's Tony Burke was also much aligned when he dared to read from his tablet at the dispatch box.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! The honourable member should refer to colleagues by their titles and not by their names pursuant to standing order 64.
Dr JENSEN: To see how the iPad is opening doors for these children was quite simply amazing. As we know, children can be fickle characters when someone might not be quite like them. The specialist support teacher spoke to me of the way new technologies are facilitating social inclusion. The site of an iPad and its proficient operator is enough for children to disregard any barriers that may have once been built by disability. One app allows students to press an icon for their name, home, family, food and drink, to hear a prerecorded sentence which clearly conveys their need or want at the time.
Another fascinating application uses a friendly purple cat to improve speech patterns. The cat asks questions such as: what is your name; where do you live? They are simple questions for you and me but ones that can be hard for some students to answer clearly. The children reply to the cat by speaking into their iPad; their sentence is recorded and played back to them. A thumb's up or a shake of the head lets the child know how clearly they are speaking. The tools used by these young students can also be utilised by those in their teens and older to give freedom of independence. The quick press of a button on their iPhone or iPod using these same apps can clearly express to passers-by the need for assistance at any time.
We take for granted our ability to clearly communicate with others the simplest things each and every day. I take my hat off to these children and their teachers for embracing technology that is giving freedom and independence. I congratulate principal Diane Harper and staff for their dedication to their students and look forward to assisting in the school in the future.
Chifley Electorate: Australian Bureau of Statistics
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (09:39): I rise to speak on behalf of a constituent who has been treated unfairly and unreasonably by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Chifley constituent Peter Horwood was engaged by the ABS in April this year on a six-month casual contract. He was appointed as an area supervisor, with his principal aim being to assist with the local conduct of the 2011 census. While he initially received positive feedback from the ABS for his work, about halfway through his engagement period with the ABS management summarily terminated Mr Horwood's six-month casual contract. Mr Horwood visited me last month, understandably distressed about his treatment. I am loath to raise this matter in this forum. However, I have been staggered by the way the ABS has dealt with this matter both in the decisions taken against my constituent and in their failure to adequately deal with the issue when it was raised with them.
From what I could gather, relations between Mr Horwood and local ABS management soured in July, specifically over two areas. Firstly, the ABS claimed that Mr Horwood did not undertake a training session in the way that was expected. Secondly, the ABS claimed it was not satisfied with the quality of communication between itself and Mr Horwood. Time limits prevent me from going into detail about these matters, but after reviewing the documentation—and sometimes the lack of it—I pretty quickly came to the conclusion that the ABS had dressed up a decision and was now stonewalling and refusing to admit error. For example, on the first matter I raised, I could appreciate that on the face of it the ABS objections to the quality of training conducted by Mr Horwood were serious. But imagine my surprise when I learned that the ABS had present at the training session conducted at Mr Horwood's home a senior manager who at no point took any step to correct those perceived training errors that the ABS believed were so grievous that they warranted the termination of my constituent's contract, impacting negatively on his livelihood. It is these types of examples that concern me about the way in which the ABS had conducted itself.
I wrote to the ABS indicating that I believed the process of terminating the contract was deficient and the outcome excessive; that the claims that termination was warranted due to a failure to observe process, while there was evidence the ABS did likewise, were surprising; and that the claim that there were problems with the quality of communication between Mr Horwood and the ABS seemed serious but further examination of the claim would not hold that this was a reasonable allegation—it certainly was not durable enough to base a decision to prematurely terminate a contract. The ABS was, quite surprisingly, evasive and initially avoided engaging meaningfully with me on this matter. I finally had a senior New South Wales ABS manager agree to discuss the matter in detail, but it was clear that he was being given instruction on how to manage this issue. This was evident from their letter back to me on 30 August, merely stating that they would talk to me about this issue and would not reinstate my constituent; they refused to address in writing any of the claims and points I had raised.
Overall, I believe the ABS has deliberately structured these contracts in such a way as to sidestep its obligations. I would expect more from a government agency, but I believe this deliberately reflects an aggressive HR approach, and I intend to follow this up with the Assistant Treasurer.
Middle East
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (09:42): From my earliest days in this House I have been a passionate supporter of the state of Israel and an advocate for a real and lasting peace in the Middle East. That peace, of course, must be built on the principle of a negotiated two-state solution that delivers peace and security. These are the principles for any genuine resolution to the Middle East conflict, and those principles are now under threat by the unilateral Palestinian bid for statehood in the United Nations.
The central theme of the Middle East conflict has been the consistent Arab refusal to accept the natural Jewish right to national self-determination in the ancestral homeland of the Jews. There is no moral equivalency to be found here. In 1937, in 1947, in 1967 and a decade ago, the Palestinian Arabs rejected diplomatic proposals that would have granted them political independence. Why? Essentially because those proposals required territorial compromise and the acceptance of Jewish statehood. Time after time, unfortunately, too many Palestinian Arabs have shown that they despise Jewish political self-determination more than they love their own national independence. That has proved to be a tragic recipe for 90 years of tears, blood and destruction. Speaking at the UN overnight President Barack Obama expressed America's opposition to the unilateral bid for Palestinian statehood. He said:
Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations. If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now.
He is right. Unfortunately, there has been no similar moral clarity from our government on this vital diplomatic issue. When asked about Australia's voting intentions in the UN the foreign minister has hedged and hemmed. The government's stance on the question has unfortunately been a profile in political vacillation and cowardice. We would do well to recall that the ruling jihadist Hamas regime in Gaza is dedicated not only to Israel's destruction but to the murder of Jews across the planet. With such genocidal fanaticism, peace is impossible. Israel will not and cannot agree to the creation of borders to placate the moral cowardice of a world grown tired of the conflict—and nor should it. As Greg Sheridan wrote in today's Australian:
Absent real peace, the 1967 borders put Palestinian rockets within a few short kilometres of Tel Aviv airport. The security dangers are immense, and obvious. All the demands are made of Israel and none, in effect, of the Palestinians.
The key to a durable Middle East peace is good-faith negotiations between the parties. Australia should vote no on this dangerous, ill-advised unilateral Palestinian initiative.
Harcourt, Ms Christine
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Social Inclusion and Minister for Human Services) (09:46): I rise today to pay tribute to Christine Harcourt, a constituent of mine who recently passed away, and to acknowledge her long-term contribution to the Sydney community. Christine was a member of the Surry Hills branch of the Labor Party for over 36 years and served as its president, its vice-president and its secretary at different times. But the contribution of those 36 years of party activism is not measured by the positions Christine held, although she held them with distinction. Her influence was never exerted by control or coercion but by the example she set of thoughtful debate, good humour and respect for others.
Christine took these qualities with her to local government, where she served as a South Sydney councillor for 13 years, including six as deputy mayor. Always the champion of the less powerful, Chris defended staff, ensured pensioner rebates were enhanced, expanded access to affordable services and pushed for subsidised accommodation for community groups. Chris was the representative of those who depended most on these services, and she took on that responsibility with passion and with dedication. One example, which will be remembered well beyond inner-Sydney, is her work on sex industry policy. As a widely published researcher for the Sydney Sexual Health Centre, Chris brought her intellect and professional expertise to an area of public health policy often relegated to the margins by local government. The groundbreaking sex industry policy which Chris spearheaded through council received the Royal Australian Planning Institute's annual award for urban planning achievement and became a model nationally and internationally. Former South Sydney mayor Tony Pooley shared this memory of Chris's advocacy with me:
I remember a particularly boisterous local government conference. Chris was explaining the value of regulating sex-on-premises venues rather than pretending they did not exist or demanding that they only be approved on the fringes of the Sturt stony desert. You can imagine the heckling and catcalls from some of the more conservative councillors as Chris delivered a considered, researched, eminently sensible defence of the scheme. It frustrated one particularly obnoxious councillor so much that he demanded to know why such a proposal, which might work well in the depraved areas of South Sydney, was even being contemplated for the moral and God-fearing residents of the Upper North Shore. Chris paused and explained, quite simply, that surely the Christian generosity of his local residents would also extend to ensuring the health and wellbeing of all such sinners even if, as he suggested, none existed in his own ward. It brought the house down.
Memories of Chris like this reinforce the remarkable mix of qualities which earned her the respect of her staff and colleagues on council and her local community of Surry Hills. She was a powerful advocate but never belligerent, a fierce intellect but never condescending and a loyal friend and party member but never afraid to challenge orthodoxies. Chris will be sorely missed by the many people whose lives she touched and improved, and local Sydney history is richer for her place in it. Our thoughts are with Max, Isobel, Ellie and Jenny and her Labor Party friends and family.
Victorian Floods
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (09:49): I rise today to speak on a very important matter, a matter that will affect people's lives into the future. If we do not address it properly that will show that we have not learnt the lessons from what happened a year ago. I refer to our preparedness to deal with potential flooding. Nearly a year ago was the start of a particular wet period in the state of Victoria which led to two sets of serious flooding, the impacts of which are still disrupting people's lives and making it extremely difficult for them. The government was very quick to put a levy in place to deal with the extra costs around damage to infrastructure and such caused by the floods. But what I want to know is this: what has been put in place to make sure that in the future we have proper warning of flooding events? What has the federal government done almost one year on to improve flood warning and monitoring? Is the Bureau of Meteorology adequately resourced to put the equipment in place to provide timely and meaningful warnings to local communities?
In my electorate, the Glenelg-Hopkins CMA—and it is a large CMA—has one official flood warning and monitoring station on the Glenelg River. Given that we had severe flooding along Mount Emu Creek and the Hopkins River, what steps have been taken to put proper flood warning and monitoring stations in place on that river and that creek? Are they automated? Is it possible for people to call in those gauges and read them? Is it possible, as it should be, for people to sit at their computers and look at what is happening with the water levels in those rivers?
It is nearly a year on. The government was quick to put a levy in place. I hope that they have been just as quick to put the technology in place to help communities in my electorate and across Australia deal with subsequent flooding events. I hope that they have the ability to warn communities so that communities therefore have the ability to prepare for future floods.
Isaacs Electorate: Mordialloc College Discovery Centre
Isaacs Electorate: Mobile Electoral Offices
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (09:52): I rise to speak about the recent opening of the discovery centre at Mordialloc College and the recent mobile offices that I have conducted in my electorate. Last Friday, I joined the Mordialloc College community to celebrate the official opening of the $2 million discovery centre, which was funded under the federal government's Building the Education Revolution program. The discovery centre was funded through the science and learning centre component of the BER program.
The centre's four wings are appropriately named to commemorate four notable Australian scientists: Elizabeth Blackburn, Fred Hollows, Howard Florey and Alan Walsh. The new science centre will provide over 800 students at Mordialloc College with a dedicated science facility that will transform the teaching of science at the college. The centre will deliver a high-quality open learning environment that is conducive to a more flexible approach to teaching.
The BER projects have delivered terrific benefits to our community, as I have previously outlined to the House. The diligence of the principals of the schools that have received funding from the BER program has been of a high level. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with all of the principals and the staff of the schools throughout my electorate over the past two years, from the initial notifications of funding through to the openings of their facilities. I want to congratulate Michelle Roberts, the principal of the college, and Lorraine Harris, the former principal, who was at Mordialloc College from 1991 to 2010, for all the hard work that they have put in on this project. They worked very closely with the builders and the project managers to ensure the successful completion of the project.
In addition to the funding provided for the discovery centre, the federal government has also provided Mordialloc College with $200,000 for refurbishment works and 150 computers through the Computers in Schools program.
In the past couple of weeks I have conducted my regular mobile offices in Mentone, Mordialloc, Chelsea, Aspendale Gardens, Parkdale, Chelsea Heights and Cheltenham. Mobile offices provide a great opportunity to meet with constituents who are otherwise unable to meet with me during the week due to work or family commitments. It was great to see some familiar faces and to talk about current federal issues, including the carbon price, the national disability insurance scheme and various local matters that are affecting residents of Isaacs. Despite all the hysterical antics of the opposition in recent times regarding the carbon price—exemplified by the wild misrepresentations of the member for Indi on her trips to my electorate and, more recently, to the Leichhardt office of the member for Grayndler—people were generally interested in getting the facts on how the carbon price will impact on them and why it is so important to take action on climate change now, and in particular the increases in pensions and the tax cuts that the carbon price regime is going to bring. People were interested to know more about the federal government's household assistance, the assistance that is going to be provided to families and pensioners, and of course the investments that the federal government will be making in renewable energy.
Local Government
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (09:55): Currently in the parliament we have a unique group of leaders from Queensland. I say 'unique' because I am not aware of any other group of local representatives from anywhere else in Australia lobbying the federal government and members on both sides of this House as effectively as this group. I speak of none other than the Council of Mayors, South-East Queensland. In no particular order, they are: Peter Taylor, the Toowoomba Regional Council mayor; Bob Abbot from the North Coast; John Brent from the Scenic Rim; Graham Quirk from Brisbane, who chairs the group; Daphne McDonald, the deputy Gold Coast mayor, sitting in for Ron Clarke; Melva Hobson from Redland; Graham Moon, the deputy mayor of Lockyer Valley, sitting in for Steve Jones; Graeme Lehmann from Somerset Shire; Victor Attwood, the deputy mayor of Ipswich, sitting in for Paul Pisasale; and Russell Lutton, the deputy mayor of Logan, who was sitting in for the human dynamo Pam Parker, who has joined the group this morning.
The group's executive is no stranger to this place and is diligently led by former federal senator for the Democrats, John Cherry. The seat of Wright encompasses four of these areas, taking in all of the Lockyer Valley, all of the Scenic Rim, the western parts of Logan and parts of the Gold Coast hinterland and surrounding areas. I say to each of the mayors with whom I have regular contact: thank you for your dedication and commitment to your shires and cities, and for your regular audiences offering advice on funding priorities for your areas, along with your ongoing advocacy for the regions. May I say to each of you: your enthusiasm is infectious.
I am proud to say that each of my mayors is extremely motivated and parochial about their respective precincts, which they represent so passionately. I find them a refreshing source of local knowledge, with a comprehensive understanding of the priorities in each of their respective communities. However, this group also operates in a somewhat unusual way whereby they govern by regional consensus, at times supporting projects outside their areas for the betterment of the greater South-East Queensland. The council of mayors focuses on national, state, regional and local infrastructure priorities. At a national level, the council of mayors infrastructure advocacy program includes formal representation to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, key federal ministers and shadow ministers, all of the Queensland senators and South-East Queensland based federal members, as well as Infrastructure Australia.
The council of mayors has prioritised seven of its infrastructure priorities throughout South-East Queensland, aptly naming them the 'magnificent seven'. These projects range from fixing the Warrego Highway and extending the Eastern Busway right down to delivering on the Toowoomba Range crossing. The Toowoomba bypass, which this side of the House has committed $750 million to, is still waiting to be funded. I commend the council of mayors in representing the people of South-East Queensland and wish them every success for the advocacy work that they do in South-East Queensland. (Time expired)
Sport
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (09:59): Last Friday night I attended the Northern New South Wales Football presentations, which recognise the achievements of those who have been involved in the competition in that area. Northern New South Wales Football comprises 244 affiliated member clubs, 8,200 grassroots volunteers, 3,830 teams, 53,000 registered players, approximately 40,000 males and 10,000 females, and approximately 40,000 juniors and 1,000 adults. The NBN Premier League competition and grand finals winners were Broadmeadow Magic, who defeated Cardiff South 4-3 on penalties after the score was two-all at the end of normal time and four-all after extra time. The NewFM first division premiers and grand final winners were Charlestown City Blues. The Herald Women's League saw Broadmeadow Magic finish as premiers, but the grand finals winners were Valentine Phoenix, who were runners-up in 2010.
In 2012, the NBN competition will be expanded to include the Newcastle Jets' youth league team as well as the newly promoted Charlestown City Blues. The northern New South Wales federation has formed an alliance with the Newcastle Jets. They will work together on school visits to recognise small-side football teams, volunteers and volunteer days. The relationship with the Newcastle Jets is aimed at promoting football in northern New South Wales. The Jets will administer the youth league and the women's league. That will provide further opportunities for football in the area.
Northern New South Wales Football is Australia's third largest football federation, with over 53,000 registered players. It is a full member of the Australian Football Federation and recognised by local, state and federal government agencies. It was formed in 1884. Northern New South Wales has a proud history of representation at national level. Since its inception, football across northern New South Wales has grown in strength. In 2009, New South Wales Football celebrated 125 years of football. To date it has produced 98 Socceroos and 27 Matildas. In the northern New South Wales jurisdiction there are 40 local government areas and it comprises seven zones. I congratulate Northern New South Wales Football League on its enormous contribution. I thank the chairman of the New South Wales northern federation for providing me with information on the services that the federation gives to the local community.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
COMMITTEES
National Broadband Network Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (10:02): This is the first report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, which is charged to produce a report every six months. Earlier in the year, the committee sought the agreement of the government to ensure that a report on the progress of the NBN build by NBN Co. was given to the committee in sufficient time to enable it to produce its report. No such report was given to the committee by the government or the NBN Co. in time to be considered for this, the first report. Nonetheless, the report was completed in accordance with the statutory requirements setting up the committee.
The government was asked when it would provide its first report to the committee. On 7 July, the two responsible ministers, Senator Conroy and Senator Wong, gave a commitment to the committee chair, Mr Oakeshott, that a report on the progress of the build and the rollout would be provided to the committee by mid-September. Mr Oakeshott responded with thanks and convened a meeting for 20 September to enable consideration of the report. The hearing was duly held on 20 September but no report was provided. We were told by Mr Quigley, the Chief Executive Officer of NBN Co. that a report of some kind had been given by NBN Co. to the government in August but the government had declined to provide it to the committee, and no assurances as to a particular date for providing that report to the joint committee have been given.
The government is treating this committee with complete and utter contempt. The NBN Co. is, for all practical purposes, unaccountable. The government chose to establish this massive, new government telecommunications monopoly, the largest infrastructure project in our nation's history, without doing any cost-benefit analysis, without ever asking the question: is this the cheapest, the fastest or the most efficient way of delivering fast broadband to all Australians? This scheme was apparently—and it has never been denied—concocted on the back of a napkin between Mr Rudd, the then Prime Minister, and Senator Conroy on a flight between Sydney and Brisbane. No proper analysis has been done, and the coalition's attempts to have this project considered by the Public Works Committee in the normal way were frustrated by the government and their partners, the Greens and the Independents.
The only mechanism for parliamentary accountability for this vast project is the joint committee, yet we have nothing beyond a few generalities from the NBN Co. There is no report and no detail. This is a venture that belongs to the Australian people entirely but the government is treating the representatives of the Australian people with contempt. The ministers gave an undertaking—their words, not mine—to produce a report for the committee by mid-September and then failed to do so. How can the committee do its work if the NBN Co. is not able to tell us what is going on and if we are not able to get access to any reliable information on their activities? These and other concerns of this kind have been raised by the coalition in this report. The report is, on any view, an inadequate document. It has to be an inadequate document because we have not been given the material to enable us to do a report. We are being held in contempt by the government and the NBN Co.
One of the remarkable features of the government's arrogance in respect of this matter—and, I may say, the NBN Co.'s equal arrogance—is a refusal to recognise that the approach they are taking is utterly unique in the world. There is no other country in the world where a government is spending so much money on broadband services and no other country in the world where a government is building a new telecommunications monopoly. And this is the feature of this project that is absolutely staggering: there is no other country in the world where a government is using legislative and financial power to eliminate competition with the fibre-to-the home network it is building. The hybrid fibre coax network, which passes 30 per cent of Australian households, is, by reason of agreements between the NBN Co, Telstra and Optus, to be decommissioned so that it cannot be used to deliver broadband services. The only justification for doing so—as we note in this report—is the financial position of the NBN Co. At page 68, in the coalition dissenting report, we note:
... Treasurer Wayne Swan and Communications Minister Conroy have explicitly conceded that—
the agreement to put the HFC network out of operation—
... was designed to boost NBN Co‘s revenue and take up:
"The Optus agreement to migrate its HFC customers to the NBN and to decommission its HFC network will provide greater certainty about NBN Company's revenue."
That is what it is all about. We need to be aware in this place that there is a very big debate going on around the world in telecommunications about the wisdom of fibre-to-the-home rollouts and around the world telcos are starting to rethink the need for fibre to the home and are questioning whether there is in fact the justification for doing so when there are cheaper and faster methods of delivering broadband upgrades, whether through fibre to the node—bringing the fibre further into the field so that the copper loop is sufficiently short to enable very-high-speed bandwidth to be delivered—by upgrading HFC networks or indeed by the use of 4G wireless networks, which are being rolled out now and which offer the promise of very-high-speed bandwidth.
I refer now to a very recently published report by one of the leading technology consulting firms in the world, Analysys Mason. They pose the question:
Is FTTH really the end game?
Even proponents of a steady, incremental approach to fixed-line access evolution tend to offer the caveat that 'FTTH is still the endgame', often on no firmer ground than it is obviously faster, therefore better, and therefore it is where networks will end up at some time in the future.
They go on to say, 'This deserves to be questioned.' They note that:
Willingness to pay extra for more speed or capacity appears to have dwindled to more or less nil. In a competitive market this means that additional access infrastructure capex has to be justified more often as defensive spend, and ROI increasingly depends on net ARPU—
that is, average revenue per user—
above what it would dwindle to rather than incremental ARPU. Investing in a zero-sum-game market is less attractive than investing in one with real growth.
What they are saying here is that increasingly the justification for doing fibre to the home is to defend yourself, if you are a telco, against competition from other methods of broadband access. The problem with that is that the fastest competition in terms of deployment is LTE wireless and they note that speeds are being marketed of up to 100 megabits per second. That puts wireless in a position, recognising its limitations—and we all understand that it is a shared medium—in a very competitive position. The proposition in favour of fixed line services of fibre to the home is that there is an insatiable demand for speed but around the world telcos, as this report notes, are not seeing that. They note here that:
Two years after launching high-speed access, UK cableco Virgin Media reported that only 3% of its broadband subscribers took a 50Mbit/s service.
And the universal experience seems to be that customers will not pay a material premium for very high speeds. When you look at the penetration of, say, 100-megabits-per-second services in this region, in Japan and Korea in particular, almost invariably the 100-megabit-per-second product is being taken up because it is either the entry-level product or because it is priced at effectively the same price as the entry-level lower speed. Where you do have tiered pricing—and this is true in Korea in particular—where you have, say, a 50-megabit-per-second service and a 100-megabit-per-second service which is $4 or $5 a month more expensive, the 100-megabit-per-second service is able to achieve only about a 15 per cent market share. Of course, what that is telling us is that the applications that make these very high speeds useful or desirable are not there. You can, of course, take the approach of saying we should just build out the capacity in the hope that in 20 years time the applications will arrive, but that is obviously a reckless approach to spending public money and also one that pays no attention to the time value of money.
So in this report Analysys Mason say:
The disproportionate spend on FTTH … is highly problematic, and may come to be seen as inappropriate use of capital in the emerging competitive environment.
They say:
There is no clear demand for very high fixed-line bandwidth if a premium has to be paid. This is in part because there is a lack of near-term innovation in services and devices that are uniquely suitable for fibre access (especially compared with the innovation in the mobile market).
Consumers are more willing to focus their telecoms budgets on mobile devices and services. These can often be highly dependent on fixed networks (Wi-Fi is often used in preference to cellular), but they never require high speeds or high capacity by current fixed standards.
I will conclude with another observation from this report:
The recent emergence in some markets of LTE mobile broadband will serve to encourage fixed operators to press ahead quickly.
The need to press ahead quickly, of course, speaks to the need to deploy fibre to the node, which can be rolled out very quickly compared to fibre to the home because there is so much less civil works involved. This is why HFC upgrades such as DOCSIS 3.0 cost, say, $70 per household passed, a tiny fraction of the cost of rolling out fibre to the home—and it can be done quickly. Analysys Mason go on to say:
LTE mobile broadband could function as an effective substitute to ADSL2+, and fixed operators need to differentiate. However, LTE will take less time to roll out than FTTH and therefore fixed operators need to act fast.
So here we are in Australia, courtesy of this government, proceeding down the road to this huge fibre-to-the-home rollout, whereas in the rest of the world it is increasingly under question. It just underlines the need for a rigorous cost-benefit analysis and appropriate respect and accountability to this committee.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (10:18): I find it very interesting—and I believe the member for Chifley would agree with me—that the member for Wentworth claims the committee is being treated with contempt when he has nothing but contempt for this project. Nothing in the comments that he just made would indicate anything else. In fact, the sun would not be coming up—it would not be a proper day—if we did not have the member for Wentworth bagging it. So it is good to see that we are on business as usual. He talks about the committee not being provided with enough information, he thinks, to give a proper report—as if, irrespective of any other information, he would need another reason not to support this project. His complete obsession with micromanagement of a project which, when they were in government, they could not even deliver after 12 years and twenty-something goes is beyond the pale.
I will address in passing some of the other comments by the member for Wentworth. I want to address a few, because I have heard them about 20 times already this month. There is a reason why this project is unique and why Australia is continuing down this path. And I do not need any other endorsement—although endorsements have come from far and wide from analysts around the world—than that of the ITU, the UN's telecommunications section, who came out a few months ago and said, 'There is a reason why Australia needs this project and there is a reason why this project needs to be structured in a unique way.' That is because of Australia's topography and its markets, because of our legacy in having the CAN and a vertically integrated operator for so long and because of the failure to deliver equitable access to high-speed broadband services to date. That endorsement was given by the ITU secretary-general himself. In fact, in comments he made when he came to Australia he said that he foresees that, in the next couple of years, Australia will make it up the rankings, gradually, from being one of the least effective countries in terms of broadband penetration to being the leader in the world, and the only way he thinks this can be done is by having the project that we have in place. So I take that endorsement on board.
The member for Wentworth talked about monopoly structures and behaviours again, as if we have not heard that before. The fact is that this is the most pro-competition option possible. By separating the access network from the services layer, we are able to disinfect the effects of vertical integration that have permeated the system to date and have led to a situation where we have not had competition either in infrastructure or in services based competition and where we have not had equality of access for regional and remote areas in particular—and, as the member for Chifley and I well know, in outer metropolitan areas of Sydney. So this is the only way in which we are going to be able to deliver that access.
I also take issue with the member for Wentworth continually bringing up the debate on fibre versus wireless. The debate is over. It has been done. I bet, if he kept reading from that Analysys report, it would conclude by saying, 'Fibre and wireless based services in a high-speed broadband world are complementary.' They are complementary, not substitutes for one another. He also talked about fibre-to-the-node versus fibre-to-the-home analysis. Firstly, none of this is new. In my former life before this place, when I was working in the mid-2000s in Malaysia, developing their high-speed broadband, we canvassed all these issues. This is absolutely nothing new. But what is important and what we actually concluded in our analysis for the Malaysian regulator, in rolling out the system—and, I know, as has also been analysed by other countries in our region who have done their rollouts, like Singapore and South Korea—is that you need to structure the most appropriate system of broadband access for the country in question. There is no question that the solution that is adopted in Singapore, South Korea, Japan and elsewhere, given their scale and topography, is going to be different from that in Australia.
I was startled to find that the member for Wentworth has finally come to the realisation that spectrum is a shared resource and has technological limitations. Fibre is in fact the only technology-neutral platform that is available, because once we have the infrastructure in place (a) nothing is faster than the speed of light and (b) whatever you would like to do using that infrastructure, be it through wireless or other solutions—and that is why we have mobile operators welcoming the NBN; they will be able to fibre up their base stations even better, thanks to the NBN—we have the ability to put the electronics on either end and do whatever we like with that bandwidth.
There are all these arguments. It would not be a normal day without the member for Wentworth, firstly, bagging the NBN and, secondly, being behind on the technology.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Ms ROWLAND: As the member for Chifley reminds me, Mr Turnbull ran a very good dial-up company, so of course he knows more than the rest of us!
I support the recommendations in the joint committee's report—I think the member for Wentworth touched on the actual report for about two minutes—and I want to single out a couple before I turn to the dissenting report. One of those recommendations is that 'government agencies take measures to ensure they are ready for the rollout' of the NBN and to ensure appropriate government service delivery. This is a really important point, and for me it goes to something local as well. I have a new estate, The Ponds, in my electorate, which, because of the foresight in putting the fibre mandate on the ledger sometime ago, has been developed with relatively good fibre rollout, unlike other areas such as Kellyville Ridge, and Woodcroft in the member for Chifley's electorate. In the last census, apparently The Ponds was one of the highest users of the e-census option in Australia. It demonstrates the power and importance of governments being able to tap into the lives of everyday citizens and make jobs easy. It is not just about online payment; it is about the whole interaction that we have with government. How many people would have been at home when the census collector came around? I know they came around twice to my place and, of course, I was not home either time. We completed it online. I think this is a very important point and a very strong recommendation that needs to be taken on board.
Secondly, I note the recommendation regarding the resources taken to complete the binding agreements and increase the POIs from 14 to 121. This is really important because it demonstrates the rigour of the ACCC, as the regulator. How many times in this debate have we heard people say it is going to be anticompetitive because the ACCC has no teeth? This POI decision demonstrates the very forward looking and commercial understanding that the ACCC has applied to this. That is a very important recommendation.
There is a recommendation that NBN Co. publish time frames for regional and remote areas, which is very important. I note this was raised in the regional consultations that have been made to date. I will touch on one alluded to by the member for Wentworth. There is a recommendation that the minister publish a detailed statement outlining the productivity, jobs and competitive benefits of the rollout of the NBN. I do not think that will take minister very long to do at all because—and it is important to put this in context—we have a debate going on in parallel where the opposition wants to bring back some of the worst elements of Work Choices, including individual contracts, on the basis that they get told by people in their electorates that we need to increase productivity.
Google has done a very detailed study into the value of the internet to the Australian economy and says that already the digital economy, of which the NBN will be one of the key drivers if not the key driver at least in infrastructure, contributes $50 billion to our economy or 3.6 per cent of GDP. If you want to talk about increases in GDP in this country and productivity improvements, you do not do that by stripping away workers' entitlements. You do it smart by investing in ICT because we know that this is where the highest productivity improvements and the most long-term benefits come from.
I also take issue with some of the comments that the member for Wentworth made and some of the items that the opposition have put in their dissenting report. On page 60, the opposition maintains its position that a national fibre to the home network is incapable of being financially viable or delivering affordable services. This is their running argument with the implementation study. It is like the Japanese soldier lost in the jungle after the war—they are still running around criticising the implementation study when it has been and gone. On page 60 the member for Wentworth, as the author of this dissenting report, says:
… price is the biggest barrier to internet uptake in Australia.
I do like how he continually refers to broadband as 'the internet' rather than anything else. Recently at an industry forum, one eminent industry leader commented to me that it is amazing how the member for Wentworth still thinks the NBN is just about 'the internet'.
As the ACCC's infrastructure report has consistently displayed, the issue is not just income. The issue is the lack of facilities-based competition to date and that has been the core of the access block. Without competition at the facilities level, combined with the legacy of Telstra's vertical integration as the owner of the CAN, service based competition has been severely impeded in this country. Do not take it from me. You only need to look at the ACCC's decision to maintain the declaration of the Domestic Transmission Capacity Service and its rationale in maintaining the declaration, so maintaining regulation of the DTCS. Facilities based competition remains at the remit of regulatory oversight for a very good reason—intercapital city infrastructure, as one example, is at the heart of competition to deliver affordable and competitive services. We have the old cost-benefit chestnut, which was discussed by the member for Wentworth, which is noted on page 61 and onwards. I find the cost-benefit argument that the member for Wentworth keeps coming back to really interesting, particularly because I did not pick him as a conspiracy theorist. On 7 September at the ACCAN conference in Sydney the member for Wentworth said, amongst other things, that there were no applications forthcoming that could take advantage of the huge bandwidth being made available. I will have something to say about that in a minute. He then went on to talk about the NBN being 'a conspiracy.' It was reported that the member for Wentworth said:
Let me tell you who the conspirators are. They are the vendors, who want to sell lots of kit for the NBN. They'll tell you privately they think it's bonkers, but they want to sell the kit. There are the over-the-top people like Google and Yahoo and media companies.
There is so much more that I could say on that point but I will just report back on the cost-benefit analysis that has already been done. I have brought this to the attention of the member for Wentworth on several occasions but he obviously chooses not to read them. The Access Economics papers prepared for the department, which are publicly available and very recent, estimate:
… the steady state benefits to Australia from wide-scale implementation of telehealth—
using high-speed broadband that only the NBN can deliver—
may be in the vicinity of $2 billion and $4 billion per annum.
That is every single year. This thing pays for itself.
The member for Cowper would be interested in this. Another teleworking paper that Access Economics has done talks about the importance of infrastructure savings, saying:
… these flow from both teleworkers not using road transport during peak periods, reducing the need for road maintenance and upgrades … and from population decentralisation as teleworkers can live outside of major city centres. As the expenditure on road infrastructure in Australia in 2007-08—
in 2007-08 alone—
by governments totalled about $13.2 billion … this gain is potentially large.
Time and again, we hear the member for Wentworth coming in here and saying, 'We don't know why we need the NBN; we haven't had a cost-benefit analysis done on it.' It is the same old story.
I would like to bring something else into context in the last minute that I have, and that is a social inclusiveness. I know that during the last couple of months a lot of us have been going around our electorates talking to disability carers and people with disabilities. We have only to look at the 2007 OECD publication about the digital inclusion perspective, which analysed particularly how high-speed broadband networks of the type that the NBN is, to see that they have the potential to markedly improve the lives and life chances of all people with disabilities. That is yet another reason why I have been such a vocal advocate for the NBN. I note that the potential for social inclusiveness for people with disabilities can never be measured solely by economic analysis. I know that, as the National Broadband Network continues to be rolled out, we will continue to see those benefits flow through to Australian citizens. I commend the report to the House.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (10:33): I welcome the opportunity to debate and note this report. The purpose of the report is to provide advice to parliament on the largest infrastructure project in the nation's history. This committee has the responsibility of providing reporting in a timely manner. This committee has the responsibility to keep the parliament and the Australian people properly informed of the status of the project. The committee has the responsibility to highlight deficiencies identified in the rollout of the project. Regrettably, this report rambles on, page after page, and says absolutely nothing. It gives the reader no insight into the progress of the project. It is a document that does nothing other than repeat and bring together material already in the public domain. This is a project that is behind time and over budget and that is not achieving the take-up rates projected in its own business plan. It is a significant failing that in the first report the committee has not addressed the issues of time, cost and take-up rates—the very foundation stones of the success or failure of the National Broadband Network project. The report does not even inform the parliament of the expenditure to date on the project and where those funds have been spent. At the earliest meetings of the committee certain key performance indicators were requested. It is now 22 September and NBN Co. and the government have failed to deliver on their undertaking to provide KPIs to the committee's meeting of 20 September.
I quote the words from the report:
At the committee's 16 May 2011 public hearing, NBN Co stated that it was reviewing 'a number of KPIs with the NBN Co Board.'
I quote from the report again:
Later at the committee's 5 July 2011 public hearing, the NBN Co indicated that it had been working closely with the Government to develop KPIs. The NBN Co stated that once this process was complete, that the Government would consult with the committee …
It is now 22 September and we are still to receive the promised information. That is timely, responsive reporting of the ilk that Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud of. It is the largest infrastructure project in history, and the government and NBN Co. can spend six months deciding what the KPIs might be. It is little wonder that this is a project running behind time. It is reasonable to assume that the reason the key performance indicators have not been provided is that this is a project that is failing.
On 1 April this year we had the construction tender process collapse and be abandoned. Tenders were massively over budget. We had 14 tenderers, all notable industry players, who came up with a set of numbers vastly different from the project budget. And what can we conclude here? Was there collusion between the 14 tenderers? There was no ACCC investigation and apparently no evidence of that. Was the budget inadequate? The government claims the budget is totally adequate, but I am yet to be convinced We have a tender process which was abandoned and a government claiming that the project is still within budget, yet we have not a word on this in this waffling report.
And then along comes Silcar and everything is fixed; magically, a deal is done within budget. I thought Christmas only came once a year, but there we had a tender process collapsing and, miraculously, out of the blue on the white horse came Silcar. We have a joint venture between Siemens and Thiess which can allegedly deliver the project within budget. I say 'allegedly' because we just do not know and there is nothing in this report that makes us any more confident. We do not know anything about this contract that has been let to Silcar. In the true spirit of the NBN, there is a veil of secrecy and concealment. We do not know the risks that NBN Co. have taken on to achieve this somewhat miraculous change in the value of the construction tender. We do not know who is taking the risk in changes in the cost of labour. We do not know who is taking the risks on the increases in the cost of materials and equipment. We do not know who is taking the risk with regard to extension of time, industrial disputes, bad weather or site conditions. We just do not know, and this report is silent on this very important issue.
Wouldn't you think that, if you have the largest infrastructure project in this nation's history and you have a major collapse in the construction tender process, it would warrant a few lines of consideration? Wouldn't you think that a committee that has the responsibility of reporting on the status to the parliament would at least raise it and deliberate on that? But no: the report is silent on that issue. The fact is the headline price arrived at with Silcar may be nothing more than a carefully contrived illusion designed to get an incompetent government out of a mess of its own making. The reality is the real cost of this contract may be far greater when all of the risks are finally monetised—a very important point. And did the report properly consider this important issue? Alas, as I said, it did not. Let me look at take-up rates—a vitally important issue and a key foundation stone for the revenue projections in the business plan. It is interesting to note that it would be reasonable to expect that a project with the qualities espoused by the government—the NBN that the country cannot be without—and with all the publicity there would be a stampede to get connected, that people would be knocking Senator Conroy over in the rush to get connected to the NBN. When the Apple iPhone was released, people queued in the snow to buy one. They were so keen to get this new technology, they queued in the snow to buy one. Yet Senator Conroy is struggling to find a queue of people who want get connected to the NBN. He cannot even find a queue.
Mr Bruce Scott: It's a white elephant.
Mr HARTSUYKER: Yes. When Armidale was connected, the first mainland site to be connected, it is interesting to note that there were fewer customers for the NBN than there were passengers on the Prime Minister's jet that flew to the launch. We all remember the magnificent seven—seven customers for the mainland launch of this new technology. Wouldn't you think that the current take-up levels—the slow rates in Tasmania and in the mainland sites—would be sounding alarm bells to the government and NBN Co. management?
In giving evidence to the committee on 5 July, our good friend Mr Quigley was able to inform us that 14,256 premises had been passed by NBN Co. to 30 June 2011—not 14,257, not 14,255 but exactly 14,256 premises passed; not connected but passed. This compares to the 13,000 projected to be passed under the corporate plan by that date. It is pleasing to note that there is something in this project that has been reported as being ahead of expectations. In response to those 14,256 properties passed, my colleague the member for Bradfield, asked Mr Quigley, 'How many retail customers does the NBN have?' The answer was that he did not know. He knew 14,256 houses had passed by 30 June, but he did not know how many customers he had.
Ms Rowland: Because they are wholesalers.
Mr HARTSUYKER: You have had your turn. It is a major factor that you need retail customers to buy from wholesalers.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Sidebottom ): Order! Member for Cowper, I have not had my turn. You must speak through the chair not to each other across the chamber. I represent the parliament here.
Mr HARTSUYKER: The member for Greenway had her turn and I invite you to stop her interjecting, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just speak through the chair, thank you.
Mr HARTSUYKER: We have a CEO of the largest infrastructure project in the country who does not how many customers he has. I must say that is the level of competence you come to expect from this government and the NBN Co. I guess he had what you could term a 'Costa Rica moment'. You know Costa Rica—that small Central American country with 4.6 million people and the $40 billion of GDP that he forgot he was responsible for in his time at Alcatel. He had a Costa Rica moment. I anticipated that he could have such a Costa Rica moment, so prior to the committee I got my adviser to ring NBN and ask a very probing question. So he rang and asked, 'Could you tell me how many customers you have?' The answer came back, 'I don't know.' So not to be put off by this minor setback, he then said, 'Could you put me on to someone who can tell me how many customers you have?' The person at the other end of the phone not only did not know how many customers they had but also had no idea who in NBN Co. head office was responsible for knowing how many customers they had. So the CEO and NBN Co. head office do not know how many customers they have. That is the management control. We have no advice in this report.
Member for Chifley, do you not think that the report should have made some comment on how many customers the NBN has, given the significance—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, don't ask the member for Chifley. He will respond to you. Don't ask him. Speak through the chair.
Mr HARTSUYKER: I said 'Member for Chifley'.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have invited him and he will report, and I don't want him to, thank you.
Mr Husic: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you're not.
Mr HARTSUYKER: I am sure he is not, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just continue.
Mr HARTSUYKER: The report did not even countenance the fact that the take-up rate was abysmal; that the CEO did not know how many customers he had and that it displayed a lack of competence which is almost incomprehensible. It is of great concern. We have a report that remains mute on the very issues of concern about which this parliament should be informed. We have a report that is about as relevant to this parliament as a travelogue of Sardinia. Really, Mr Deputy Speaker: if it is an item of importance, it is not referred to in the report; if it is an item of gratuitous waffle, it is there on page after page.
It serves little purpose to repeat the information and documentation that is available in the public domain. That is not the role of the committee. The role of this committee is to report in a timely way on those matters that are of importance to the parliament—and the matters that are of importance are the timing of the project, the cost of the project, the impact of the take-up rates on the revenue projections of the project—so that the parliament and the people of Australia can know how this project is progressing. We do not want hundreds of pages of gratuitous waffle.
This is a report that fails every test in relation to providing meaningful information on the largest infrastructure project in this country's history. We have the government and the CEO of NBN Co. attempting to deceive the Australian people with regard to the status of this project. We have a report that assists them in that deception and concealment. This report fails the test sadly. The parliament deserves timely and relevant information. Despite the best efforts of the coalition members in producing the minority report, this report in fact falls far short of what is required for a project of this size.
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (10:47): I appreciate the opportunity to follow the member for Cowper in speaking to this report. It is no surprise at all that the opposition members would get up and criticise this report. It is no surprise at all that the opposition would put in a dissenting report. I think the member for Greenway put it very succinctly today when she followed the member for Wentworth: the fact is that the opposition are fundamentally opposed to this policy reform.
It is unfortunate that a committee of this nature, with the important role that it has before it, could not operate in a bipartisan way. But the reality is that you have members on this committee whose sole intention it is to ensure this reform does not go ahead; to spend all of their time questioning witnesses as to whether there is not another course that we can follow—that is, going outside the terms of reference, not looking at whether NBN Co. and the government are fulfilling the commitment the government made to the Australian people, which the Australian people fully embraced, but instead trying to say, 'That's not what we need.' We heard it from the member for Wentworth today. I did not catch all of his speech, but I am not surprised that the few seconds I caught talked about fibre to the node once again.
The fact is that we are not as a committee investigating whether there are other options to fibre to the premise. Our responsibility as a committee is to look at what the government committed to deliver in announcing the rollout of the NBN and the establishment of NBN Co. and make sure that we are fulfilling the commitment we made to the Australian people. In fact, according to the resolution of appointment, the committee's responsibility is to report every six months to this parliament, commencing 31 August 2011, until the NBN is complete and operational. The resolution also says:
… the Committee—
shall—
provide progress reports to both Houses of Parliament and to shareholder Ministers on:
(a) the rollout of the NBN … in relation to the Government’s objective for NBN Co. Limited (NBN Co.) to:
(i) connect 93 per cent of Australian homes, schools and businesses with fibre-to-the premises technology providing broadband speeds of up to 100 megabits per second, with a minimum fibre coverage obligation of 90 per cent of Australian premises; and
(ii) service all remaining premises by a combination of next-generation fixed wireless and satellite technologies providing peak speeds of at least 12 megabits per second;
(b) the achievement of take-up targets (including premises passed and covered and services activated) as set out in NBN Co.’s Corporate Plan released on 20 December 2010 as revised from time to time;
(c) network rollout performance including service levels and faults;
(d) the effectiveness of NBN Co. in meeting its obligations as set out in its Stakeholder Charter;
(e) NBN Co.’s strategy for engaging with consumers and handling complaints;
… … …
(g) Any other matter pertaining to the NBN rollout that the Committee considers relevant …
This is the resolution of appointment for this committee, not what those on the other side want it to be. They are running off on tangents all the time just to prove that they have another idea. Their idea is not as good. It will not deliver the speeds that the NBN Co. will but it is cheaper. That is their entire policy: 'It's not as good but, hey, it's cheaper.' That is their selling point. Well, I can tell the member for Cowper, who uses the analogy of people lining up outside the doors of Apple wanting an iPhone or an iPad but of people not lining up at Stephen Conroy's door—
Mr Hartsuyker: They're not. You can't give it away.
Mrs D'ATH: Can I advise the member for Cowper that people are wanting the NBN, people are banging on our doors saying, 'It cannot happen soon enough.' It is a shame that the member for Cowper was not at the inspections in Broken Hill, because he would have heard the evidence from the council and from many other witnesses saying, 'We can't have it soon enough.' That is what everyone is saying. They are saying: 'We know it's great; we can't have it soon enough.'
Mr Hartsuyker: How many customers do you have? Tell us how many. You don't know.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Sidebottom ): Order! The member for Cowper, there should be courtesy in this place and you know it. You do not need to shout. You have made your point so, please, let the other speaker speak.
Mrs D'ATH: The NBN is so popular that the member for Brisbane is complaining that her electorate is not getting it in the second stage. In fact the member for Brisbane has come out complaining that her previous constituents in Petrie are getting it. She is complaining about the people who would have for 11 years complained to the then member for Petrie about the poor access to fast broadband.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mrs D'ATH: I hear it every day. I heard it as a candidate in 2006 when the member for Brisbane was the member for Petrie. I heard it in 2007, in 2008, in 2009, in 2010 and in 2011. They continue to tell me about the black spots and the huge problems with broadband access, but we have the member for Brisbane—who has stood up in this place, who has made statements outside this place and said how unhappy she is that her constituents are not getting it soon enough—saying how unhappy she is that her past constituents are getting it. I find it amazing that a member who represented the people of Petrie for over 11 years is now complaining that they are finally getting what they deserve, which is fast broadband. I am proud to be the member for Petrie who will be delivering that for them and proud to be part of a federal Labor government that is committed to delivering the National Broadband Network.
I want to support the statements already made by member for Greenway, who certainly has a lot of experience in this area. I want to acknowledge the government members on this committee, who come to this committee with a genuine commitment to see this reform rolled out. Importantly, we aim to do our job as a committee properly to make sure that it is rolled out in the best interests of the Australian people, and that NBN Co. and the department do their jobs properly. That is the role of the committee, and we are making sure that we are doing that by fulfilling our roles on the committee, as is the chair of the committee. And I thank the chair, the member for Lyne, for his work on this committee. He is genuinely committed to seeing the NBN rolled out because he understands the benefits of this. They are not just benefits to householders. Again, we are not talking about someone being able to download fast emails or a movie; we are talking about the benefits to health. Only a week ago, we had a display about eHealth, and it was absolutely incredible. If you look at what is already being done in the area of health and talk to the experts about it—and we had some evidence in Broken Hill from the Flying Doctors and other regional health services—you realise how important it is. It is not just important but imperative that they get that fast broadband so they can start delivering better health services in our regions. There are people who have to travel thousands of kilometres to see specialists and have to be away from their homes and families for a lengthy period of time who could get assistance in their home town—in their homes, even—with the facilities that come with fast broadband technology.
The NBN will enhance education. The fact is that there are endless opportunities when it comes to education. In our schools, our students who are doing languages are getting online now and communicating in real time with students across the other side of the world. The ability for our education and higher education to expand with faster broadband and newer technology is incredible. We had the opportunity to talk to Nextgen, who had just switched on their new trial of what they say are the fastest speeds in the world—it was a world first—in this tiny room in the middle of Broken Hill with just one little box on the floor. It was hard to imagine what it could achieve, but we went into town and we saw the small box on the footpath and were amazed at the fact that that will be able to connect every single premises in Broken Hill to fast broadband. I know that the businesses and the council in Broken Hill, and the member for that area, cannot wait to get fast broadband there. Members from regional areas understand that. If they do not understand that, their constituents should be asking why they are not out there fighting for this, sooner than later, because it is the regional towns that will benefit most from this.
In Broken Hill, they are building a huge film studio. They have been able to obtain one of the old power stations. It is being refurbished and it is going to be used as a major film studio. One of the huge drawcards for that is that, when they have fast broadband, they are going to be able to send the films straight back to the US—not the old canisters anymore; they can send the films straight back through the internet. This is huge for Broken Hill, it is huge for the outer regions and it is huge for the country as far as our economy is concerned. But the opposition just do not get it. They do not understand what this is all about.
There is no doubt that there are issues of concern, and they came out of the submissions and the evidence of witnesses to the committee. The thing that jumps out at me the most is the need to improve communication and information, especially out into those regional and rural areas. There is still a lack of information about the benefits of the NBN, how it will be rolled out and what stages there are. I know that that information will be coming in the future, in terms of future plans and time frames, but we need to go out and talk to people about the benefits and how it will work, about who is going to get fibre to the premises and who is going to get wireless.
We have been talking about which towns and outer regions will get wireless and which will get satellite, but we have to actually go into those towns and areas and talk to the people about it to make sure that they have the correct information. During the committee inquiry, we heard evidence from a person who is involved in the School of the Air that the School of the Air had concerns that their service would decrease as a consequence of the interim satellite. However, from evidence put before the committee just this week, we have been able to clarify with NBN Co. that the School of the Air's understanding was incorrect. In fact, they are not even on that satellite system; that is going to be changed over, so there will be no impact on them at all. But it is about getting the correct information out there.
I had the opportunity to go out to Brunswick. It was really unfortunate that there was not one member of the opposition who came out to do those inspections with us. We talked to representatives from Telstra and NBN Co. who were working together. There was a small Telstra substation there, and we went into this building and saw the rows of copper leads going everywhere. They said that this massive row of tangled wires basically covered about 16,000 households. Then they took us over to two cupboards that had little boxes in them. They said they would cover 29,000 homes. They showed us out on the street how the individual premises were connected. It was explained to us by both the NBN Co. and the Telstra representatives that copper can be damaged—it can be damaged simply by floods, by excessive water. The only way to damage fibre is to actually cut it. They said that, even if the fibre to the premises is cut, within half an hour they can have it up and running again. There are huge benefits coming from this NBN project.
The committee has made the decision to change its reporting cycle so that we will be reporting again at the end of this parliamentary session—there will be two reports handed down this year. This will be important because we will be getting the report from NBN Co. that sets out the key areas that the terms of reference address, and we will be able to report to this parliament about the key milestones that we have been talking about.
This is an exciting and extremely important reform for this country. I am pleased to be deputy chair of this committee. I thank the committee members who are genuinely committed to seeing this policy reform roll out in the best interests of this nation. It is my pleasure to commend the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members that, while I am the first to enjoy an exchange, if they seriously want to make a statement during a contribution they do have the right to intervene. So, if they want to interrupt, they should do it formally and with courtesy.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa—Second Deputy Speaker) (11:02): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will bear your comments in mind when I am occupying the chair. It is a very good principle. I notice that the member for Petrie, the deputy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, is leaving the chamber. That is a disappointment because she raised issues that I have to confront in a rural and remote electorate extending from just west of Brisbane all the way to the Northern Territory border. She spoke about the benefits of the NBN for e-health, the Royal Flying Doctor Service and distance education. I will be with those rural and remote communities this time next week looking at these very issues, including the issue of the rollout of digital television—which is an absolute disgrace. This government has ignored the wishes and concerns of those communities in remote parts of Australia—the small communities that are being offered a satellite-only service when they have had analog rebroadcast for years and years. It is the rebroadcast that they want, not satellite dishes on private homes. There is a very real issue here that we cannot get the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to listen to. I hope he will listen to these concerns at the local government conference which will be held on the Gold Coast in two weeks time. I know there is a real worry in those remote communities that this government is not listening to their concerns, whether they be concerns about the digital television rollout or the fibre optic high-speed internet rollout.
I am not opposed to high-speed internet. I have been driving this agenda on our side of the House almost since I came here. I know the benefits of communication—it is a vital link with trade, education opportunities and health. What we are opposed to is the model and the lack of transparency being proposed under the NBN. We heard the member for Cowper talk very eloquently about this. We want answers. After all, there is a commitment to spend something like $50 billion in this major infrastructure project. Surely there should be transparency and the community and the people—the taxpayers of Australia, the shareholders of NBN Co.—should be entitled to know about some of the rollout proposals and about the take-up that is occurring as the program is rolled out. We acknowledge it is a massive investment, but it should at least be subject to a cost-benefit analysis and transparency so that the taxpayers of Australia can understand and judge for themselves whether this is a good business model or a flawed business model. Any business would be doing due diligence or a feasibility study in relation to a proposition so big—or not even as big as this. Any business, small or large, before they make that investment would be doing due diligence as to whether there is an economic model that stacks up.
The member for Petrie, the deputy chair of this committee, spoke in glowing terms about this rollout into rural and regional Australia. Can I just say that I represent a rural electorate. I hope that the members from the regions of Melbourne and Sydney, with their city-centric thinking, might just listen for a moment. I would invite them to come out and talk to these communities in remote parts of Australia and live the life for a little while. They might then have an understanding of what people like me are talking about, because we understand the challenges and we also understand the importance of high-speed internet for those people, particularly in remote parts of Australia. Unlike this model from the government, we said that under our plan we would be building the network from the inside of Australia to the outside. But what this government is doing is rolling it out in some key marginal seats, including the seats of the Independents who gave this government government. It is very cosy. It is a bit like the Regional Development grants that have recently been rolled out. What a disgrace that was.
Anyway, I go back to the point that next week I will be out with these communities in far western Queensland, including one large pastoral property where the children have access to their education source through the School of Distance Education. I will be going to towns where the Royal Flying Doctor Service will be conducting clinics, which they do out of Charleville. Every day they are available, 24 hours a day.
Only last month I was out in Birdsville in the far west of my electorate with the Leader of the Opposition. There we sat down at the Birdsville Clinic with the Royal Flying Doctor Service and the clinic nurses. They explained to us that, whilst they have a fortnightly clinic at Birdsville, they are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and they are only two hours away by aircraft if they get the call from the clinic in Birdsville. But it is not just Birdsville; it could be other communities out in the far west of my electorate and other parts of Australia: Bedourie, Windorah, Jundah, Eromanga, Thargomindah and all of those remote communities, including some of the remote pastoral stations where the Royal Flying Doctor Service are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, whenever they get the call.
They explained to us the benefits of e-health. I will preface my remarks by saying that Birdsville and that far western part of my electorate are connected by radio links to the mainframe, if I could put it that way. The mainframe is the optic fibre network that extends across this nation; the Telstra legacy optic fibre interconnects between communities. These communities out there are connected by a radio signal—a microwave link. The clinic nurse said that, if they get a situation where they have a person who presents at the clinic and they take an X-ray of the situation that they are concerned about, they will transmit it to the Royal Flying Doctor Service or a medical practice far to the east, in a capital city or a big regional town. But the problem is that they are transmitting that signal through a single-channel radio microwave link over about 800 kilometres—600 kilometres in some cases—to the nearest optic fibre cable, and then it is transmitted either to the Royal Flying Doctor Service base in Charleville or to a regional centre further east with a major medical practice. The signal that they send now is not high resolution because it is going through a radio signal. If they had optic-fibre cable connections in that far western part of my electorate they would be able to transfer a high-resolution image to the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Charleville, and they might refer it on to Brisbane for another opinion. But they are unable to send a high-resolution image now because, as I said, they are not connected to the optic-fibre cable main trunk route at all. They are connected by microwave link.
They said that if there is any doubt they call the Royal Flying Doctor Service, as you would imagine they would, so the doctor will be there and they will pick up that patient and they will evacuate them to Charleville to do an X-ray and then transmit it, if necessary, via optic-fibre cable to a capital city or regional centre if they are seeking a second opinion. It would be a high-resolution image. Every retrieval out of Birdsville costs $8,000. It may be that it is just a retrieval to take an X-ray to get a high-resolution image for a second opinion on a situation that they are dealing with. If that evacuation were not necessary—because they had that optic-fibre cable connection—they could deal with it on the spot and make a decision and it could well save having an $8,000 retrieval just to have an X-ray done and return the patient to Birdsville if all is clear. That is an example of the cost of providing a medical service in some remote communities and the problem here is they are not connected by optic-fibre cable to the main optic-fibre network across this nation.
The communities out in the far west of my electorate that come to my mind immediately—the Diamantina, Barcoo and Quilpie shires—have said that they would put money towards an optic-fibre cable to connect their towns to the main optic fibre line. They are prepared to put up $3 million or $4 million of their ratepayers' money towards that and what they require from this government, in a partnership arrangement which our policy would have allowed and does allow, is about $15 million to $20 million and then they would be connected to the main optic fibre line. That is a real partnership and that is the sort of investment that could happen under our policy, but we do not see it coming forward under this government's policy.
You might ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, how many evacuations would a town like Birdsville have? The week before I was there and they had three evacuations at $8,000 per evacuation. The day that I was there, leading up to the Birdsville Outback racing festival and the Birdsville races, there were over 6,000 people in town. The population of Birdsville and the Diamantina shire is about 300 people but about 30,000 tourists go through there every year. So we are not dealing with a population of 300; we can often be dealing with 4,000 or 5,000 people at any one time. I said to the Royal Flying Doctor Service clinic staff there, 'Do you get many people travelling through who need medical attention?' and was told, 'Every day.' It might be seniors and older people in their Winnebagos doing their big trip around Australia and needing prescription drugs, or maybe just a health check. What would be of great benefit to those communities is to have the back-up of an optic-fibre cable connection into the main line to support the decisions of the practitioner nurses and the clinic nurses that are there throughout the day and are available throughout the night.
The other concern I want to raise relates to those small communities of less than 500. As I understand it, they are now connected by clear-voice signal, a telephone, via copper wire. I understand it is the intention, should the shareholders of Telstra approve the arrangement, that the copper wire will be owned by NBN Co. NBN Co.'s role in those small communities is not to roll out optic-fibre cable, as we heard from the deputy chair today, but to provide a voice service to those communities by satellite. What a backward step! You have a viable copper wire system in some of those small communities and that is going to be trashed and replaced by satellite for a clear-voice signal. I have used a clear-voice signal via satellite and I can assure you there is always a latency in the voice and you almost have to say 'over and out'. Maybe satellite technology will improve over time, but I urge the government not to scrap the copper wire in those communities.
I also want to say something on the optic fibre cable rollout to the premises. I heard the deputy chair of the committee say that copper wire can be destroyed. Well, a lot of that copper wire has been out there for more than a hundred years and it still has life in it. I noticed that the member for Chifley said: 'Optic fibre cable won't be affected by floods; the only disconnect would be if it were cut.' If you have a power failure in your area and you are connected by optic fibre cable, you will be off the air unless you have power and are able to power up the signal that is coming via the optic fibre cable, because optic fibre—glass, in other words—does not carry current; copper does. That is why, when people are connected to the optic fibre cable only, they will need a battery backup for when the power goes down. They will need to have batteries and make sure that they remain fully charged. So this notion that optic fibre cable cannot be destroyed and will not go down is wrong. You get blackouts. And what happens in big floods when the power is cut? We have seen massive floods recently. If you lose your power under an optic-fibre-only connection to your home, you will not have a connection—unless you have a battery backup—because you are going to trash the copper wire.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Sidebottom ): No, I am not.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT: No, you are not; I respect you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I respect your intervention.
The coalition has a very real plan not only to address these issues in remote Australia and build partnerships with third parties, such as the one I have described in western Queensland with the Diamantina and Barcoo shires, to roll out optic fibre cable—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Melbourne Ports: do you wish to raise a point of order or make an intervention?
Mr Danby: An intervention.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the honourable member speaking allow a question?
Mr BRUCE SCOTT: Yes, I will.
Mr Danby: When the earthquake in Christchurch happened, and when there have been other natural disasters of that magnitude around the world, were copper wire and telephonic communications interrupted as well?
Mr BRUCE SCOTT: I cannot answer that directly in relation to Christchurch. But I have been to Openreach in London, which is British Telecom's division responsible for the rollout of broadband, if I can put it that way, in the UK, and they showed me that you clearly need a battery backup to power your system if you are connected only to optic fibre cable. So you need a separate power source on the premises to make sure that you remain connected, regardless of what might happen out in the community.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Member for Maranoa, for your contribution.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (11:18): I have heard it all in this place—the National Party talking against the NBN; the National Party talking about the connection of their regions to modern high-speed telecommunications and broadband infrastructure, and the National Party talking against it! I might as well be sitting here listening to them bagging out farmers! I simply cannot believe that a National Party member who has a chance to connect his or her community to the modern world would say, 'This is a bad thing,' and spend most of their time bagging it out. It is beyond the pale.
I just want to ask a simple question: what type of committee was similarly brought together at any time under the Howard government?
Mr Danby: None.
Mr HUSIC: None, as the member for Melbourne Ports rightly indicates. Why? Because in the 19 times that they had the opportunity to fix this up, they were unable to do it and unable to provide any oversight whatsoever. We have here, in the nation's parliament, a joint committee of both senators and members—many of whom, I am proud to say, are serving the country well on this committee: my colleague the member for Greenway, who is here; the deputy chair, the member for Petrie; and, even though I have deep differences at a policy level with him, the member for Bradfield brings a lot to bear. But, having said that, that is where I have to depart because, even though they know well what is required to be done, they work their hardest to frustrate the need to do something that escaped them 19 times. The deputy chair, the member for Petrie, reflected very positively on the work of the member for Lyne, the chair of the committee, who tried to ensure both sides of the debate were accommodated through the work of the committee. But at some point something has to give when, effectively, we have Luddites on the other side. We have been open and accountable and have been met with nothing but frustration from a phalanx of technological Luddites on the other side who lack the vision and the ability to contribute to this debate. Remember that these are the people who keep arguing that we needed a cost-benefit analysis of the NBN. From the 19 times that they tried to get this right, clearly, they knew there was a need. They knew there was a benefit that would come from upgrading our network to ensure that everyone could get access to broadband. They tried it 19 times and now they are calling for a demonstration of benefit when they knew full well that it was there and needed to be done.
They called for a cost-benefit analysis, but they did not do that on their $10 billion water plan that the member for Wentworth advocated. They never did it on the Adelaide to Darwin railway, the plans that were put forward at the tail end of the Howard government. At no time did they provide a cost-benefit analysis, but they keep arguing about cost-benefit analysis in this place simply because it will frustrate the process of doing something that they failed to do.
People in the know have outlined the absolutely startling benefits of what this network will do. The member for Greenway pointed to the Deloitte Access Economics report—and I was very grateful that she did. That report talks about $27 billion of productivity benefit generated for business and government because it has improved the way they work by getting access to the internet. What was the opposition's response? Via the member for Wentworth, the opposition's response was to bag out Google and to criticise Deloittes for putting forward this economic work. It is simply astounding. Any time any person seeks to put forward a different view to those opposite, they will not respect those views and they go out of their way to challenge them.
They also challenge the need for fibre to the premises and say, for example, there has been no backing for it. I actually recall significant backing for it from the ACCC. The ACCC said that having fibre to the premises was our chance to finally rid ourselves of the competition devils that had held us back in the sector—a sector dominated by one major player that continued to crowd out any ability for new players to come in, for new innovation and for someone else to take up the communication challenges facing the country. And the opposition say, 'Why did we move from our initial plan to the end plan of where we are at? Why did we move from the $5 billion plan to $43 billion plan? They know full well, and the member for Bradfield knows full well, that the reason for that was that the major dominant player in this country submitted six pages for a $5 billion tender for the major upgrade our telecommunications network. Those six pages clearly demonstrated that the major player in this country under the former leadership of Sol Trujillo and Don McGauchie at Telstra were not serious about this and would do whatever they could to frustrate it. We had an ossified industry dominated by one player. We wanted to smash through a calcified telco sector. What did we get? We got the opposition criticising us for something that had, frankly, bedevilled them. They knew the frustrations. You only need to spend five minutes with former senator Helen Coonan to know how much frustration she had as the former minister trying to get Telstra to play ball. Telstra were refusing to invest because the ACCC would not give them a green light to rip off consumers, again under the former leadership of Sol Trujillo, and it was something that the former government was not prepared to countenance either. We know they had problems. We wanted to smash through those problems. You would think they would want to join with us. They do not. They spend their time bagging it out. We had to step up.
They continue to frustrate every step of the way on this committee and are still managing to run the same old tired arguments that we know will not work. The member for Greenway knows it. I understand the member for Bradfield—as I have reflected on earlier, I have regard for his industry expertise and regulatory expertise—has been told he has to run a line which he knows, in his heart of hearts, is not the right one to run. We have a debate: fibre versus copper, with its limitations in capacity; copper, with its limitations because of its fault rate. As reflected on by the member for Petrie, the minute you get moisture in it, faults go through the roof. We know we have a chance. We can either keep rolling out copper with its limitations or we can say: 'Righto. We know this is an old technology. We're going to go to the one that actually works and that's optic fibre.'
The other thing is, too, they know what is better in a head-to-head contest. They know that fibre is the way to go but what is their option? They talk about HFC. Nothing better demonstrates that the shadow minister for communications simply has no idea when he keeps advocating HFC, when he talks about Sydney and Melbourne and 30 per cent of homes having HFC. Everyone knows that HFC chokes up. Once you have Foxtel, subscription TV, running through your home and you are trying to rely upon that plus another signal for internet access, you are going to become choked up.
At the same time they argue for wireless. Everyone knows that when more people are on wireless at one particular time wireless cannot deliver, that it slows right down. So they say to us 'HFC', they say to us 'wireless' and then they say, 'We don't even need to go down this path. Why don't we just do a black spots program,' and then condemn the rest of the country to inconsistent speeds. We are talking about a uniform network with massive download speeds and fantastic uploads. That is the big thing: the fact that there are greater upload speeds in this network. We say, 'Regardless of where you live, we want, in 93 per cent of cases, to have you connected to the network of the future,' and they say, 'No, we want you to have a patchwork network that won't deliver.' I recall editorials from the Illawarra Mercury asking Mr Turnbull, the shadow minister, why he was condemning the regions to a second-rate option. I said earlier in a head-to-head contest people know—wireless versus optic. I might reflect rightly on the words of the member for Greenway who said, 'It isn't a case of competition; it is about being complementary, that wireless and fibre have a place together in this network.' Head to head fibre versus wireless—we know who wins. Why? The answer was delivered to us by the member for Sturt when he chaired a committee which clearly said, 'Hands down, fibre wins.' They know it. The member for Bradfield, with his expertise, knows it. The people in the know, the people I joined on this committee, the member for Greenway—they know it but the opposition still argue that we have to be down this path.
Frankly, I think we are expecting too much of the opposition. The member for Cowper says, 'The NBN cannot tell us numbers.' I think we are expecting too much from a bloke who should know that the NBN is a wholesale network and it does not necessarily keep the retail numbers because the RSPs do. The RSPs have to go through a process of activation of individual clients. It is not the wholesaler's job to keep the retail numbers; it is the RSP's job. It is the RSP's process to go through the activation mechanism. It is their job to do it. But the member for Cowper is not interested in that, just as he was not interested when the member for Kingston told us that in the past week, when they activated the network in Willunga, 90 per cent of the people there opted in. When I went to Victor Harbour with another committee I have the honour of sitting on, we learnt that they cannot wait for the NBN to come to their neck of the woods. They say they want to hold onto their best and brightest in regional South Australia instead of seeing them denied the opportunities for jobs and education, leaving there and going to Adelaide. You should be looking to hold onto the best and brightest in your part of the world instead of seeing them travelling from the regions into capital cities.
The thing that gets me the most in this debate is this elitist argument that comes out of the opposition when they sneer and look down their noses, saying, 'We all know what you want to use the internet for: you want to use it to download IP TV, and we shouldn't be spending money on that.' They seek to degrade the purpose of the NBN. As the member for Greenway rightly said, they only see it as the internet; they cannot see it as a broader application of this network. They sneer down from positions where their constituents have access to a great network. In constituencies that I am representing—for example, Woodcroft—the network is jammed and people have to leave that suburb for somewhere else to get a connection. Wireless does not even work. We are trying to do something for the people of Western Sydney and the people of regional Australia, and they, from their positions with constituents who do not have these problems, say to us, 'The best you should get is a second-rate option,' and 'Stop always hoping for the Bentley when the best you can get is a Commodore.' That is the line they use.
Their words are an insight into their thinking. It is that the best you should hope for is the second-best option. 'You do not deserve a network that we already enjoying.' That is what they are saying to me. That is what they are saying to the member for Fowler. That is what they are saying to the member for Greenway. It is what they are saying to members opposite who have to toe an insane party line. When they talk about this report in this place, remember this: they cannot be trusted. People in the general community know they cannot be trusted on this issue, because their sole job is to destroy this network and to deny opportunity to the people of Western Sydney. They talk with a forked tongue and a dead policy head.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (11:32): I am very pleased to follow the member for Chifley in this debate concerning the recent report provided by the Joint Select Committee on the National Broadband Network. I have a number of comments to make about the report, but before I do that I feel I should address a number of the comments made by the member for Chifley, who informed the House that I had been told to run a line on the National Broadband Network and in my heart it is not what I believe. This is a fairly rich claim in the week when Labor have introduced legislation to introduce offshore processing after years of telling us it was not what they believed in.
The question of what is in my heart, I feel, I am best placed to inform the House about. What is in my heart is very much the same as what is in the heart of the member for Wentworth and of the coalition generally when it comes to the question of broadband. We are firmly in favour of upgrading Australia's broadband infrastructure. We are in favour of doing that in a rational and cost-effective way in which the private sector takes the maximum degree of load and where government spending concentrates on areas of market failure. By contrast, the member for Chifley has sought to portray this issue as some kind of class struggle and argue that in the coalition we are asserting that areas represented by him and others in this place which have inadequate services should remain and suffer those inadequate services while we, it would seem in his view of the world, swan around in Rolls Royces, eating caviar and enjoying the high-speed broadband which festoons our seats.
I venture to suggest that that picture is a simplistic one, but I do make the substantive point: there are areas of this country that have deeply inadequate broadband. That is not in question at all. There are many areas, including outer suburban areas, where Telstra has put in pair gains systems for what were good operational reasons at the time and people in those areas simply cannot get DSL today. There are plenty of areas where people do not get adequate broadband—that is not in question for a second—but it is one reason why we have argued that it makes sense to closely analyse the strategy underlying the National Broadband Network, announced in such haste in April 2009, under which a gold-plated, Rolls Royce fibre-to-the-premises network would be built to 10 million premises.
That raises the question, amongst many others: is it the most sensible and cost-effective strategy to address the areas of need and to get Australia's overall broadband infrastructure to a level which provides the social and economic benefits that we seek but which is also as cost effective as possible? These are serious questions. That is why the coalition have consistently called for a cost-benefit analysis, because it is a respected and well-understood methodology for dealing with the questions of how much money ought to be spent on particular projects, what the design of those projects should be and, in turn, what the benefits are that are obtained as a result and therefore does it make sense to proceed with the project and allocate scarce government funds to it, in a world where, as we all know, there are many more claims on the government purse than can all be met?
The coalition have repeatedly pointed out that the process which led up to the announcement in April 2009 gravely failed to meet the standards set by this government for itself. It failed to meet the standards set by Infrastructure Australia and it failed to comply with the principle articulated by the Rudd-Gillard government that major infrastructure projects should be preceded by a cost-benefit analysis. One consequence of the strategy that has been adopted is that, in many areas where there is inadequate broadband today, Australians in those areas could well be waiting up to nine or 10 years before they get a new service because of the strategy which has been adopted, which is to build a brand-new network from scratch.
In the balance of the time available to me here today I want to turn to the substantive question of the report produced by the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network, Rollout of the National Broadband Network: first report. Let me start by reminding the House that the purpose of the joint committee is to engage in parliamentary oversight of the work being undertaken by the National Broadband Network Co. executing on the policy mandated by this government.
We on this side of the House do not think the policy is a good one. But there is a second and quite distinct perspective that we bring to this issue, which is a concern to ensure that to the extent the policy is being pursued we want to understand how it is being pursued, the operations of NBN Co., the strategy it is following and its performance against the objectives which have been set for it. More importantly, that is what the parliament wants the committee to be doing. That is why the parliament has established this joint committee so that NBN Co. can be subject to proper scrutiny, bearing in mind, as we are repeatedly told, that this is the largest infrastructure project in Australia's history and that, notwithstanding the various assertions and promises that were made at various stages of the long and convoluted broadband policy debate, all of the money that is being spent on this massively expensive project is coming from taxpayers. Not one cent is coming from the private sector, despite the fact that Labor took a policy to the 2007 election, which involved a joint venture between government and the private sector, with private sector paying at least 50 per cent and despite the fact that when the April 2009 announcement was made to move to a fibre-to-the-premises policy we were told that there would be private sector investment from the start. None of that has happened and the substantive reason is that the advice the government received from McKinsey and KPMG when they produced the implementation report, at a cost of $25 million, could be paraphrased as follows. The private sector would not touch this with a barge pole. This is a very bad investment. That is not of itself, I would readily agree, the same question as whether it would pass a cost-benefit analysis. It is certainly true that when you do a cost-benefit analysis you take account of benefits which may not be captured by the company that builds the network. But it certainly raises the very obvious question: if the private sector thinks this is such a disastrously bad investment, why on earth are we not at least going through the exercise of weighing up, of quantifying, those benefits and assessing them compared to the costs?
Let me therefore come back to the question of whether the committee is working effectively as an oversight mechanism of this enormously expensive project. I have to report, with regret, that the committee is not working very effectively. We have had an unsatisfactory and an uncooperative attitude from the National Broadband Network company and from the government. We saw that at the committee's hearing on Tuesday night. The committee had asked, through its chairman, that regular key performance indicators be provided. A jointly signed letter was sent to the chairman by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy noting that these key performance indicators would not be available until mid-September.
The committee therefore advised the government that a meeting would be scheduled for 20 September to allow time for the key performance indicators to be provided to the committee and to allow the committee to ask questions of NBN Co.'s management against the backdrop of these key performance indicators. When we assembled for the committee meeting on Tuesday night, we were told that the key performance indicators were not available. We further learned that they had been provided to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy on 19 August—more than one month before the date of the committee's hearing—but the department, presumably following a direction from the minister or his office, had declined to provide them to the committee. There is no other word for it; this is a farcical state of affairs when it comes to a committee which is supposed to be overseeing the operation of the National Broadband Network company.
I make a point based upon my own experience on the senior leadership team of a major telecommunications company. In my years on the senior leadership team of Optus, every week there was a weekly trading meeting attended by the chief executive, the heads of major business units and the heads of key corporate functions, including me. Each business unit provided a written report on key metrics—actual, forecast and budget; metrics, such as sales performance by week and cumulatively; new connections and new cancellations; churn; average revenue per user; acquisition costs; and customer service metrics such as call answer rates and abandonment rates. This data also went to the board on a monthly basis. These are the basics of running a telecommunications company.
I have no doubt that Mr Quigley has such data when it comes to the National Broadband Network company, or at least an analogous version of the data, having regard to the fact that NBN is a wholesale and not a retail operator. It would be a very straightforward exercise to provide a report on key performance indicators to the committee and it is deeply disappointing that the government has failed to facilitate the provision of that information. It is unclear where the responsibility lies between the government and NBN Co., but it is just an extraordinary proposition that, with several months notice, this information was not provided.
Let me note, secondly, a failure in this report to engage with any of the competition issues which arise when it comes to the National Broadband Network. The member for Chifley spoke about the fact that Telstra was subject to price regulation by the ACCC to prevent it from using its market power to gouge customers. The NBN Co. is similarly to be subject to such regulation. It is required to lodge a special access undertaking with the ACCC to obtain approval for the wholesale prices it is going to charge. In the documents lodged by the NBN Co. with the ACCC it has proposed that, for services other than the entry-level service, it will be allowed to increase its prices by CPI plus five per cent each year for a period of more than 20 years. When you do the maths and work out the compound rate of growth that represents, if you plug in an inflation rate of two per cent or three per cent, you get to an enormous multiple. An enormous price increase is permitted. This is a very important issue.
One of the challenges with this market structure is that we are establishing a new monopoly. The government is taking active steps to shut down services on other networks, such as the Telstra network and the Optus network, and indeed the government has legislated to prevent other companies building new networks and being permitted to operate high-speed services over those networks. This is, frankly, an extraordinary way in which to deal with the issue of telecommunications competition. Two very well respected international economists—Joshua Gans and Jerry Hausman, the latter a professor at MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology—have made a submission to the ACCC in relation to these matters and have very strongly criticised the policy model which is being pursued by this government as dangerous to competition. It is troubling indeed that the report which has been provided is silent on this point.
The third point I wish to raise very briefly is that there is a very confusing discussion about private equity in paragraph 2.101 of the report. I think this means equity to be obtained from the private sector. The committee is in no position to make any progress in investigating this, because the National Broadband Network Companies Act, section 45, explicitly says that only the Commonwealth may hold shares in NBN Co. and all of the paid-up share capital must be held by the Commonwealth. There is no scope for private equity and it is somewhat mystifying why the committee thinks that this matter is worth pursuing. This is a report which is a testament to a poor policy, an anticompetitive policy and a policy which is not exposed to the degree of scrutiny the government says it is committed to. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Stosur, Ms Samantha
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (11:48): I would like to add my congratulations to Sam Stosur on her win in the US Open. The grand slam title is well deserved and comes as no surprise as Aussie tennis fans have followed Sam's career closely and have watched this star steadily rising. While this title is a further boost to Sam Stosur's career, it is also another boost to sport across this nation. It is a reminder to young girls, in particular, that reaching the heights of this international sport and many other international sports is possible. I am sure this month will see thousands of youngsters picking up a tennis racquet, probably for the first time, or just renewing their interest in the sport and helping to develop a more active and healthy future for Australia.
It is unfortunate that my electorate of Dawson cannot lay claim to Sam Stosur as a constituent, but I would like to raise a distinctively North Queensland piece of Stosur history. It is a story that was repeated in the Townsville Bulletin the day after Sam's historic US Open win. Ten years ago, Sam Stosur played in the Australian Unity Home Hill International, which is in my electorate. She was playing well and was on a 25-match winning streak, including the pro-tour North Queensland series in Cairns. However, the 17-year-old Stosur lost her quarter final match in Home Hill. Home Hill fan Kate Casswell last week reported that she could not remember if Stosur had won or lost the quarter final but remembered the future star standing out with her ability to serve and volley. Of the match, Ms Casswell said, 'The reason I remember her game was because her game was scheduled to be played at 7 pm but there was a cane fire and smoke was wafting across the court so they had to delay the start.'
Mr Hartsuyker: Only in the country!
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Only in the country; only in the Burdekin! The match was in October 2001 and, at this time of year, the Burdekin sugar industry is firing cane fields in preparation for the crush. It is an impressive sight, in an iconic part of North Queensland—although I am not sure if Sam would have such fond recollections, given that she may have lost there. But it was certainly a memorable night for Home Hill, and I am sure young tennis players across the Burdekin, North Queensland and the rest of Australia will be inspired to follow their dreams in the same way that Sam Stosur has followed hers. So my congratulations to Sam Stosur, her family and the team around her that helped bring this honour to our nation.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (11:50): I would also like to add to those of other speakers my sincere congratulations to Sam Stosur on her victory at the US Open. It has been an amazing achievement for Australia and an amazing achievement for Sam. Sam is now the first Australian female singles Grand Slam champion in 31 years after Evonne Goolagong Cawley.
Sam was born in Brisbane, so I will claim that ownership of her. She trained at the Queensland Academy of Sport and the Australian Institute of Sport. At the age of 12, Sam Stosur was discovered by Robert Beak at a Brisbane tennis court and ever since she has been a great tennis icon.
Samantha joins the ranks of tennis greats such as Margaret Smith Court, who is regarded by some as the greatest female tennis player of all time, and former World No. 1 Evonne Goolagong Cawley, who was one of the world's leading players in the 1970s and 1980s, when she won 14 Grand Slam titles: seven in the singles—four Australian Open, two Wimbledon and one French Open—six in the women's doubles, and one in the mixed doubles. And before Margaret and Evonne, Australia heralded the success of Nancye Wynne Bolton in 1951 when she won her sixth singles title at the Australian Open championship. To quote Pat Rafter, Stosur is a great role model for the next generation of players, because of her persistence and work ethic. 'She's a great girl and she's worked really hard,' he said. So we congratulate Sam on her wonderful achievement.
Women's tennis in Australia is extremely healthy, with Sam Stosur leading the way and providing a positive role model for our next generation. Nicole Pratt has been appointed AIS head women's coach and is working with both the younger athletes and some of Australia's top female players. So the sport is in very good hands. I want to take this opportunity to wish Australia's next generation of female players, the ones who are training with the AIS, all the very best for the future. The current squad includes a couple of Queenslanders—there are always a few Queenslanders there to help lead the way—Isabella Holland and Ashleigh Barty. There are also a couple of Victorians: Sally Peers and Belinda Woolcock. These young women would no doubt be interested to know that women's tennis tournaments in Australia date back more than 100 years, and interstate tennis was established by 1908, when the Queensland Ladies' Interstate Tennis Team counted as its team members May Thurlow, Maud Larad, Eva Thurlow and Florence Horton.
In my electorate of Brisbane, the Fancutt Tennis Centre and Coaching Academy is celebrating 50 years of existence this year. In this time the tennis centre has been owned and run by the Fancutt family, all five of whom are former Wimbledon players. Daphne Fancutt, then known as Seeney—she is the aunt of the Queensland opposition leader, Jeff Seeney—was the 1956 Wimbledon ladies doubles finalist and the 1956 Australian Open singles semifinalist. Former World No. 1 players, people like Steffi Graf, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg and Ivan Lendl are among the top players who, along with so many locals and visitors, have enjoyed a hit at the Fancutt Tennis Centre in Lutwyche in my electorate. There have been many young students who have started playing tennis there and who have gone on to play at Wimbledon—something that we should be very proud of. The first two great tennis players to do that were Wendy Turnbull and Geoff Masters. With all of this tennis history, I am absolutely thrilled to be here today to again congratulate Sam Stosur on her achievement in winning the US Open. Sam, we are so very proud of you. All of Australia cheered. We wish you and your teammates all the very best for the future. Well done.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (11:55): I rise to celebrate the remarkable and historic victory by Samantha Stosur in the US Open. Stosur's win in straight sets was the first Grand Slam victory by an Australian woman in 31 years. While this achievement is remarkable of itself, the manner in which Stosur won the final was truly extraordinary. She was powerful, accurate, poised and remained in control of her game even though her opponent's outbursts at the umpire made for very interesting viewing on the TV. She played the match of her life against a multiple Grand Slam winner and former world No. 1 and came out on top. But if we look past the triumph of her victory we find that Stosur's journey to glory at Flushing Meadows was not easy.
Stosur has played tennis since she was a young girl. She trained at the Queensland Academy of Sport as a teenager and later at the Australian Institute of Sport. She began her professional career in 1999 and saw limited success for a number of years. In 2005, she reached the final of the WTA event on the Gold Coast. Stosur won the mixed doubles title with Scott Draper at the Australian Open in that year. She then teamed up with American Lisa Raymond to win seven doubles titles in 2005, finishing the year ranked No. 2 in the world in women's doubles. By 2006, Stosur and Raymond were ranked No. 1 in the world in doubles, at one stage winning 18 matches in a row.
In 2007, Stosur's form dropped when she was diagnosed with Lyme disease, a tick-borne illness which can cause severe fatigue. The disease forced her to take an extended break from the game as she fought to recover. To her credit, Stosur fought back from her illness and began her rise through the world rankings. In 2009, she reached the semifinals at the French Open and, in Japan, won her first WTA singles event. In 2010, Stosur beat three former No. 1 players on the road to the final of the French Open, which she unfortunately lost. After a difficult start to the 2011 season she has finally broken through to win the most coveted of tennis prizes: a Grand Slam event.
Her victory this week is a triumph of persistence and determination. Unlike so many of the great players in world tennis, she did not burst onto the scene as a precocious teenager. Her success has come through hard work and sacrifice. Her fans marvel at her powerful groundstrokes, delicate volleys and pinpoint serves; however, we do not get to see the countless hours of practice and training. We are not privy to the moments of self-doubt. We do not experience the sweat, tears and loneliness of practice on deserted outside courts. For her, every victory was difficult. She had to fight through the longest-ever women's match at the US Open and the longest tiebreaker in women's tennis history.
Off the court Stosur has been recognised for her efforts to promote tennis and connect with the media and sponsors. Last year she received the WTA Diamond Aces Award in recognition of her efforts on and off the court. Tennis Australia has high hopes that Stosur's success will translate into increased participation in junior tennis. I recently had the privilege of experiencing the Hot Shots and Cardio Tennis programs when Tennis Australia visited Parliament House.
Tennis is an enjoyable and rewarding sport, and I trust the success of Samantha Stosur will translate to increased participation in that wonderful sport. Australia values its sporting heroes, and Samantha Stosur has been elevated to the very highest echelon of modern Australian legends. She can be very proud of her achievements, and I sincerely hope this victory is not the last Grand Slam win for Samantha Stosur.
It is also appropriate to mention Stosur's coach, David Taylor. Stosur praised Taylor for continuing to believe in her through her difficult start to the 2011 season. Coaches are often the first to be criticised when things are going wrong and the last to be congratulated when things are going well, so it is to his credit that David has stuck by Sam through the good times and the bad.
On behalf of the residents of my electorate I extend my warmest congratulations to Sam Stosur and wish her every success into the future.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (11:59): I will take this opportunity to pay tribute to the wonderful effort of Samantha Stosur in her victory at the US Open tennis tournament on 12 September 2011. Everyone who watched the game—in Australia, anyway—was thrilled with her achievement in becoming the first Australian woman to win the US Open since Margaret Court's day. Sporting success at the highest level is the result of skill, physical fitness and mental toughness. What we see at the victorious end of the championship final is the culmination of an elite athlete putting together all these factors. We the spectators do not see the endless hours of repetitive training and cross-training in skills, fitness and strength. We do not see the early mornings, the long hours or the injuries that come on the long path to success. We do not share the times of physical exhaustion, agony and self-doubt when we watch the final hours of the tournament and the lifting of the trophy. But what we and all Australians should acknowledge is that Samantha Stosur's great victory was created over many years of self-sacrifice and dedication. It was not luck, her turn or as a result of any greater reason than sheer determination, great skill, together with physical and mental toughness.
In watching the final I appreciated the superb shape that Sam Stosur was in. Clearly, she is a lady whose training regime includes weight training and that has assisted her in being in top condition. I sometimes wonder whether she is as tall as she looks but, when I saw Serena Williams standing next to her, she still looked smaller than Williams. I recall on that Monday morning watching the game on the television in the gym here in Parliament House and the first set had just ended. Clearly, Stosur was in command. However, as the first couple of games of the second set passed, we saw the crowd become almost ferocious in its support of Williams, a bit like the ferocity Williams displayed towards the umpire in the match. Williams fought back and broke Stosur and, for just two games, it looked as though Williams was on her way back. However, as testament to Stosur's mental fitness, she fired two aces and reverted to the dominant display that saw her win the first set. She then went on to win the remaining games of the match.
It was particularly at the start of the second set that the crowd strongly backed Williams and the applause for a Williams point was almost deafening. The tiered seating at such venues ensures that the enthusiasm and the noise of the crowd are focused on the players. Stosur was reported as saying: 'You know, it was probably the loudest I ever felt a crowd in my whole life. You're right in the middle of it. For sure it was difficult to stay focused and then obviously the crowd got heavily involved.'
In watching the match it was clear that the crowd lifted early in the second set and it was without any doubt that they wanted Williams to win. The timing of the match, being September 11, may well have been a factor but, in any case, it would have been extremely difficult for Stosur to continue playing at her best. It is therefore right that I make mention of these conditions as a factor when considering exactly what sort of an achievement this win was: a premier event, a very partisan crowd and against a very tough and in-form opponent.
As I said before, these accomplishments are achieved over long periods and when all aspects of one's training are brought together well. As has been reported, after suffering a disappointing third-round loss in South Carolina in April, Stosur worked with the Australian Institute of Sport psychologist Ruth Anderson. Apparently, it was quite a challenging time for Stosur but, again, it comes down to an elite athlete acknowledging the limitations in themselves, determining to be the best person they can be and, in this case, working to lift her mental toughness and position herself psychologically to strengthen her self-belief. Again, this is not something we are along to observe when we watch the final but it is, nevertheless, a vital aspect of an elite sportsperson as they strive to bring all factors together at the right time in order to achieve a victory.
Clearly, the struggle that Samantha Stosur has had and that which has held her back is her psychological resilience. A champion athlete, she has had her great skills and physical strength, and her overall performance, held back by this shortcoming on the psychological side. That shortcoming has clearly been fixed, as she overcame the most difficult of psychological challenges, being up against a very famous and very tough opponent in a very hostile venue.
I suspect that Samantha Stosur is ready, willing and now very able to take her place at the very top of competitive women's tennis and that we will regularly see her in semifinals and finals of the major tennis tournaments and, I hope, regularly winning them. I also suspect that the days of sleeping in dodgy hotels and scrimping and saving will become distant memories for Samantha Stosur.
I take this opportunity to congratulate her on her stunning victory in the US Open. May there be many more. I also hope that the children of Australia look to her as an example of how great success is achieved through hard work and dedication to your dreams, rather than a misplaced belief in luck.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (12:04): With a decisive forehand backed by a determination which has defined her tennis career, Australia's latest tennis ace Samantha Stosur reached the top with her magnificent grand slam glory. Her United States Open win this month at Flushing Meadows, New York elevates her to a place amongst the best this nation has produced. What a pantheon of greats—a hall of fame on the women's side, which includes such notables as Margaret Court, from Albury, and Griffith-born Evonne Goolagong Cawley, Barellan's golden girl from the Riverina. What wonderful role models Margaret and Evonne are, particularly for youth, particularly for girls and especially for those from regional Australia. Sam Stosur now joins those former champions as someone to look up to, particularly for youth, particularly for girls. Kids need heroes and heroines. They need superstars they can have as pin-up posters in their bedrooms, superstars they can pretend to be as they play their backyard versions of Flushing Meadows, Wimbledon, the Melbourne Cricket Ground, Sydney Olympic Park, Lang Park or whatever the case might be—their own field of dreams.
Sam Stosur has now gone all the way from being a 10-year-old with golden locks to gracing the world stage and being the best. That word 'gracing' is significant. Not only did Sam prove her skills with racquet in hand, defeating American Serena Williams in the final in straight sets 6-2, 6-3, but she did so with good manners, dignity and poise. What a role model. In her winning address to the arena, Sam said, 'This was a dream of mine to be here one day.' Enough said. For every athlete, scientist or even politician the dream is the same and the dream is different. The goal is a grand slam, a medical breakthrough, a pleasing result for a constituent—all of which signal we are doing our best; we are doing the right thing. Sam Stosur's triumph reminds us all of the dreams and visions we have for our jobs, our roles and our lives.
The Tour de France win of Cadel Evans saw an instant rise in bike sales, and I am sure Sam's win will inspire thousands of children, especially with the onset of warmer weather, to pick up a tennis racquet and have a go. That is what life is all about: having a go; trying hard; doing our best.
Coincidentally, little more than an hour after Sam's success I caught up with Evonne Goolagong Cawley who was in Parliament House as a patron of the Learn Earn Legend! Work Experience in Government program. She was understandably elated with Sam's terrific win and the image it will set for Australian tennis. She was also overjoyed when I told her Barellan had just recently won the Northern Riverina Football League premiership with the very last kick of the match against Lake Cargelligo in the grand final at West Wyalong. You can take the girl out of Barellan but you cannot take her heart away from her home town, the place where the townsfolk have a giant racquet and ball in the main street in her honour.
Sport plays such a significant role in bringing communities across Australia together. People such as Evonne, Margaret and now Sam have that rare ability to unite a nation. May Sam continue to do so for many more tournaments to come.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (12:07): What a year for Australian sport—winning the Bledisloe Cup, Sally Pearson running a world-championship-winning 100-metre hurdles, Cadel Evans winning the Tour de France and now Samantha Stosur becoming the Women's US Tennis Open Champion; indeed, the first Australian since Margaret Smith Court in 1963. Interestingly, both Sally Pearson and Sam Stosur went to the same school.
Australia is known for its sporting prowess, and I think there are very few people who can remember growing up without the memory of backyard cricket, kicking a ball around or swimming at the beach. But, while we all grow up with these great sporting memories, the feats of our sporting champions like Samantha Stosur take years of sacrifice and dedication and a driving ambition to reach the pinnacle of their particular sport.
Samantha Stosur has this in droves—natural talent combined with a will to win. She is an inspiration not only to our young tennis players but to all who strive to achieve their best in their chosen field. This is particularly the case with Sam, as not too long ago she was sidelined for a year of her career, suffering from the debilitating Lyme disease. This illness happened at a time when Sam was just hitting her stride as a single player and, as we all know, a year out from the intense training and tour circuit with which all your competitors are engaged puts you a long way behind the pack. This illness definitely seems to have left its mark on Sam, who lists one of her greatest fears in life as 'deer tick-carrying Lyme disease'. But, more than that, Sam is quoted as stating that it was this time away from the game—not by choice—that taught her to evaluate what she really wanted from the game and truly appreciate the opportunities she had to achieve her ambition to become a tennis champion. She has, without doubt, engaged this attitude, and we as Australians can now celebrate our first women's grand slam winner in 31 years.
One of the great things about Sam Stosur and her win is that it shows what can be achieved with perseverance and a willingness to take help from others and re-evaluate your life. Sam tells stories of how devoted and supportive her entire family was to her love of tennis. It was her brother who originally convinced their parents to put Sam into tennis lessons at the age of 13. After joining the Queensland Academy of Sport and later the Australian Institute of Sport Sam travelled the gruelling satellite tours on a shoestring budget, even sleeping at a Japanese train station on a makeshift bed of bags strapped together, with pillows from the plane. In typical Aussie style though, Sam notes this as one of her favourite memories. Therein lies one of the reasons for Sam's tremendous following around Australia. She has a great humility and extreme generosity. She loves to compete and cares far more about the sport and playing than she does about the fanfare and success.
While we are celebrating Sam Stosur's US Open win, it has long been known that, on the court, Sam has sometimes being overcome by self-doubt and, while always giving it her all, has sometimes fallen at the last hurdle unable to break through her own psyche. I think that this is, in part, what makes Sam's win so inspiring. She had the courage to ask for help to overcome the mental challenges of the game and acknowledged that physical fitness is not the only factor for success. This is an important message for all Australians, be they aspiring sporting champions or not, that mental wellbeing is just as important in life as physical wellbeing, and that is it okay to ask for outside help to get a different perspective on your problems and concerns. It helped Sam Stosur win the US Open and that is a pretty big endorsement.
I know that Sam would also want us to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of her support team, all of whom are Tennis Australia employees. Sam's success is also a great achievement for that organisation, which has been with Sam from the beginning and has encouraged her to take full advantage of the resources that were made available to her through the programs. Winning a grand slam is not something you achieve on your own and not many people win these titles. After all, it has been 31 years since Evonne Goolagong Cawley's Wimbledon win of 1980.
The good news for Australia is that people do not need to travel overseas to see Sam in action. Tennis Australia is delighted that Sam is a confirmed starter for the Brisbane International in January 2012. This is very good news for her growing number of younger fans. Tennis Australia has advised me that, in the past few weeks, there has been a huge increase in the number of young girls taking up tennis, so now her influence has transcended from the tennis court to every household in Australia. Director Craig Tiley on behalf of the whole team at Tennis Australia described Sam as:
… a very special person who has had to endure significant hardship, but has always had a planned pathway to success. We are particularly proud of the way she has gone about her journey. We are certain that this is just the beginning for Sam, and that this is the first of many great accomplishments with many more to achieve.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to join with many others congratulating Samantha Stosur on her inspiring US Open tennis grand slam win. She is truly a young Australian woman of whom we are all very proud. She is a great ambassador for tennis, a great ambassador for women and a great ambassador for Australia.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (12:13): I think that was a wonderful speech by the member for Ryan and I share in all the sentiments that she expressed. In fact, I stand here today on behalf of my constituents in Higgins to also congratulate Sam Stosur for her wonderful achievement in winning the 2011 US Open. She has, in doing that, sealed her place in the pantheon of Australian sporting legends. She has done her country proud. She joins such luminaries as Margaret Court, the last woman to win the US Open in 1973, as well as Evonne Goolagong Cawley, who won her second Wimbledon in 1980, which of course was the last time an Australian woman won a grand slam tournament. It has been a long time between drinks, but what a win it was. To defeat Serena Williams, a 13-time major championship winner, was an achievement. It was an achievement that all of us congratulate her for. It is a particularly significant achievement when you also consider that this is Sam Stosur's very first win. She is 27 years of age, which is an age when many sporting commentators say that people are past their prime. I am delighted that she has been able to prove those people wrong, and has been able to prove it with such aplomb. Sam Stosur has gone through a number of battles, as has been mentioned, throughout her tennis career. The most significant, of course, was her battle with Lyme disease, which took her off the circuit and forced her to evaluate her tennis career. However, she demonstrated to all Australians just how you go about being a winner: through perseverance, through dedication, through hard work and, of course, through skill. She was able to achieve that, and we saw that just recently.
But she had many achievements before this grand slam win. In fact, she has been on the circuit for quite some time, starting at the very tender age of 13 at the World Youth Cup in Jakarta, her first international tournament. At 14 she became very serious about tennis, joining the Queensland Academy of Sport under Geoff Masters, and in 2001, at the age of 16, she joined the Australian Institute of Sport's tennis program. She is a doubles champion, winning the US Open doubles final in 2005, and was a runner-up in the Australian Open doubles in 2006. She won the French Open doubles in 2006 and was ranked No. 1 doubles player in the world with partner Lisa Raymond in that year. Unfortunately, she was not able to defeat Francesca Schiavone, the winner of the French Open, in 2010, but she came very close and we congratulate her for persevering and becoming such a wonderful champion, as demonstrated with her terrific win at the US Open.
She is a very inspirational player. She is somebody who is a great role model for all Australians, but in particular young women. I know that for many years to come she will take that role very seriously not only in the way that she continues to achieve on the court but also in the contribution she makes off the court. So we congratulate Sam Stosur; her mother, Dianne; her father, Tony; and her brothers, Dominic and Daniel. We congratulate all of those people who have helped her to achieve in her career, because nobody achieves these things alone; and we congratulate, most importantly, Sam Stosur.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (12:17): I would also like to speak about Sam Stosur, somebody who I had the pleasure of working with in 2005 as the Fed Cup captain. I quickly got to know Sam very well. We went to India to compete in the Fed Cup and then on to the French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open. I had some great insight into Sam and her young development, because one of my great friends and colleagues at the time, Geoff Masters, had been her coach. He had told me of the time lapse in when he would arrive for his practice sessions with her after school, as she had a timetable that allowed her to arrive early. Unlike an average 14- or 15-year-old girl, Sam would practice her serve. It was interesting to see that later in her career—her very young career at that point—her serve became her great weapon. I maintained at the time that it was a reasonably modest claim that Sam had the greatest second serve in the history of women's tennis.
I have made other claims about Sam, and at times I was ridiculed for my overzealous support of my young player. This came on the eve of Wimbledon, after a season that had had mixed results for Sam. While she had started the year by getting to the finals in Brisbane and in Sydney and had had chances to win, at that final hurdle she became a little unsure of herself, not believing or understanding the full extent of her talent. This, maybe, was revisited in Birmingham, which is just a week prior to Wimbledon, when she played the defending champion, Maria Sharapova, in a relatively noisy match. Maria had won Wimbledon the previous year at just 18 years of age and was thought to be a hot favourite again. Sam played a most magnificent match. She lost closely—6-4 in the third set. She served and volleyed beautifully. She displayed her athletic ability and her ability to volley. Her ability to play a greater depth of tennis was growing; it was no longer just a 'serve and go for a winner' approach. She was maturing.
After this match, in talking to the press, as you do, I ventured the opinion that if a young 18-year-old Sharapova could win Wimbledon so could Sam. This was written about and in fact Patrick Smith, who at the time wrote that it was a silly thing for me to have said, has now actually written an apology and acknowledged that I had shown some foresight. There were even those within Tennis Australia who thought that I was silly at the time. I hope they think this no more, although I have not received a letter of apology from them.
Sam has gone on to be a finalist at the French and now she has had this triumph—these results come from the accumulation of many losses. There is a saying in tennis that you only learn from your losses and that your greatness comes from how you deal with a loss. If you learn and then go back onto the practice court, work with your coach and practice the things that led to that loss, you are taking full responsibility for that loss and you are doing something about it; you are not admitting that you are a loser. This has certainly been the course that Sam Stosur has chosen to follow. It is not an easy course. There have been many great disappointments. Sometimes with great expectation, when you have losses, they are that much more difficult to handle.
During the year of 2005, we had a team saying—when times got really tough and these difficult moments of loss occurred, we would ask each other what time it was and the answer had to come back, 'The best time of my life.' After nearly beating Maria Sharapova at Birmingham, Sam was injured the next day and was unable to practise for the next nine days prior to Wimbledon. She practised briefly on the Saturday, she practised a little bit on the Sunday and she lost to a player in the first round of Wimbledon. This is why my predictions of her possibly winning the event were not seen to be good—they were about a girl who had only ever once played at Wimbledon and who had only once won a match.
Later on in the year, at the US Open, she lost in the first round again. Attesting to her character, she then picked up and played in the doubles event—and won it. That not only gave her that fabulous first grand slam win, it also made her the No. 1 female doubles player in the world. You can see that path from the disappointment of the first round loss, through what she has taken from the many losses and some successes, to arrive on the centre court on this historic date to play Serena Williams.
You have to understand the role that Serena and her sister have played in this sport. They have taken this sport from being very much an elite and white sport in the US. There had been two great black American players preceding them: Althea Gibson, who was the first black American to win Wimbledon in 1956, the year that Lew Hoad won, and the great Arthur Ashe—the stadium is named after Arthur Ashe. They were two players, in combination with Evonne Goolagong, who did much to broaden the appeal of the game.
The Williams sisters have done something in tennis that has not been done by anyone else in men's or women's tennis—they played each other in four consecutive grand slam events. This was during a time when women's tennis had gone from strength to strength, not the time when Billie Jean King and Margaret Court dominated the sport and there might have been only two or three other really great female competitors. These days there are 20 or 30—you do not know where the winners are going to come from in these grand slam events. These two girls, Serena and Venus, have dominated the sport during an era which has seen the likes of Steffi Graf—who may have been the greatest of all time, although Serena could also make that claim.
So for Sam to come to this historic stadium, on this historic date, to play this player who has so dominated women's tennis, and to have the calm and the maturity to play the match of her life is the sum total of her career. She has not won Wimbledon yet, but we keep our fingers crossed.
On the day that Sam lost in the first round of the US Open in 2005, after the long walk from an outside court to the locker room, I asked Sam, 'What time is it?' and she said, 'This is not the best day of my life!' I would like to reflect that the world has made a number of turns since that day—that day of learning—and I would say that the day that she beat Serena was the best day of her life.
So hearty congratulations to Sam. As much as she has done, there is a lot more to come. She has been the beneficiary of a lot of great help; David Taylor, who has taken her to this new stage, should also be congratulated. But there is no doubt that Sam's best tennis is yet to come and, as she has been so appreciative of the help she has received, there is no doubt that she will contribute to the further development of the sport in Australia.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (12:25): It is a great pleasure to follow the member for Bennelong, because I had great delight in pointing out to him last week an article by Patrick Smith on the back page of the Australian, which was really all about those who laugh last laughing the loudest. A few years ago the member for Bennelong was held to ridicule, I think it is fair to say, for making the call about Sam Stosur that she would go on to win a grand slam. Showing great foresight, great vision and great knowledge of the game, Mr Alexander has proven himself correct, and a great identifier and spotter of tennis talent in this country. I congratulate him on that, because the media can be a vicious game, and he had put himself out there by making what I think was a very brave call in the media, which the public could see—very much as he is doing now as the member for Bennelong—and he has been proved right.
And I congratulate Sam Stosur for helping to prove he was right! She had done so incredibly well. She is the first female tennis player to win a grand slam for Australia since Evonne Goolagong Cawley in 1980. What a great tennis player she was. They both, of course, follow in the fine traditions of Margaret Court. I grew up with a father who was a very keen tennis player and loved to regale us with stories about the great players, and he thought that the best Australian female tennis player we had ever seen was Margaret Court. He used to tell me a lot about her famous victories, especially in grand slams. I was privileged enough to watch Evonne Goolagong, as she was then, win Wimbledon in 1980 on the television, and I have to say it was a courageous win and a fantastic win. The way she represented not only Australia but also our Indigenous communities was an absolute credit to her.
It is terrific now that Sam Stosur has followed in those illustrious footsteps. It has not been easy for her. Over her career, she has had to fight injury. She also had to fight through a stage in the nineties when tennis, especially female tennis, in Australia really declined, and she has very much led the charge to get women's tennis back up to the place it should be—that is, where we are competing for grand slam titles.
The way Sam won that US Open final was also terrific. It was not easy for her. She had tough matches right through. Then, when it came to the final, in coming up against a Williams sister—as my learned friend in these matters, the member for Bennelong, said—it was probably the greatest battle that she was ever going to fight in her life and she did it with style. Let us not forget the background to it as well, because in that match the whole of the crowd was rooting for a US victory. Sadly, there was a little bit of bad sportsmanship and a little bit of egging on to get the crowd really eager for that US victory. She had the mental strength—and I think there were some that had questioned whether Sam did have the mental strength—to put all that behind her, and she single-handedly and determinedly went about securing what was a magnificent victory.
Once again, I congratulate Sam Stosur on a magnificent performance. A would also like to congratulate the member for Bennelong for having the foresight to see her greatness those many years ago.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): Order! It being 12.30 debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr MELHAM: I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
Swan Electorate: Hospitals
Mr IRONS (Swan) (12:30): I rise today to speak about hospitals and health care in my electorate of Swan. The South Perth Hospital has once again been ranked highly in the national survey of hospital satisfaction run by Medibank. This year they have been awarded second place in Western Australia, and this comes on the back of their second place finish in 2010 and being awarded first place in the entire country in 2009. Year after year, this hospital achieves in patient satisfaction, and it is testament to the professionalism of the nurses, doctors and management.
The hospital was built just after the Second World War. At the time there was no Narrows Bridge, and those members familiar with the geography of Perth would be aware that this meant the suburb of South Perth was relatively isolated. The community felt a small hospital was needed and, following some local fundraising by a group known as the South Perth Community Centre Association, the government chipped in to allow it to be built. In 1959, a 15-bed maternity wing was added, which provided services until 2002. On a personal note, I saw my niece, Jessica Rowe, born in that hospital. Today the hospital is one of the only hospitals in the country to be completely privately funded. It is completely self-sufficient and not reliant on community financial backing to continue its operation. This is a considerable achievement in itself.
The South Perth Hospital has recently completed a $15 million redevelopment to increase capacity. I was fortunate enough to be able to tour the hospital last year with the shadow minister for health, Peter Dutton, and I am looking forward to going back and seeing the extra capacity brought about by this development. CEO Marcia Everett describes South Perth as a boutique hospital specialising in elective surgery. Ms Everett attributes the hospital's strong showing to the high standard of clinical care and a 'holistic personal touch'. The points raised by Ms Everett are important when considering the issue of local healthcare provision. The Bentley Hospital, which is also in my electorate of Swan, is another small-scale hospital built around elective surgery. Last year I campaigned on behalf of the community for elective surgery to be maintained at Bentley Hospital, and I am pleased to say this campaign was successful. I have also been campaigning for maternity services to be retained at Bentley Hospital. This is important, given the number of young families in the area. We have managed to gain a commitment from the state health minister that he would maintain the maternity services and have them reviewed in 2014 to see what the community need is.
I have campaigned for these services because of the importance of small-scale local hospitals to communities. It is true that we need the larger hospitals such as Sir Charles Gairdner or Royal Perth. It was the WA Liberal government which saved the Royal Perth Hospital, which the state Labor government had consigned to be closed prior to the last state election. But local people, especially seniors, did not want to have to travel so far to the new hospital being built in the southern suburbs, so we needed to keep the Royal Perth Hospital open and that is what the WA Liberal government has done.
Madam Deputy Speaker D'Ath, you may have been listening to my speech the other night, but I do not think you were in the chamber at the time. I spoke about the situation of Australians living with disease, specifically adhesive arachnoiditis, and called for an inquiry into their circumstances. I spoke about how the disease slowly shuts down the body. A trip to the hospital can become an ordeal in its own right for those people. Local hospitals are of value to the community, in particular people with those types of diseases.
It is important to have strong local hospitals and it is also important to have strong administrative districts for hospitals and health centres that meet the needs of the local community. I recently worked together with the Canning Division of General Practice to make sure that the proposed Medicare Locals boundaries are suitable for the Swan community. The initial boundaries released by the government were unacceptable to the Canning Division of General Practice, as they split their current area into two. Among other problems, the proposed area would have excluded Curtin University, which the division had put a significant amount of effort into establishing relationships with. I made representations on behalf of the Canning division for amendments to these boundaries and also spoke to the member for Brand, who also supported the move. I am pleased to say that we were successful and achieved what we believe was an important outcome for local health.
I would like to conclude by saying that it is important that we retain a mixture of providers of health care, including maintaining a healthy private sector. The Commonwealth government has long provided a private healthcare rebate for those Australians that decide to take out private health care. This has been based on research, like that of Econtech, Harper Associates and Hagan, stating that every dollar of funding provided for the private health insurance rebate saves $2 of costs that are then paid by private health insurers.
In early September, here in the parliament, I was presented with a petition by HBF CEO Rob Bransby from 3,372 constituents in my electorate of Swan.
In conclusion, I once again congratulate South Perth Hospital on their award. (Time expired)
Superannuation
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (12:35): I rise to celebrate the 20th anniversary of one of the most transformational economic and social reforms in Australia's history—namely, the superannuation guarantee—and to highlight the next steps this government is taking to improve superannuation for all Australians. Announced on federal budget night, 20 August 1991, by then Treasurer John Kerin, this reform was fundamental in shaping the superannuation system as we know it today, as well as a key policy for addressing the need for all Australians to have adequate retirement savings.
This government, like the Hawke and Keating Labor governments before us, believes in building our capacity for lifetime income security in order to ensure comfort and financial wellbeing after one's working life, not just during it. Not only has the superannuation guarantee made all workers shareholders in their own destiny; it has improved the economy for generations to come. The more private savings that people have to retire on, the less younger workers need to pay in tax to support those retirees. The more of our own money we have in retirement, the less we must rely on the age pension.
That is why the introduction of the superannuation guarantee was such a visionary and progressive piece of policy. Yet it is timely in present circumstances to remember that at the time of its introduction it came under attack by the then opposition, who made baseless predictions about the supposed damage—with no corresponding benefits—that universal superannuation would wreak on Australian workers and the economy. The former Liberal member for Bradfield, David Connolly, told the House during the superannuation guarantee debate:
It is simply that this legislation will cost jobs at the very time when Australia, like most other developed countries, regrettably, appears to be going into a phase of our economic development where periods of unemployment in excess of 12 months may well be the norm.
Doesn't it sound familiar? Senator Richard Alston also managed to get it so wrong. He said during the same debate, whilst espousing the virtues of Fightback:
That is the tragedy of this sordid little deal. It is not going to be in anyone's interests. It is simply going to have very disadvantageous consequences for the people it is designed to help.
What a visionary! And, finally, Senator John Watson continued the fear campaign, saying:
At the lowest level, the superannuation regime represents the loss of one job in 30 …
Those who once sat opposite told the Australian people that one in 30 workers would lose their jobs as a direct result of introducing superannuation for Australian workers, a policy designed to provide them with sufficient funds for a dignified retirement. How wrong they were. Today, we have a multitrillion dollar industry of funds under management, developed over the past 20 years, creating jobs and investment in sectors not even imagined at the time of its inception, both within and beyond financial services.
Not only was this policy so right 20 years ago but it is why this government is delivering on the next steps for superannuation reform. The package of Stronger Super reforms, announced yesterday by the Assistant Treasurer, continues the long tradition of Labor governments delivering for Australian workers. Under the Stronger Super reforms, Australians will benefit greatly from a new era of low-cost superannuation through the introduction of the MySuper proposal; new data and payment standards for superannuation transactions under the SuperStream proposal, which will make it easier for superannuation funds and their members to locate and consolidate multiple accounts; and improving standards of trustee governance and strengthening the requirements for trustee directors to act for the benefit of members.
It is not just this government that considers these initiatives to be important. There are many industry leaders who agree with us. In today's Australian Financial Review, for example, there are many such examples, including John Brogden, CEO of the Financial Services Council, who is quoted as saying:
It's an improved package, a balanced package and one that our members ... regard as very much worthy of support.
We have come a long way since the Cooper Review and its 177 recommendations for improving the Australian superannuation system. We have come a long way since the introduction of the superannuation guarantee system itself. We recognise the importance of a considered and market-leading retirement incomes policy, and we are delighted to continue our push to ensure every Australian has the opportunity to enjoy a dignified retirement. Lifting the rate of superannuation from nine to 12 per cent continues this government's commitment to working Australians. We do this for the over eight million Australians with superannuation accounts, their families, future generations, the funds and wealth management industry which continue to grow as we speak, Australian enterprise which benefits from our savings pool, and our citizens generally. They know that superannuation is an institutional Australian pillar, like Medicare, the minimum wage, the age pension and a national disability insurance scheme. This is why it is so ironic that those opposite cannot bring themselves to support the proposed increase from nine to 12 per cent. In fact, those opposite who were elected to this place prior to 2004 enjoy superannuation benefits which are defined benefits and notional contributions well in excess of the proposed 12 per cent for most Australians. They must realise that we have a superannuation system that is the envy of the world. They should not stand in the way of genuine reform, building on the history of this success, and this government's commitment to improve the superannuation system for future generations of Australians.
Farrer Electorate: Henty Machinery Field Days
Ms LEY (Farrer) (12:40): Today as well as on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week saw the Henty field days in my electorate of Farrer at the town of Henty. It is the first Henty field days I have not been able to attend, because of parliament sitting on those three days, but I am talking to the team of people there and finding out the issues that are being discussed. We have a 'no carbon tax' petition at the front of our site. I just spoke to the member of my staff who is managing the process who said, 'I can't believe the anger in the people that are coming up to sign this petition, and by the end of our three days here we will have hundreds of pages.' To be honest, I did not expect that response. I thought that people wandering by to chat about the season or the conditions or the mice and rabbits or the fact that we need another five to 10 millimetres of rain would probably see the carbon tax petition and say, 'Okay, sure, I'll sign it.' In fact, that is not the case. They are queuing up to sign it. This is the petition that says that the Australian people should have their say on whether we have a carbon tax.
I wanted to mention that because it genuinely is something that is happening at the Henty fields days this year, but I also want to talk about mice and rabbits. Earlier this week a constituent of mine from the far west of New South Wales, David Lord, came to Canberra to address the backbench coalition group on rural industries and he spoke about the real need for Australia to develop new biological control options for rabbits. Those of us who have looked at the history of pests in Australia possibly remember a book called They all ran wild, which details the scary results from rabbits across Australia. We asked David Lord, who brought a colleague with him—who I think is connected with the CSIRO but in any case is in some research capacity—why rabbits have slipped below the radar. The answer was that they are just not sexy or particularly interesting. The government has given $20 million to camel control, and I think it is too wet to actually carry that out, but $1.2 million to rabbit control. It is just not enough. Now is the time to begin the search for the next biological control for the rabbit. It really is getting too late.
The two really successful controls we have had are myxomatosis and calicivirus. But because the rabbit populations are building up so much in the far west following recent good rain, it is obvious that those controls are no longer working. We need science, we need applied research and we need a laboratory to make this happen. There is not the ability in the wide-open station country of the far west to go out and rip rabbit burrows, which is what a lot of us who have been farmers in the past have done, and physically fill in rabbit burrows. Putting Phostoxin tablets down and shovelling them over was a painstaking task, but often the only way you could get rid of rabbits.
I also want to mention mice because, while their numbers have eased off at the moment, if we get a little bit of rainfall and the weather warms up there is the potential for mice populations to absolutely explode. Unfortunately, we have seen the shutting down of baiting stations during the middle of a mice plague. I think this is symptomatic of our current agriculture minister's inability to get on the front foot with this stuff. I know there is an arms-length process that goes through the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and I understand that process well because I was the parliamentary secretary responsible for the authority. They do a good job, but they are moving at glacial pace. They are looking at possibly extending permits and gathering information and talking to a national mouse management working group. I want to bring the frustration of farmers to the attention of this place. Farmers see this process that is happening but they just want to get hold of mouse bait and store it on farm ready for when mouse numbers increase. Unfortunately, what they are doing is mixing their own brews at home, using chemicals that probably are not allowed to be used in the way that they are using them. I am not condoning that of course, but when mouse bait is not available they may use unorthodox approaches. Anyone who has lived through a mouse plague in rural Australia knows there is nothing funny about it. I can tell you that it sends people crazy if they get in the house. It literally destroys and devastates crops. I urge the minister to step in and take action.
Canberra Electorate: Trades Training
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:45): It was my honour recently to attend the National Association of Women in Construction ACT chapter's awards for excellence. The women who won these awards are tenacious, highly skilled and inspiring. They are women who have confronted what is, in a way, the last frontier—and it still is a man's domain. I would like to honour all of the women who received awards that night, in particular Michelle Tifan, who received the future leader award. Michelle works for ActewAGL in Canberra. She started her career as a scientist and moved into a trade at a later stage because she was more interested in pursuing that career. She is an incredibly inspirational woman. These are amazing trail-blazing women, some of whom have had tough fights and struggles to be recognised in the industry. And we need more of them.
I understand that women make up only 12 per cent of the construction industry. A 2009 report from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research said that the number of women in manual trades was probably less than two per cent. This number is too low but it is something that can be fixed. Women have done these trades before. During World War I and II women took over from men to ensure that life and work went on in this country, and we can do it again.
For our part, the government is investing heavily in training our nation. Training in trades and skills is an important component for the future productivity, employment and economic growth of this country. I have had a long interest in vocational education and trades since my days at the oldest workers college in the world, my former alma mater and the place where I was union president, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. So I was very pleased when the Gillard government invested heavily in trades, training and education in the budget. The budget invested over $100 million to help mentor apprentices through their training. Currently, only 48 per cent of apprentices complete their training, and it is particularly difficult in the first year. This program is aimed at providing the right guidance and mentoring to young apprentices to make sure they understand and can benefit from the opportunities of learning a trade. The budget also included $281 million for a support package for additional tax-free payments to encourage apprentices in critical trades and a $1,700 bonus, which is expected to support 200,000 apprentices over four years.
The Gillard government invested $11 billion in vocational training between 2008 and 2010, and this has resulted in 448,000 new apprentices—a significant number and the highest ever recorded. These investments are coupled with the billion-dollar investment already made in the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program to ensure that as many Australian school students as possible have the opportunity to learn a skill or a trade. In my own electorate, I know how much these centres are appreciated. I have met the students and staff of St Mary MacKillop College in Tuggeranong who told me just how much their centre is helping to change lives and create opportunities. I had a tour of this new centre just recently. It has not opened yet as work is still being done on it. It has all sorts of woodwork and metal-craft opportunities and has a centre for hospitality. These new centres provide young Australians with a range of trade skills as well as life skills, and they are to be lauded. We have made a significant investment of $5.7 million in the centre at St Mary MacKillop College, and it benefits not just the hundreds of students at that college but also students throughout Canberra—students from St Clare's College, St Francis Xavier College and Merici College. They are all joint partners in the project. I mention these key programs not only because I am proud of the achievements of the Gillard government when it comes to skills and education but because I want to encourage all women and girls to take up the opportunity that this record level of investment is unlocking. I think it is important to note that this is a program that those opposite would slash and burn should they come to office, depriving thousands of Australians the opportunity of learning a trade, including the next generation of girls and women such as those who were honoured at the recent awards event I went to.
Providing a high quality education to all Australians and ensuring that all Australians can get the skills and training they need to get a job is part of the DNA of Labor. It is an integral part of our history and since this government has come to office this legacy has seen the creation of some 750,000 jobs. (Time expired)
Climate Change
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (12:51): I am a practical conservationist. The sorts of things I do include getting salvinia and water hyacinth removed from creeks that have clogged up. I have birds that fly between Australia and Russia on a seasonal basis monitored. I want to see the mouth of a river that is slowly silting up reopened properly by the closure of a secondary mouth. I do things like that. So I get offended when anyone who opposes the carbon tax is criticised, chastised and berated for supposedly being a climate change denier. We are howled down, ignored and ridiculed for holding different opinions from the architects of the carbon tax, who—might I say with great piety—say that they want the debate based on the facts. Well, they do not base their arguments on the facts.
A couple of recent events prove that they are more than prepared to use blatant scaremongering and wild exaggeration to sway Australians. Let me outline an example for you. One of my constituents in Hervey Bay recently received an unsolicited begging letter from Senator Christine Milne of the Greens. My constituent was most upset to receive this letter—they have never been Greens supporters—and they did not understand why they had been targeted by the party. I believe the letter was sent in error, as the text was clearly intended for distribution in South Australia. Along with spelling errors, its content was most disturbing.
In her letter Senator Milne made some outrageous statements clearly designed to frighten the recipients. On page 1 of the letter she says that people have been fleeing Somalia because of climate change. I would suggest that a failed government and rampant violence is the reason most people are fleeing Somalia. While I acknowledge that there has been drought and famine, the failure of government to properly distribute food to those people has been a major factor.
On page 2 of the five-page mail-out Senator Milne says:
We know time is running out—in just a decade, without effective adaptation, heat-related deaths in South Australia are projected to double.
I seriously doubt the veracity of that statement. It is certainly not supported by the department of climate change, the Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO and others who say that, even in a worst case scenario, the temperature of a South Australian summer may go up by just 1.5 degrees by 2030.
I would also argue that the much higher electricity costs which will flow from the Labor and Greens carbon tax are exactly what will contribute to deaths, as a lot of older people will be too scared to turn on their air-conditioning plants because of the increased costs of electricity. That is when people are going to die, not because of what Senator Milne suggests with her rampant scaremongering. On every single page of this widely distributed letter there are pleas to donate money to the Greens so that they can build up a war chest of $100,000 by the end of the month. In a neat aside at the end of the letter, Senator Milne claims:
… some of Australia's richest people helped bring down a Prime Minister with a $22 million advertising campaign against the mining tax. Don't let them use these tactics to get their way again.
It was not the advertising campaign which brought down the Prime Minister. It was the factions within the Labor Party. The overnight removal of the Prime Minister came because he abandoned, amongst other things, his CPR Scheme after the dismal performance at the Copenhagen forum and because of things like ceiling insulation and other government disasters that shook confidence in his administration. So I find this sort of thing, frightening people in my electorate, offensive. I say to the Greens: leave my people alone; you got one of your lowest votes in Australia in my electorate. My people can make good judgments, and they do not need to be scared by outrageous claims, and this is especially offensive when it is directed at older people. (Time expired)
Mercedes-Benz Central Coast Business Excellence Awards
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (12:56): My electorate of Robertson, on the Central Coast of New South Wales, is one that relies heavily on the small business sector to provide local employment for people on the Central Coast. A recent survey of small businesses by the Central Coast Business Enterprise Centre showed very promising results, indicating that 63 per cent of those surveyed in the last year had grown their business, 36 per cent had stayed at about the same level of business and only one per cent had had a negative result. The centre's CEO, Wayne Gates, was positive about the fact that IT, media and telecom businesses were experiencing strong growth.
The success, optimism and capacity of our local business leaders was absolutely evident to me when I recently had the privilege of attending one evening the inaugural Mercedes-Benz Central Coast Business Excellence Awards for this year. These awards are an initiative of the Central Coast Business Review and recognise those Central Coast businesses that really do strive for excellence in their operations, and they seek to reward those businesses. Edgar Adams, the editor and publisher of the Central Coast Business Review magazine, is the driving force behind these awards. He has lived on the Central Coast for over 30 years and is well respected for his knowledge of issues relating to people in business across our particular region. Edgar has been a very strong advocate for an early rollout of the NBN, understanding, as he does, how that will empower local businesses in a global economy. He also understands that there is a strong business imperative for the Central Coast, and I want to recognise here in parliament his outstanding commitment to the Coast, to local business and to excellence.
The awards that evening acknowledged the Central Coast industry leaders and challenged us to rethink our sadly regular position as 'only one hour north of Sydney and only one hour south of Newcastle'. We are much more than the sandwich filling. We are a fantastic region in our own right, boosted by our central location with businesses aspiring to really perform equal to any in any other location—and, God willing, with the NBN we will be able to get out and show a few of the big cities what we can really do when we get access to the same sort of resources. The awards showcase the strength, innovation, skill and enterprise that exists in our region.
The big winner for this year's awards was a really fantastic local man, a product of Woy Woy who was very glad to acknowledge his humble origins—a gentleman by the name of Warren Hughes. He runs a company called ACS Integrated Service Provider. Mr Hughes started his company in 1991 while he was working as a bouncer at the Kincumber Hotel, a place which is very close to where I live and is often a site of picking up a little bit for the weekend. So he has gone from being a Kincumber pub bouncer to now being the owner of a company that has grown to be a national market leader, mainly in the field of cleaning service provision, with a $20 million annual turnover and employing some 800 staff across Australia. It is a very impressive achievement and I was very encouraged that such incredible entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well on the Central Coast. Warren was very keen to acknowledge the significant role that his wife, Donna, played in his success. She was there to celebrate with him on the evening, as were members of his staff who have been with him since the beginning of his business. He has a very low attrition rate because he runs a fantastic locally based model and he encourages his staff and calls them his family members. They were delighted in the success and they shared in that success with him.
There are a great number of award winners in a number of categories, and I would like to record their success here today. The Innovation Award went to Pixel Mache, Treehouse Creative and Organise Internet; the E-Business Award went to E-Bisprint Pty Ltd; the Service Excellence Award went to Baxter O'Hara Building; the Environmental Awareness Award went to Living Green Designer Homes; the Retailer of the Year was Roses 2 Go; the Employer of the Year was Open Shutters; the Marketer of the Year was Lake Haven Shopping Centre; the Home Based Business of the Year was Inspire Success; the Small/Medium Business of the Year was North Construction; the Large Business of the Year was ACS Integrated Service Provider; the Rising Star Award went to Sam Yeats from the Ultra Serve computer business—who actually advertised a job as he received his award that evening; the Manufacturer of the Year was FITT Resources; the award for Outstanding Contribution by a CEO went to Warren Hughes, who I have spoken about; and the Business of the Year was ACS Integrated Service Provider. With such incredible success amongst our local businesses, we have a fine future ahead in terms of employment of local people, and I expect that that great innovation that they showed there will continue into the future.
Main Committee adjourned at 13:01
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Infrastructure and Transport: Office Premises and Staff
(Question No. 506)
Mr Truss asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 17 August 2011:
For each premises owned or occupied by his department, indicate (a) the address, (b) the (i) division(s) of the department operating, and (ii) number of staff working, within it, (c) its size, and (d) whether it is leased or owned, and if (i) leased, indicate the rent per square metre, and (ii) owned, indicate the depreciation of the building.
Mr Albanese: The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
All departmental office space is leased. Relevant information on the location and leasing arrangements is contained in the Department’s 2009-10 annual report.
Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government: Senior Executive Service
(Question No. 562)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 24 August 2011:
How many staff were employed by the Minister's department in the Senior Executive Service (ie, SES) on 1 July (a) 2008, and (b) 2011.
Mr Crean: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) As the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government was created on 14 September 2010, there were no Senior Executive Service officers on 1 July 2008.
(b) On 1 July 2011, the Department employed 23 Senior Executive Service officers.
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities: Senior Executive Service
(Question No. 569)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, in writing, on 25 August 2011:
How many staff were employed by the Minister's department in the Senior Executive Service (i.e., SES) on 1 July (a) 2008, and (b) 2011.
Mr Burke: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) On 1 July 2008, the then Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts recorded 70 substantive Senior Executive Service (SES) officers.
(b) On 1 July 2011, the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities recorded 68 substantive Senior Executive (SES) officers.
Dawson Electorate: Government Projects
(Question No. 583)
Mr Christensen asked the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 12 September 2011:
Will he provide detailed project delivery timetables for the following Government election commitments in the electorate of Dawson:
(a) Bowen foreshore water park;
(b) Mackay basketball stadium;
(c) Mackay junior football grounds upgrade;
(d) Mackay ring road study;
(e) Airlie Beach main street upgrade; and
(f) Peak Downs Highway upgrade.
Mr Crean: I am advised that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
My Department is responsible for the delivery of four of these projects:
Bowen foreshore water park;
Mackay basketball stadium;
Mackay junior football grounds upgrade; and
Airlie Beach main street upgrade.
The Department is currently assessing project information from each of the proponents so that an assessment of value for money for each project can be made. Once the assessment is completed the Department will provide me with advice for my consideration. Until the assessment process is complete, the project approved for the release of funding and a funding agreement executed, delivery timeframes for each project cannot be accurately determined.
As the Mackay ring road study and Peak Downs Highway upgrade projects are administered by the Department of Infrastructure and Transport you should seek this information from Minister Albanese.