The SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BUSINESS
Speaker's Procession
The SPEAKER (09:01): I wish to advise the House of changes once each week to the existing Speaker's procession. Presently at the commencement of each sitting day the procession forms in the Speaker's walkway and enters the chamber from the rear door. This takes place in private areas of the building and is not accessible to the many visitors to our parliament. At the start of each sitting Tuesday, the procession will take a route that can be viewed from public areas of the building. At all other times, the occupant of the chair will enter and leave via doors at the rear of the chamber, as is the current practice. From next week the procession on Tuesdays will commence in the Members Hall and move through the glazed linkway entering the front of the chamber via the front doors. After announcing the Speaker as usual, the Serjeant-at-Arms will precede the Speaker into the chamber before placing the mace at the end of the table. The Speaker will take the chair via the government side of the table.
Consistent with current practice, the procession will comprise the Speaker, preceded by the Serjeant-at-Arms carrying the mace, and the Speaker's attendant. Entry of the procession via the front doors is based on the current practice for formal occasions. The proposed arrangements are similar to arrangements in the Canadian, New Zealand and United Kingdom parliaments. I table this statement for the information of the House.
STATEMENTS
Parliament
The SPEAKER (09:02): Last night I made a statement about supplementary questions. I would like to clarify the point I made about supplementary questions asked by non-aligned members. My intention is to maintain proportionality and, under current arrangements, that would allow for one supplementary question each week for non-aligned members. Should the number of questions asked by non-aligned members change, I would seek to accommodate that change with regard to supplementary questions.
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Membership
The SPEAKER (09:03): I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Stephens has been discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services and, in accordance with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, Senator Sherry has been appointed a member of the committee.
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Membership
The SPEAKER (09:03): I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Sterle has been discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. In accordance with the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951, Senator Sherry has been appointed a member of the committee.
BILLS
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) Bill 2011
Report from Committee
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (09:04): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) Bill 2011, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Ms OWENS: by leave—The Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) Bill 2011 is similar to other tax amendment bills in that it is a package of measures designed to finetune or improve the tax law. During the inquiry, some of the measures received express endorsement in submissions. For example, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia supported the provisions on the electronic portability form. This will be a system whereby super fund members will be able to electronically request the consolidation of their super through the tax office. It will assist individuals who are reunited with their superannuation funds in consolidating the different amounts.
Some measures did not receive comment from stakeholders but are beneficial to taxpayers and should be supported. For example, under current law, taxpayers can obtain a capital gains tax rollover for a capital gain or loss that arises from their interest in a company or trust because of the demerger of an entity from the group of which the company or trust is the head entity. However, this is not available where the head entity is a corporation sole or complying superannuation entity. Schedule 2(2) of the bill makes this rollover available for these types of bodies.
The GST and hire purchase amendments remove a tax induced distortion between chattel mortgage and hire purchase. Under current law, chattel mortgage is more attractive because the GST input tax credits are upfront for small businesses that use cash accounting for GST, whereas they are only available on a payment basis under hire purchase. Small businesses now rarely use hire purchase for this reason, despite its other advantages over chattel mortgage.
The bill also reduces compliance costs for small business by increasing the financial acquisitions threshold from $50,000 to $150,000. If a small business makes financial acquisitions below this amount, then it is outside the financial supply regime and can claim input tax credits for its financial supplies. Increasing this threshold takes more small businesses outside the financial supply regime and allows more businesses to claim input tax credits on their financial supplies.
The amendments for GST and new residential premises will reverse the effect of the court case Gloxinia Investments, which found that, where a particular combination of strata titles and leases were involved, newly constructed residential premises were not subject to GST. The bill will reaffirm the policy intent that newly constructed homes should be subject to GST. They will also protect the revenue that funds government services that assist the whole community.
The bill comprises measures that are important refinements to the tax system. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia was the only stakeholder to raise concerns about the bill. These applied to the provisions to enable businesses acquiring assets through hire purchase to obtain their GST input tax credits upfront and the provisions to reverse the effect of the recent court decision of Gloxinia Investments. The institute's concerns related to whether the provisions would implement the policy intent rather than the policy itself.
Despite the institute's comments, there are several reasons why the provisions in the bill are the best available solution. For example, in relation to hire purchase, the Australian Taxation Office believes it has sufficient legislative basis for its interpretation and there have been no court actions disputing them. Further, in consultations in the review of GST and financial supply, stakeholders rejected the more fundamental reforms of the GST implied by the institute's submission. Finally, the equipment finance industry itself is 'delighted' with the proposal. In relation to GST for new residential premises, the institute has again suggested a wider reform than that supported in consultations. Treasury has noted that there is a risk of further court action in this area if the bill proceeds, but this is part of bedding down what is still a relatively new tax.
After scrutinising Treasury and the institute, and noting the many positive measures in the bill, the committee is of the view that it should proceed unamended. I would like to thank the organisations that assisted the committee during the inquiry through submissions or participating in the hearing in Canberra. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for their contribution to the report. I commend the report to the House.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (09:09): I move:
That notice No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011
Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (09:10): I rise to support the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011 and the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011. The principle behind this legislation is universal service obligation. I will discuss how that sits within the current context of the rollout of the National Broadband Network and I will then come to the detail of the bills.
The concept of universal service obligation has a long history—it goes back several hundred years, to some of the early postal services. Its history has been both market driven and, in more recent times, legislatively based. Obviously in the early days of new technology a particular provider in a market will be the only provider or one of only a few providers, and the history of the postal services is that some providers said that the defining characteristic of their operations was that for a single price they could deliver mail across a particular geographical area—across a country or across a state and so forth—for the same price. They were driving a market that was geographically wide, where there was no advantage from living in one of the population bases, in a big city—they were able to expand their market by providing services to people in more remote areas.
Obviously as the communications technologies developed and changed through to telegraph and telephone and today to broadband, an increasing number of players in the field looked to use this sort of marketing advantage—the single price delivery model—to distinguish them from any competitors. It was a commonly accepted aspect of communications markets that there was a universal service capacity—not always an obligation.
In more recent times, because concepts of access and equity have grown within communities, there has been more of a demand for this service not just as a marketing advantage for particular companies but as an obligation, as a right that citizens in a community or society could reasonably expect. This is particularly the case when, as our societies have become more complex, access to communications technologies has been a significant factor in people's ability to participate, whether that is participating in the politics of decision making of a nation or participating in work, study or community activities, or whether it is to participate by remaining connected to family and communities. Over time countries developed the view that it was not enough to leave it as a simple marketing advantage for a provider to be able to offer this service. With more competition and as new markets developed, people wanted greater confidence that they would not be left out.
In a nation like ours, it is no surprise that this concept of universal obligation is very important. If you sit in some of the big cities where multiple competing providers are all trying to cherry-pick very lucrative markets and provide all sorts of options, it is difficult to understand how frustrating things can be for people not very far away. Indeed, this is the case even in an area like mine or in Wollongong, in the electorate of the member for Throsby, who spoke earlier in this debate. I have been a member of parliament for just over seven years. Some of the first cases I had when I came to this place were about payphones. They were about people's great frustration that payphones were being removed. The argument was raging that 'we don't need so many payphones anymore as people are walking around with mobile phones' but some people were saying, 'That's all very well if you can afford to have a mobile phone.' Quite a few campaigns were run. I have not had any in recent years, but the payphone service issue was very big.
In recent years there has been constant contact to my office about access to decent broadband. My area is a beautiful, wonderful part of the world—and I encourage everybody to come and have a look—and we have a fabulous escarpment that runs down and meets the sea, but in parts there is a very narrow strip of land. If you have to rely on anything like wireless and even mobile phone technology it is very frustrating, especially as you get a lot of people with quite lucratively paying jobs in Sydney who think it would be really nice to live in Stanwell Park or Otford or such suburbs. Indeed, if you go to work the polling booths on election day, you find half of my colleagues on the other side have holiday houses in some of those northern suburbs, so I run into them at polling booths. The member for Bradfield would know I have met a few of his friends in the local government election campaigns at polling booths in those suburbs. So it is a beautiful part of the world and a lot of people aspire to live there, and I understand why they would, but they then discover they cannot get mobile phone reception or decent broadband and it will cost them a fortune if they are to be put on wireless, which drops out all the time.
In these more modern times access to good broadband service is a really significant issue for people. What we are therefore challenged with is this: how do we best ensure access to developing and new technologies, particularly communications technologies, so that they are made available as best we possibly can? In Australia we started to address that more formally in 1991, when we had the Telecommunications Act introduced, an act to give the right of access to voice telephone services, which became the universal service obligation. Of course, it has been amended and adjusted over time to recognise the new issues as they have arisen but it is based on the very fundamental concept, which I think is a very strong one in Australia, that it should not matter where you live or what your income is or what your educational circumstances are as there are some fundamental communication access rights that we should ensure people have. A lot of that is driven by the fact that we know that families, communities and societies across this nation, particularly in our rural and regional areas, rely very heavily on their right to participate. Their responsibility to contribute to us as a nation relies on that access and availability.
These three bills sit directly within that tradition and they are addressing the newest development, that being the newest area of communications infrastructure and technology, the rollout of the National Broadband Network, and how universal service obligations will sit within that new framework. The three related bills will deliver the reform required to support the structural separation of Telstra by putting in place the necessary reforms of the universal service obligations, so it is about moving from a directly regulated model that identifies a provider. We have gradually moved to more competition within that, recognising the diversity in the market. This sets up the new structure to operate under an infrastructure based company like the National Broadband Network Co. with competing providers accessing that infrastructure. So it sets up a long-term framework for delivering those three existing services that I have covered: the universal service obligation, which is about reasonable access to basic telephone services and to payphones; the important development of the National Relay Service, which was put in place for those with speech and hearing impediments; and, importantly, the emergency call services, those being the arrangements for handling calls to 000.
They are the existing three which have to be dealt with in the new framework, but it also provides for two new sets of arrangements. Firstly, it is to assist in the migration of voice-only customers from the Telstra copper network to the NBN fibre network. I make the point that was touched on yesterday by my colleague the member for Throsby, who worked in a union that had a lot of coverage in this area, that we should not forget that the copper network is not a Rolls-Royce version out there in the communities anyway. Anyway, one of the other issues that I constantly deal with in my area, where we get quite a bit of water, is the ongoing one of a very poorly maintained ageing copper network, so this is about making sure that, as people migrate to the fibre network, if they only want a voice based service they are able to get that. Secondly, it is to assist in the development of any necessary technology solutions to support the continued provision of existing public interest services that are provided on that copper network—things like traffic lights or public alarm systems that are working off the current network.
The reforms do this by establishing TUSMA, the new agency which will have responsibility for the provision of the USO and other services. They will do this now through a competitive contractual and grant arrangement as to third parties in the same way that we have now got the National Relay Service operating. So that is a change in the way that we are delivering it to recognise the multitude of providers that will be riding on the back of this fibre-in-the-ground infrastructure. The TUSMA Bill will therefore provide for the establishment of TUSMA as the statutory agency. It will have responsibility for the effective implementation and administration of the service agreements that deliver universal service and other public policy telecommunications outcomes. The bill sets out TUSMA's corporate governance structure and its reporting and accountability requirements. It provides for the minister, subject to the scrutiny of the parliament, to set standards, rules and benchmarks for TUSMA's contracts and grants and it sets out measures for collecting an industry levy to contribute to TUSMA's costs.
It is the government's intention to phase out the current USO regime by transitioning from the regulatory model to a more open competitive and contractual model. The reform bill therefore allows, after an initial transition period of approximately two years, for the direct USO regulation to potentially be lifted from Telstra. However, this can only occur if the minister is satisfied that there are satisfactory contractual arrangements in place. The minister will also be able to determine standards, rules and minimum performance benchmarks for TUSMA contracts or grants. These will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by way of disallowance. Before removing the USO regulation, the government intends to make contract conditions that mirror the existing legislative standards, rules and benchmarks currently covered by USO regulatory instruments. Additionally, the existing regulated customer service guarantee—the CSG—that applies to all providers of standard telephone service will continue to apply to telephone services provided by Telstra under the TUSMA contract. The existing rules for the emergency call services remain and the ACMA will continue to regulate the emergency call service provider.
These three bills combine to put this framework in place. The government will contribute base funding of at least $50 million per annum for each of the first two financial years of TUSMA's operation—that is, 2012-13 and 2013-14—and $100 million per annum after that. The bills also identify the stakeholder consultation and review processes. The TUSMA is able to establish advisory committees as it sees the necessity and the government will undertake a comprehensive statutory review of the universal service arrangements before 1 January 2018.
The passage of these bills is important to give effect to the reforms of the universal service obligations that were announced in June 2010 when Telstra entered into the financial heads of agreement with NBN Co. that commenced the structural separation as well as the transfer of customers over to the NBN Co. fibre network. In her contribution yesterday the member for Forrest outlined her frustration at not being able to get fibre based NBN Co. services into her area as quickly as her community would like. It reflects the fact that those on the other side are very much tied to a position that many of them are not happy with, because the NBN Co. is about universal delivery of infrastructure so that people can access service providers much more effectively than they currently do.
The universal service obligation is an important component of that. These bills deserve supporting also because they reflect, regardless of the NBN rollout, a more up-to-date and modern application of that hundreds-of-years-old concept of universal service provision of communications technology.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (09:24): I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011 and related bills. Universal service obligation has been a quagmire of confused policy for 20 years. In my former life as a senior executive of Optus, I spoke about the issue so often that people in Canberra would joke that USO stands for 'Usual Submission from Optus'. Now I bring a different perspective to bear as a legislator concerned about achieving the most efficient and lowest cost arrangements to deliver broadband and telecommunication services to as many people as possible.
With that perspective, I make three points: firstly, the current USO arrangements are not well understood and are seriously flawed; secondly, the new arrangements set out in this bill are an expensive sham which do not advance the position at all and waste a lot of money; and, thirdly, there would be better ways forward which this government could have proposed if it was serious about reform.
I turn firstly to the argument that the current arrangements are not well understood and are seriously flawed. The universal service obligation in its present form was introduced in the early 1990s in advance of Telstra being exposed to competition. The unions were very concerned at the time that Telstra would lose profitable customers to new entrants and would be left serving customers in less profitable areas. Therefore, the current structure of the universal service obligation was introduced, requiring Telstra's competitors to cross-subsidise it for loss-making services, particularly in non-metropolitan Australia. It was specifically designed to be a way to try to mitigate the effect of competition on the incumbent monopolist.
In fact, the fear the unions held never really materialised because Telstra made ruthless use of its vertical integration and incumbent advantages. Even so, the USO was baked into the legislative arrangements and a cabal of cardigan wearers in the Australian Communications Authority, later the Australian Communications and Media Authority, set about the ponderous and regular task of assessing Telstra's so-called net universal service cost—that is, the amount it purportedly loses in providing universal service—and then allocating that cost across industry participants. The cost modelling used by the Australian Communications and Media Authority is intensely controversial. It does not take account of the advantages which Telstra enjoys as the result of being the universal service provider and as the result of being the incumbent, including its economies of scale and scope and, of course, the brand benefits which come from being seen as the ubiquitous provider of telecommunication services.
The government asserts that the report it obtained last year from its consultants, Castalia, gives what has previously been lacking in this debate: an objective estimate of the cost to Telstra of the universal service obligation. I am sorry to say that the report does no such thing. It is riddled with blank spots where key data has been withheld on the grounds that it is commercial-in-confidence. There has been little opportunity for third parties to test the data and assumptions in that report and the report fails to take account of the benefits, which I have already mentioned, which Telstra receives from being the ubiquitous operator. These benefits have been recognised by telecommunications regulators in many other countries.
Telstra's obligations under the universal service obligation are quite narrowly and specifically defined. It is required to provide the so-called 'standard telephone service'—that is, a voice telephony service. As we have heard, the USO also covers pay phones—and there are some other elements such as the National Relay Service—but I want to confine my comments to the question of services received by individual premises. Telstra, under the current arrangements, is required to provide this service for a standard connection charge, which is set under the price cap regulations. In addition, the ongoing price it charges for providing this service—that is, monthly line rental and other cost components—must not exceed the amount set under the price cap regulations.
The true economic cost which Telstra incurs is the capital cost of building a connection to a customer, typically in remote or rural Australia, which it might choose not to serve if it did not have a regulatory obligation to do so. That cost can sometimes be very substantial. But once the connection is built, the incremental cost of providing the service is very low indeed, consistent with the normal principles of telecommunications economics. It is very hard to see the economic logic for calculating the ongoing loss incurred in providing the service and making this the basis for a cross-subsidy.
I want to now turn to the argument that the arrangements set out in this bill are an expensive sham which do not advance the position and which waste a lot of money. According to the explanatory memorandum:
... it is appropriate that the model for delivering universal service and other public policy telecommunications outcomes be reformed to facilitate the competitive supply of universal service and other public policy telecommunications outcomes—
particularly in the context of the National Broadband Network. Unfortunately, the particular reform model proposed is deeply flawed for several reasons. Firstly, these reforms purport to introduce competition so that rather than Telstra automatically being the universal service provider:
... the government will contract with service providers for the supply of these important services.
In fact, this whole arrangement is a sham. The government has already concluded a contract with Telstra—a contract which lasts for 20 years. Far from being a competitive process, as is claimed, the government is simply dressing up an existing contract—a contract which was struck as part of a cosy deal negotiated in secret. Such an approach is all too common from this government—for example, its deal with the big miners in the context of the mining tax.
Secondly, the real purpose of these amendments is to hand another bucket of taxpayers' money to Telstra as part of getting it to cooperate with the NBN. Labor desperately need that cooperation, because if Telstra were instead to compete with the National Broadband Network, the already fragile business case for the NBN would be in complete disarray. The new USO bill therefore sweetens the arrangements that Telstra receives to the tune of a net present value of $700 million, according to Telstra's own estimate.
What is it that taxpayers are getting in exchange and what is it that Telstra is going to have to do differently? To start with, you need to understand that in delivering the universal service obligation today Telstra receives around $55 million a year from its competitors. Under the new 20-year contract with Telstra signed by Minister Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, it will receive $290 million to deliver the universal service obligation and handle emergency services calls. After a couple of transitional years, the government will be tipping $100 million of taxpayers' money into the pot every year. The shortfall, $190 million a year, will be divided up amongst the industry based on market shares—the same mechanism used in today's deeply flawed USO arrangements.
It is true therefore that the amount Telstra pays into the industry pot will increase but that will be greatly outweighed by the much larger amount it now receives. Telstra's net position will therefore improve sharply. On my estimation, it will get over $100 million a year more to do exactly the same things it does today. This is a terrible deal for taxpayers. We will get not one jot more than we get today—namely, a commitment to provide a standard voice service, not a broadband service, to any Australian who wants it at prices as set out in the price cap rules.
Thirdly, far from advancing the position in terms of the service the consumer will receive, it actually goes backwards. Today, there is very little risk or uncertainty in receiving the standard telephone service—the basic voice service—over your existing copper wiring. Tomorrow, as is clear from the explanatory memorandum, there will be significant risks when the copper is turned off and the standard telephone service must be delivered over the NBN fibre to the customer's home. This is why the bill makes provision for $15 million a year for voice only migration, which we are told will fund 'migration assistance and basic rewiring tasks'.
Around one-third of homes take a voice only service on the copper network. Extraordinarily, this vastly expensive new National Broadband Network will in fact increase the risks for customers who only want a voice telephone service and, even more extraordinary, the government is proposing to spend even more taxpayers' money to mitigate a risk that its own policy has created.
Fourthly, this government could not resist creating yet another bureaucratic entity, the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency, TUSMA, with a CEO and commissioners, and the capacity to employ staff and retain consultants. Is there any suggestion in the bill that corresponding savings will be obtained from the Australian Communications and Media Authority? What a surprise: under this profligate and irresponsible government there is no suggestion that offsetting savings will be obtained.
Fifthly, these arrangements are part of a grubby and anticompetitive deal in which Telstra is being paid off with billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, and a substantial component of the pay-off, as we have seen, is that Telstra is being relieved of its current USO expenditures. Very concerningly, these arrangement are not competitively neutral but deliver a huge free kick to Telstra compared to its competitors. While it is true that Telstra faces an increase in its own USO levy contribution, almost the entire funding flows back to Telstra and it then gets the government money on top. By contrast, the rest of the industry faces a significant increase in USO contributions after 2014. Telstra has had the benefit of behind closed doors negotiations with the government about this deal. No other industry players have had that opportunity. This is far from meeting the standard of an open, transparent and competitive process. The third thing I want to mention is that there would be materially better ways of approaching this issue if the government were serious about reforming the universal service obligation arrangements rather than simply using this as a sham and a device to shovel more taxpayers' money to Telstra—and get absolutely nothing in return. I do not have a concluded view as to which would be the best approach, but it seems to me there are at least a couple of possibilities. One would be to simply leave the present arrangements in place and leave Telstra as the universal service provider. In practical terms, it will remain by far the dominant provider for much of the next decade. At the present rate, the vast majority of Australians will be connected to Telstra's copper network for many years to come. Even if the NBN ever gets built out to large parts of the country, Telstra is likely to remain the dominant retail provider.
The key reason for the changes in the package of legislation before the House today is a means of shovelling more taxpayers' money to Telstra. Why therefore do we need to have this elaborate and farcical structure of purported contracting-out arrangements—arrangements which will not come into force for 20 years at least? One of the significant benefits of this approach would be to avoid a cumbersome and expensive new bureaucracy and also avoid a further anticompetitive increase in the burden on Telstra's competitors.
Another approach which might be taken—and I do not necessarily advocate this but raise it to make the point that there are other possibilities—would be to divide the USO into two components. The first would be the obligation to provide the physical connection, which would be borne by NBN Co. Given that NBN Co. is incurring massive expenditure to connect homes around Australia this would not be an increased impost. The second would be the obligation to provide a retail service to a person who has a physical connection. That obligation could logically fall on whichever retail provider has the largest market share in a particular geography.
It is difficult for us to do much from opposition to improve the world, but we have put forward two amendments which are sensible. Nobody should take the view that on this side of the House we regard this legislation as effective pro-competitive reform or sensible management. It is not; it is a sham which does not improve the universal service obligation arrangements.
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (09:39): I am pleased to see these telecommunications bills before the House. I was interested to hear the last speaker. He comes from a company that was in competition with Telstra and of course we heard a continual attack on Telstra and on telecommunications regulations. For the lifetime of the Howard government there were opportunities to modernise the telecommunications of this country. They had control of the Senate and they could have passed legislation, and they chose not to do so. They made all sorts of commentary about that and spent a lot of money saying that they were improving things but they did not do that.
Students in my electorate are begging me to get the old copper networks improved because of the dropouts they have using dial-up when trying to do homework and trying to move forward with their studies. All around my electorate that is continuing to some degree, but I am very pleased to say that since this government came in in 2007 it has worked to put together the National Broadband Network to modernise Australia, to take us into the new era, to position Australia where it should be with modern telecommunications and to receive all the new opportunities that the NBN will provide.
This set of bills will provide some of those reforms, especially the universal service obligation, as well as providing for the legislative framework to create a new statutory agency, to be known as TUSMA. These bills will set up the long-term structure for three existing services and for two new sets of arrangements, and will ensure the important telecommunications safeguards in the change to the National Broadband Network.
The first of the bills, the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011, will enable the establishment of the agency responsible for the implementation and administration of service agreements. It will outline the structure, reporting and accountability requirements, and will set out ways to collect industry levies to contribute to the costs of the new structure.
The second bill, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011, or the reform bill, will introduce the structure that will enable the minister to gradually lift mandatory obligations from Telstra.
The third bill, the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011, will create a levy that will require related industry participants to help with the costs of the new structure. The levy will replace current USO and NRS levies, and will commence in July 2012. The amount given towards the levy will be based on its eligible revenue. To make a smooth transition to the new levy arrangements, all non-Telstra contributors will not pay more than the combined liability for the USO and NRS levies for 2011-12, and the relevant procedures are in place to ensure this outcome is achieved.
The bills will create new arrangements for existing services such as the universal service obligation to provide reasonable access to telephone services and payphones—very important; the National Relay Service for those with a speech or hearing impediment; and emergency call services, including plans for handling calls to the 000 network around our country. Telstra has a legislative responsibility for the universal service obligation and the emergency call service, while two other parties provide the National Relay Service. The Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 puts in place new arrangements to help the transfer of voice-only customers from Telstra copper to the National Broadband Network and aids in the development of any essential technology solutions that will maintain the continued provision of existing public interest services such as traffic lights and public alarms. This agreement with Telstra will provide for people in Australia who are outside the National Broadband Network fibre areas to continue to have access to voice-only services if they wish and ensures that Telstra will maintain their copper network for this use for the next 20 years.
With the rollout of the National Broadband Network continuing across Australia, these bills will ensure that those who are not covered by the National Broadband Network fibre network will still have access to their services. The National Broadband Network will cover around 93 per cent of Australia's premises. With the introduction and passing of these bills, we can ensure that rural and regional Australia and those who are vision or hearing impaired are not left without relay phone services.
Local governments are working with NBN Co., advising of potential local requirements and helping in the development and distribution of community education about and promotion of the great opportunities that the National Broadband Network offers our communities, especially in rural and regional Australia.
To make things easier, the process of connecting to the National Broadband Network is much the same as the process of connecting a phone. The customer contacts an approved service provider as listed on the NBN Co. website, discusses with the service provider the service that best suits their needs and reviews the pricing plans. Once the customer has made an agreement with the service provider, and products or services are organised, the service provider will activate the service at the property and the property is then connected to that service.
The internet has changed the way Australians live and offers us the ability to get information instantly, with the click of a button. With the technology for this industry quickly changing and advancing, the National Broadband Network will provide Australians with fast and reliable access to the internet. Communities can use the National Broadband Network to help with health concerns, energy management and farm management. In my electorate, mobile phones are used to move pivot irrigators around and, when the spuds arrive at the processing plant, people can be told what condition they are in and whether it is too early or too late to take them out of the ground.
If people in regional areas are connected to the National Broadband Network, a doorway opens enabling them to have instant access to health professionals via videoconferencing, meaning that they can get advice as quickly as they need it. Schools in regional communities also benefit. In Lyons, many regional schools can now offer vocational education and training. This eliminates the need to travel for long periods and enables students to become skilled workers for our state with ease. Training and educating Tasmania's youth will be key for the economy and growth in Tasmania. The NBN will enable students to stay in school longer and then go on to university education, TAFE education or apprenticeships.
Students can attend TAFE online, as well as most universities in Australia and some overseas. TAFE courses can be completed by correspondence alone, while university courses can be completed by correspondence with exams at the end of each section. This means that more people in Australia than ever before have the opportunity to study. The National Broadband Network will make it easier and easier, especially for regional and rural Australia.
When the industry advances, it creates a ripple effect on other aspects of our lives, including telephone use. In Australia, there is movement towards the smart phone. Whether you have an iPhone, a BlackBerry or a Google powered communications device, you are part of a large proportion of Australia's population who use a smart phone. Australians take up new technology at a very rapid rate. I think we are one of the leaders in the world in grabbing new technology. In regional areas of Australia, mobile services often have low coverage and sometimes none at all. People with disabilities and vision or hearing impaired and older Australians have difficulties using the new smart phones. Before you can make a phone call, you need to read the manual or have someone who knows how to teach you.
Most of my electorate of Lyons is regional or rural, and people rely on their phone services for their everyday dealings. I believe that telephones play a large role in the social lives of many in my electorate. In these small communities, the closest neighbour could be five or 10 kilometres down the road and therefore the phone is used as the main means of contact. It is important that people in these communities are able to reach each other. I am sure everyone is aware that social events in small communities keep people happy and healthy, and we need to ensure that we do our part to keep these communications happening. Without these crucial services, people would be much more isolated.
We have the opportunity, in using new technology, to gain quicker access to health, education and university services. New technology gives Australians the option of a different lifestyle and enables people to move out of the cities into small communities. New technology is making regional communities more viable. With the lifestyle in regional communities becoming a viable option for Australians, the populations of these communities will grow. There are many benefits of living in regional communities in Australia. Regional communities are reasonably self-sufficient in growing their vegetables and rearing their animals. Producing and selling things becomes easier if you have access to the internet. Farms provide the opportunity for families to teach their children how to run and manage the farm, and this sustainable and important industry in Tasmania is thriving. We have some great products that come from farms and regional communities in Tasmania, and these bills will ensure the continuity of services that help these communities.
In Lyons we have dairy farms that sell their milk and cheese and we have many vineyards with cellar-door sales and, I must confess, many goat's cheese outlets. We also have cherry farms where you can go and pick your own fruit. These farms create jobs within the local area and provide skills to their workers in the area, ensuring that the skill and work is carried through the generations. Not only do these businesses bring income back to the states through taxes but they encourage people to travel to Tasmania to see the highlights, and those tourists will spend money on accommodation and travel throughout the state.
In conclusion, I believe that these bills are very important to the general rollout of these new services, in that they set up the long-term structure for three existing services and for two new sets of arrangements and will ensure the link of important communications safeguards in the change to the National Broadband Network. This will allow Australians to access the benefits of fast broadband at school, work and play. I support the bills.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (09:54):
I move:
That:
(1) standing order 1 be amended; and standing orders 34 (Figure 2), 100(f) and 104(c) be omitted and new standing orders 34 (Figure 2), 100(f) and 104(c) be inserted;
(2) standing order 2 be amended to insert a definition;
(3) standing order 3(c) be omitted and new standing order 3(c) be inserted, to take effect from 27 February 2012;
(4) standing order 183 be omitted and new standing order 183 be inserted, to take effect from 27 February 2012;
(5) amendments consequential to new standing order 183 be made, to take effect from 27 February 2012;
(6) the resolution of the House of 1 May 1996, "Broadcasting of proceedings—conditions of broadcasters", be amended, to take effect from 27 February 2012; and
(7) the House adopt a resolution, "Main Committee and Federation Chamber—transitional provisions" as follows:
1 Maximum speaking times (amendment to existing subject, as follows)
Question Time |
|
Each question |
30 secs |
Each answer (standing orders 100(f) and 104(c)) |
3 mins |
34 Order of businessThe order of business to be followed by the House is shown in figure 2.
Figure 2. House order of business
|
MONDAY |
|
TUESDAY |
|
WEDNESDAY |
|
THURSDAY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acknowledgement
Prayers |
|
Acknowledgement
Prayers |
|
|
|
|
9.00 am |
|
9.00 am |
|
|
Acknowledgement
Prayers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.00 am |
Petitions (to 10.10am) Committee & delegation business and private Members ' business Divisions and quorums deferred 10am–12 noon |
|
|
|
Government
|
|
Government
|
12 noon |
Government
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acknowledgement
|
|
|
|
|
1.45 pm |
90 sec statements |
|
Prayers |
1.45 pm |
90 sec statements |
1.45 pm |
90 sec statements |
2.00 pm |
Question
|
2.00 pm |
Question
|
2.00 pm |
Question
|
2.00 pm |
Question
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approx 3.10 pm
|
Documents, Ministerial
|
Approx 3.10 pm |
Documents, MPI, Ministerial statements |
Approx 3.10 pm |
Documents, MPI, Ministerial statements |
Approx 3.10 pm |
Documents, MPI, Ministerial statements |
4.30 pm
|
Adjournment
|
||||||
|
|
Approx 4.40 pm |
|
Approx 4.40 pm |
Government
|
||
|
|
|
5.00 pm |
|
|||
6.30 pm |
Government
|
6.30 pm |
Government
|
|
|
|
|
|
Divisions and quorums deferred 6.30–8 pm |
|
Divisions and quorums deferred 6.30–8 pm |
7.00 pm |
Adjournment
|
|
|
8.00 pm |
Committee & delegation business and private Members ' business |
8.00 pm |
|
8.00 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.30 pm |
Adjournment
|
9.30 pm |
Adjournment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.30 pm |
|
10.30 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
100(f) The duration of each question is limited to 30 seconds.
104(c) The duration of each answer is limited to 3 minutes.
2 Federation Chamber means the Federation Chamber of the House of Representatives established by standing order 183.
3(c) The standing orders also apply to committees of the House to the necessary extent, subject:
(i) in the Federation Chamber, to the orders in Chapter 14 (standing orders 183-198), and
(ii) in standing and select committees, to the orders in Chapter 16 (standing orders 214 247)
183Establishment of Federation Chamber
The Federation Chamber of the House of Representatives shall be established as a committee of the House to consider matters referred to it by the House as follows:
(a) proceedings on bills to the completion of the consideration in detail stage; and
(b) orders of the day for the resumption of debate on any motion.
The words "Main Committee" and [Main] "Committee", wherever occurring, be replaced by "Federation Chamber".
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION
Broadcasting of proceedings—conditions for broadcasters,
Resolution adopted 1 May 1996
The words "Main Committee", wherever occurring, be replaced by "Federation Chamber".
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Main Committee and Federation Chamber—transitional provisions
That, with effect from 27 February 2012, all matters referred by the House to the Main Committee shall be considered to have been referred to the Federation Chamber.
I welcome the opportunity to move these changes. After the 2010 election the government worked in a consultative way with the opposition and with the crossbenchers to achieve parliamentary reform. The member for Lyne was, of course, a very significant contributor to that debate. The member for Lyne, the Manager of Opposition Business and I, as the Leader of the House, spent many hours together, assisted by speakers, former speakers and people who consider themselves experts in parliamentary procedure, to work through a series of changes that resulted in some fundamental reform in the way that the House of Representatives operates. These included, for example, a proper recognition of the role of private members in this chamber. Indeed, last year we had 52 votes on motions before the chamber; we had none in 2005, as a comparison. That has facilitated additional time and discussion before the parliament.
The other thing that we did was change the standing orders to provide some timeliness for questions and answers. At the time I moved that proposition I foreshadowed the potential for further changes. It is important that the parliament constantly review and finetune the way that we operate as a House.
Mr Speaker, upon your unanimous elevation to the high office that you hold, you have given consideration to the way that the parliament functions. I must say that I think your speakership has gotten off to an extremely positive start, and I congratulate you on that. You have shown yourself already to be fair, balanced and truly independent. I say that as someone who, up to this point, has yet to get a point of order up with you, but I am sure I will be more successful in the future than I was yesterday!
As part of the ongoing efforts to make parliament more accessible to the public—and I must pay tribute to former Speaker Jenkins, who was very concerned also about the functioning of parliament in question time—some flagging of changes has been made. As the Speaker you have already announced changes to the way that supplementary questions work, and I welcome those. You have indicated that you would facilitate the potential for up to two supplementary questions from members of the opposition, up to two supplementary questions from members of the government and a proportionate position with regard to the crossbenchers—the potential for them, reflecting the number of positions they hold in the chamber, to ask a supplementary question. I suspect that supplementary questions will not be taken up every day, but we will see how it works in practice; that is what we always have to do.
The amendments to standing orders that I have moved today arise from discussions held between you and me, as Leader of the House, and also separate discussions between you, the Manager of Opposition Business, me, the crossbenchers and everyone in between. I think there is broad agreement, although not consensus, with these propositions, which will allow for questions to be limited to 30 seconds and answers to be limited to three minutes; question time will conclude around 3.10 pm or after questions have been exhausted.
The government is committed to ensuring that question time does portray a transparent view of the workings of the parliament. Indeed, the government has been critical of the fact that question time has been interrupted by so many suspensions of standing orders that have concluded question time during this 43rd Parliament. Nonetheless, I believe the parliament functions extremely effectively. The fact that we have had 257 pieces of legislation carried by the 43rd Parliament is an indication of that.
The amendments before the chair also seek to rename the Main Committee as the Federation Chamber of the House of Representatives, from 27 February 2012. This is a reform which you have advocated, Mr Speaker, and which was recommended in a Standing Committee on Procedure report in June 2004—some eight years ago. So there has been a process of consideration of these issues, and for eight years the parliament has been thinking about it. Today we move a step forward to implement those recommendations which were made. This recognises the importance of the House's second chamber. The government has certainly given the Main Committee the respect it deserves. In 2011 the Main Committee sat for an average of 21 hours a week and debated 75 bills that had been referred to it by the House. In 2005 it sat for less than 10 hours a week and debated only 27 bills.
It is pretty clear that there is some confusion, even among members of parliament occasionally, arising from the fact that the Main Committee does not meet in the room that is known as the main committee room. There is also confusion from time to time about the status of the Main Committee. It has been suggested to me, for example, when debating the referral of a bill to the Main Committee, that such a referral somehow gives the bill less status because the Main Committee is not seen as the equal chamber that it is. It is simply this chamber meeting in another place at the same time so as to improve the efficiency of the parliament.
With regard to these changes, there are a range of motions that will be required as well. They have been worked through with the clerks in order to facilitate those changes. They are part of the changes in the motion that I have moved today.
There has been some suggestion that the 30-second time limit could be restrictive for particular members. I am sympathetic to that. With regard to the member for Kennedy, who is in the chamber, I say on behalf of the government—not on behalf of the opposition, as it is the government's position—that I as Leader of the House will not be interrupting the member for Kennedy to draw attention to the time of 30 seconds. That is because one of the great things about this chamber is that it is made up of characters who bring to the chamber different personalities and different ways of operating. The member for Kennedy is a person who has my utmost respect, particularly for the diligent way in which he goes about representing his electorate. I have had the privilege of visiting that great electorate of Kennedy, which is very different from the electorate of Grayndler, on many an occasion. I know that the member for Kennedy has put forward an objection to the change, which he sees as too restrictive. All I can say is that common sense often applies in the way that rules are implemented, and I see no problem with a bit of common sense being applied to the practical operation of the chamber.
With that, I thank all those who have worked so cooperatively to achieve this further reform. I indicate that, whatever other differences I have with the Manager of Opposition Business and others, we will continue to examine these issues and see how they operate in practice. We would not want to see, for example, fewer questions being asked in the parliament. That is certainly not the government's intention. Indeed, the government has the opposite view: the government is critical of the fact that there have been fewer questions asked because of the suspensions of question time. The government will continue to take the view that when a suspension of question time is moved it is an indication that there are no further questions requested of the government by those opposite. We have had that view consistently and we will continue to have that view about the importance of question time. I commend the motion relating to the amendments to standing orders that I have moved today.
The SPEAKER: Before calling the Manager of Opposition Business, I would like to say that I am sure that the occupant of the chair would be benevolent in the direction of the honourable member for Kennedy in the event that more than the allotted number of seconds were needed in a particular case.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (10:06): I will not delay the House at great length as there is agreement between the government and the opposition on this matter. I note that the Leader of the House seemed to spend a great deal of time talking about a lot of subjects that are not matters before the House today. I will not do that. What is before the House is the changes to standing orders with respect to the changing of the name of the Main Committee to the Federation Chamber, which the opposition supports. I have always believed that Main Committee was a poor name for the second chamber. In fact, when I was the chairman of the Procedure Committee I recommended that the name be changed from Main Committee to Second Chamber. But we are comfortable with Federation Chamber, because obviously Main Committee is a confusing name for everyone concerned. Also, I think it detracts from the importance of that chamber and the role it plays. So we support that change.
Another one of the changes we are making to the standing orders today—which will apply from today, I understand—is a change in the time limits for questions and answers. I believe that question time can sometimes become tedious and bogged down, particularly with respect to the answers given by the government to the dorothy dixers they ask themselves. I think reducing the time limit from four minutes to three minutes will mean that the clock ticks over faster. It is more efficient for question time. I think we will get more information as a consequence of this change to the time limits. In fact, three minutes was the time limit we suggested in the negotiations for a better parliament with the crossbenchers and the government. It now seems like only yesterday but it was in fact 15 months ago.
Mr Albanese: And we're still here!
Mr PYNE: Yes, you are still there. We will see how long Julia is still there too in a few weeks time.
The SPEAKER: I think that is unnecessary, I will point that out to the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr PYNE: I am being interjected upon, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: We should focus on the motion before the chair.
Mr PYNE: Hear, hear! And I was doing so in a perfectly reasonable way until I was rudely interrupted by the Leader of the House—again, dare I say it.
So the opposition obviously do support a three-minute time limit for the answers in question time. Obviously there has to be a bit of give and take in a hung parliament. The government would not have agreed to reducing the time limit if the opposition were not prepared to agree to a reduction in our questions. I would point out that the vast majority of questions we have asked in this parliament have been 30 seconds or less. We very rarely ask a question that goes for longer than 30 seconds. I think a short, pithy, factual question is the better question. I have supported that view since I was elected in 1993. Therefore, the opposition have no difficulties at all with having a shorter time limit for questions.
I would say, on a slightly discordant note, that if there is one rule for the opposition there should be one rule for everyone in the chamber. I understand that the member for Kennedy has made a name for himself by asking longer questions. I think there should be tolerance where tolerance is justified, but I do not think that means a green light for everybody who is not in the opposition to ask a question that goes for longer than 30 seconds. For example, while we will not object to the member for Kennedy perhaps asking a longer question, we do expect that the Speaker, who upholds the standing orders, will intervene if the other members of the crossbenches think that is a green light for them to ask longer questions. We certainly will take objection to that.
Regarding other matters that are not before the chamber today and that you already flagged in a statement to the House last night—which you added to this morning—the opposition does welcome more supplementary questions being asked by all sides of the parliament. I believe very much in the need for spontaneity in question time. I think one of the criticisms of question time has been the slightly structured system that we have developed over the last 110 years. Dorothy dixers are a very good example of the paucity of real ideas on the government side and of real questioning of ministers. We believe spontaneity would be a welcome introduction to question time, for the government particularly.
I will also say that when you are considering other changes to the standing orders down the track, Mr Speaker, I also would welcome interventions in this chamber, which are allowed in the Main Committee. Thus, a member would be able—with the permission of the Speaker—to interrupt a person who is delivering a presentation in this place, except in the case of ministers' second reading speeches. I think that would also lead to more spontaneity in this place. I am sure those are matters you will also consider over the course of the next period in which you are Speaker in the House.
The opposition support these changes to the standing orders. We understand that this is a trial for the supplementaries over this session. We will see how that works, but I can only imagine that these changes will improve question time. The only other thing I would add is that the time for ending question time has apparently been changed from 3.30 pm to 3.10 pm; I think I am right in saying that. That takes into account the shorter time for answers to questions and the shorter time for questions. If that proves to truncate the opposition's or even the government's ability to ask 20 questions in the total period of question time, the Leader of the House and I, who have discussed this matter, will revisit it. But I see no reason that would be the case, as long as there are not constant interruptions.
The other point I would make is that what we saw yesterday, with the indulgences granted at the beginning of question time—for good reasons, those being the death of Sir Zelman Cowen, the Queen's diamond jubilee and the death of Peter Veness—are not usual occurrences. But, given that question time has been reduced so that it finishes at 3.10 pm, the opposition would take objection if they were to become usual occurrences. Obviously on the first day back after an eight- or nine-week break there are matters that need to be dealt with. That is the process of this parliament. But we do not want to see a habit develop whereby the government uses the generosity that is sometimes too easily given to it to avoid scrutiny in question time. We will obviously be taking up objection with you, as the Speaker, if that does become a pattern—if the government decides to use that as a tool in order to deny the opposition its share of questions.
The SPEAKER (10:13): I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. Before calling the member for Lyne, I would like to say that I hope the Manager of Opposition Business was not reflecting on the impartiality of the chair with respect to time limits or with respect to benevolence that may or may not be given in relation to questions. I am sure he was not doing that. The chair intends to be firm, fair and impartial. I thank the Leader of the House and the Manager for Opposition Business for the cooperative way in which they have been prepared to entertain my proposals with respect to the reduction in time for asking questions and answering questions and also changing the name of the Main Committee to the Federation Chamber of the House of Representative. I do, with respect to further reform, intend to convene a meeting with the chair and deputy chair of the Procedure Committee to go through where we are and to look at what members would like to see occur.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (10:14): I start by saying that I do not speak on behalf of all the crossbenchers. There has been a wide range of views expressed over the past 24 hours in these negotiations. From my point of view, as someone who participated quite actively in the parliamentary reform process at the start of the 43rd Parliament, I welcome this trial and appreciate the ongoing focus and the ongoing bipartisan work in trying to reach for best practice in parliamentary standards and cultural improvement. There may be a way to go for all 150 members of parliament and for us as a collective but I welcome the major parties, along with you, Mr Speaker, the new Speaker, the Procedure Committee and others continuing to reflect and to reach consensus where possible on how to improve standards in this chamber.
In regard to the specific issues I think there are no problems at all in changing the name of the Main Committee to the Federation Chamber. Hopefully that does give it more symbolic status so that speeches made in that chamber by members, private members in particular, have a better chance of being heard by their constituents and of being heard in the public policy debate.
The issues around question time become more interesting. I have been an advocate for some time of a submission made by the late Independent Peter Andren with regard to trying to make question time more spontaneous. Before he passed away, his recommendation was to limit each question to 30 seconds and each answer to two minutes. At the start of this parliament that was negotiated to 45 seconds and four minutes. I am pleased to see, after some reflection on the first year of some changes in that area, that we now are getting closer to the model of the late Peter Andren, with the limits set at 30 seconds and two minutes. Hopefully the length of answers given by ministers is open to further consideration.
Ultimately, though, the test of question time comes down to a couple of things. For all the policy, personality and political debates that make question time the hour that is watched by so many and that is so colourful, ultimately its test of worth is whether it is a test of the policy agenda of the executive and the government of the day. It is worthless if it is not. I urge you, Mr Speaker, to have a firm hand and to make sure, through all that colour and noise, the personalities and the politics, that ultimately the worth of question time is upheld. That is the test of the policy agenda of the day. I hope that firm hand from the chair allows that to ultimately happen.
The issue of supplementary questions is an interesting one and, whilst it is not one that requires changes to the standing orders, it can happen from the chair. It is one to watch. I would hope some of the conversations had with regard to the crossbenchers' position on that, wanting to be able to add a supplementary to questions where needed and if required, regardless of quotas, will be viewed favourably by you, Mr Speaker. I think we enter difficult territory if supplementaries do become quota based: the government get two, the opposition get two and the crossbenchers have to haggle for whatever. If the role of a supplementary question is to make question time spontaneous, keep people thinking on their feet and keep the executive on their toes then I think there is a role less for quotas and more for substance in the follow-up to questions asked.
The other issue that I did want to raise, which is alongside these reforms being introduced today, is a matter raised by my colleague from Western Australia Mal Washer, who is well regarded by all. He has in the past year raised the issue of the sitting hours and some of the changes in the roster. I would hope, in this mood of consensus and reflection on some of the changes that happened 18 months ago, that there is some consideration given to delaying divisions and votes on a Monday until a later time, say, five o'clock, so that members who have to travel a long way and members who do have families can make arrangements to travel on a Monday morning rather than on a Sunday. I think that would assist many members in this chamber. It would not change the ability to call for particular votes or to deal with private members' business or other issues on a Monday. I think it will pick up on some of the issues that have been raised by Mal Washer and others about the health of members of parliament and the work-life balance considerations.
In conclusion, I welcome the trial. I wish it well. On reflection, I think the majority of reforms reached in a bipartisan way 18 months ago are holding up and bedding down. I hope that is starting to make some of those changes sustainable for the long term. I think one to watch this year is the relationship between ministers and committees. I hope all committee chairs and committees generally do act fearlessly in making sure that committees keep ministers and the executive officers honest. On several fronts, we are now approaching a six-month wait for ministers to respond to several recommendations that have come from committees. This is the test of whether the committee structure has strength or not. I hope in 2012 that it does. I hope the committee chairs generally do fulfil their part of the reform process and make sure they keep the ministers and the executive as honest as possible.
The only complaint I have heard this year is that we are busier than ever as MPs. I think that is a compliment to the reforms and it is what the Australian community expects. If that is the only complaint, we are doing our job.
Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (10:22): I will not delay the House greatly on this motion. I support it. I am pleased that there has been agreement in a very mature fashion about the length of time for questions and answers. I hope that that picks up the pace and sets the basis for a degree of spontaneity that is lacking at present.
I have been troubled by the House not coming to grips with the question of supplementary questions. It is ironic that there should have been for the whole time that I have been in this chamber a standing order on this while every member of the House has been running around trying to work out how to operate that standing order. I applaud your success, Mr Speaker, in getting a modicum of agreement so far. I think that you will use that agreement wisely to expand on the question of supplementaries.
But perhaps it is now time for us to look at other models. Clearly, when people talk about this being a parliament that has adapted the Westminster tradition, often the Westminster tradition has not been studied as well as it should have been. In regard to question time, the fact is that we have exemplified in Westminster true supplementaries, where—as learned colleagues like you, Mr Speaker, know—it is a bit like a grilling in court, with continued supplementary questions on the topic. In fact, it works so successfully that they continue until exhausted and then they move on to the next topic. But we have never had that maturity in this place. I hope that this is the first step towards that.
The member for Lyne gets blamed for lots of things that happen here. I was not going to enter this debate, but he made a very worthwhile comment about something that is not contained in these amendments, and that is the hours of sitting. That is the reason I felt that I should come down to support his comments and to urge us to adopt the types of things that Dr Washer, the member for Moore, has been pursuing consistently over many years. We should consider the way in which we run this place. I am not sure that we ever get a pat on the back because we are here at ungodly hours doing our business. In a way, there is an expectation that we work the 24 hours. But in fairness to the people who support us in this place we should act with more certainty.
Regrettably, I am in a minority of people in this place who think that we should alter the balance in our work. I believe that our role as legislators is just as important as our role as local members. The work that we do here is just as important as the work that we do in our electorates. I think it is a reflection of the undue influence that executive government exerts on backbench members of this place that we have this balance such that people are encouraged to go back to their electorates to do their work there, because their important work is back in the electorate. I see this place as the House of Representatives. I come here to represent the people who have elected me. There is much that is worth while that happens in Canberra while the parliament is sitting that we should devote more time to. And not by lengthening the hours in the weeks that we are here but perhaps by making sure that people understand that our role is to be here in Canberra and that we should be here more often.
The amount of time that people spend on their committee work is quite extraordinary and is not understood by the public. But it is limited to the time that we are here when the parliament is sitting. That is unfortunate. I hope that we get to a stage such that as a vibrant parliament we see that the role of the backbencher, especially when in government, is to question and to be involved in policy development. The media place pressure on us by saying that if we have a slightly different view to the leadership or to the minister then that is the end of the earth and that it is great disunity. It is ridiculous to think, for instance, that in this current minority government a caucus of about 100 people would all have the same view. The fact that we from time to time might express those different views has nothing to do with disunity; that has to do with the proper place of dialogue and debate in policy development. That should be encouraged rather than people running around saying, 'This is the end of the world as we know it,' because somebody disagrees with the Prime Minister or a minister. That is a debate for another day. I am perhaps digressing
I thank all of those who have worked in a cooperative manner to get us to this point in time with these changes to the standing orders. I would reflect that these changes are minor. Their impact might be major, but there is still work to do. I look forward to that and I wish you every success, Mr Speaker, in your endeavours in encouraging the Procedure Committee to influence those who make these decisions to have them presented before us so that we can vote on them. Regarding the Federation Chamber, it took a long time. I congratulate you on getting that over the line. It must be amazing for people to reflect on the fact that for such a minor thing, which was agreed upon by a bipartisan committee of this parliament eight years ago, we have had to wait so long. I thoroughly support the amendments to the standing orders before the chamber today.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:29): The member for Denison and I very much oppose the proposal with respect to time for questions. We are not going to divide and waste the time of the House. Since we have very strong feelings about this, we very much appreciate the assurances from you, Mr Speaker, and from the opposition and the government that a little bit more time will be provided to us. I would point out that the member for Denison and I, as the member for Kennedy, are two of the people furthest away from this area. We need more time to explain our position to people who come from the big cities who really do not have a feeling for some of the problems existing in very isolated communities.
Mr Randall interjecting—
Mr KATTER: There is a Western Australian making a noise there and he is quite entitled to. Those on that side of the House were in government for 12 years, and I do not think anyone was particularly admiring of their government's performance in Western Australia—not the people I know from Western Australia. Maybe you need a little more self-assertiveness.
This place has been reduced—let's be honest—to dorothy dixers from one side and banana peels from the other in the amount of intelligent debate. The speaker before last referred to Peter Andren, who put out a press release in his last parliament saying that in this parliament there would be only three people who ask genuine questions on behalf of the people of Australia and that the rest of it is all politics. That is almost a direct quote from one of his last press statements.
In the Queensland parliament in the years I was there I can tell you that the questions asked by National Party members were anything but dorothy dixers. I would say that at least once a week Premier Bjelke-Petersen called in one or the other to be roasted over the question they had dumped into the parliament. It does not serve the interests of the Australian people to muzzle your back bench. It does not serve the interests of the Australian people every morning to throw banana peels in front of government and think that that is your job. To illustrate my point, at the commencement of the state election campaign in Queensland one leader savagely attacked the other five times. Then the next leader came on and he savagely attacked the other four times. I was looking at my notes and I did not mention either of them. I was going to say what we were going to do for Queensland. You can argue whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, but that is not the way this place should be.
As far as I am concerned, every three weeks crossbenchers have a minute and a half of the public forum of Australia—question time is the public forum. I do not think the parliament really has that role; whether it should or not is a matter for debate. Question time most certainly is a forum which a lot of people in Australia watch. The only people who are asking genuine questions in the public interest—and I do not want to say that is true all the time because sometimes the opposition does and at odd times there is a contribution from the government. I believe that taking that half minute from our minute and a half every three works is muzzling and emasculating the voice of the people.
You have a party position but the people who sit here do not. Even Adam Bandt and I, who represent a party, do not have a party position in the sense I mean here. All the more reason why we appreciate your indulgence and respect, Mr Speaker, for the interests of the crossbenchers in providing that degree of latitude. The opposition's position can be put repeatedly throughout question time and the government's position can be put repeatedly throughout question time, but the crossbenchers' position cannot be put repeatedly throughout question time. We very much think that your indulgence there is more than justified.
I want to use an illustration to indicate why we need that time. If you go through the questions I ask, you see that yes, I am, like everyone else in this place, guilty of a little bit of pejorative twist in the questions but I send my questions to the minister. I am not here to throw banana peels in front of the government. I want genuine debate, and you do not get genuine debate by springing a question onto a minister three seconds before he gets up to speak—that is banana peels. When the Liberals were in power, I sent my questions to them as I do when Labor is in power. I want an intelligent response; I am not here to play political games.
Let me be very specific. The very great question for this country in the live cattle debate was that as a Christian nation we have a responsibility to help our fellow man, whoever they may be—the Good Samaritan and all that in the Gospels. I hope Indonesia have the same attitude because we have cut off their food pipeline. We are fighting wars. We have fought wars continually since I was handed a rifle in 1964 to protect our oil pipeline. The food pipeline is infinitely more important. The President of Indonesia has said, 'You can take these people because you have miles of empty space.' I will be very technical about this. If you take out 120 kilometres of coastline, the golden boomerang from Cairns, through Brisbane and Sydney to Adelaide, with a little dot around Perth, there are fewer than a million people living on a landmass—
The SPEAKER: I would like to draw the attention of the member for Kennedy to the substance of the motion we are debating.
Mr KATTER: Mr Speaker, it sounds as though I am going away from the motion but I am not. I will endeavour to provide you with a more specific response. If you ask a question this way, 'Is the minister aware of the findings of the report on water development in Northern Australia? Could the minister advise the House whether the government is going to implement the committee's recommendations?' he will answer it by saying: 'We do not necessarily carry out the recommendations of a committee and we will be considering it in due course. The member is right in asking the question. We will provide an answer for that question in due course.' Please excuse me for saying that every single person in Australia who listens to that piece of garbage says, 'What's all that about?' So let us ask the question this way: 'The minister would be aware of the findings of the committee reporting on water development in Northern Australia and their recommendations that no dams or developments should take place in the northern third of Australia. In the light of the fact that Northern Australia has 304 million megalitres of Australia's water and the other two-thirds have only 80 million megalitres and we are trying to do all the farming in the bottom two-thirds and none in the top third, wouldn't the minister believe that there should be some development where the water and the farming land are, instead of in that part of the country where they are not?'
The minister is left with no alternative but to give an intelligent response, unless he wants to look like a fool. He has to come to grips with the real issue and the real guts of the question, which is that we are sitting on an area the size of China and using none of it to feed anybody—except for a few moo cows and a few sheep walking around, and they are dwindling: 60 per cent of those sheep are gone and 30 per cent of the cattle are gone. There is a hell of a difference between asking the 30-second question and asking the 45-second question, where you get that information and where you force the minister to give an intelligent response to one of the most burning questions. I will quote the great Ted Theodore, founder of the labour movement in our country, and one of the great heroes of Malcolm Fraser and of Paul Keating. If you walk into my office there is a big picture of him on my wall as well. You could not find three more unlike people—not that I am in their class of importance—but all of us agree on that. This great man said, 'We will not be able to hold on to this country.' This question is a burning question for the people of Australia. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono spelt it out three weeks ago in a very strong statement about boat people—'You have got plenty of land there and plenty of water there'. North Queensland can feed 100 million people. That is not a figure plucked out of the air. That is based upon the water and the land being used by—
The SPEAKER: Would the member for Kennedy return to the substance of the motion, please?
Mr KATTER: Mr Speaker, you understand what I am saying here. There is a hell of a difference between putting substance in a question and blandly asking a question, because you will get a bland, boring and utterly irrelevant response. That is the point that I am trying to make here. I crave the indulgence of the House in stretching my 40 seconds, or however much time I have used up so far, and I appreciate the indulgence of the House in this. I use this question as an example, because there would be no way you could get that message across in under 45 seconds.
The Leader of the Opposition has said, 'We always ask questions in under 30 seconds.' I said to him, 'That is not right.' He said, 'Well, you know—most of the time.' But maybe it is the other times that the opposition is doing the job an opposition should do. The supplementary is a very valuable weapon—I go right along with that. I am very pleased to see movement in that direction.
Finally, I have great difficulty every week of my life in figuring out why this place is so out of step with the people. Even the people of North Queensland could zip down to their state parliament late on Monday night and be back home on Thursday night. A fair proportion of federal members—members from Western Australia, members from Northern Australia, members from Tasmania—would find the best part of a day gone getting here. We spend a day getting down here and a day getting back. If you are in a party you are not allowed to go uptown to speak to the public servants, so you never get to speak to a public servant. But in the state parliament you could stay an extra day to speak to a public servant and still have three days back in your electorate. It is almost impossible for so many of us to be in our electorate—even the member for New England takes the best part of a day to get home, although geographically he is not that far away. I am sure there are other members in the same situation as the member for New England. Spending time down here means we are not interfacing with the people. All of us would know that if you want a project done—for example, I am spending immense time on getting a safe harbour in North Queensland—we need that time back there to organise it and to show the leadership that anyone who is an elected representative should show in the area he represents. The member needs to say, 'This is what has got to be done, fellas, and this is how we have got to go about it.' Convincing the electorate is quite frankly more important and it is a prerequisite before we come down here to convince it.
The arguments put up on the issue of time are very relevant indeed. Remember that maybe a fifth or a 10th of the members here will take a full day—with good connections—to get here. It takes me, for example, eight hours to get here, and I am sure Warren Entsch is no different. The member for Dawson would be no different, and the members for Western Australia would be no different. That is if you are lucky enough to get all the good connections and nothing goes wrong, because you have about four connections to get as well. It is one of the reasons I profoundly believe that we are out of step. Even if you do not agree with that proposition, we are more out of step that we should be. I think most people in this place would agree with that. The decent members here would love to have more time to interface with the people that they are supposed to represent. The opposition, the member for Denison and I support the proposal of the time limit.
The SPEAKER: I am sure the member for Kennedy would not mind my mentioning the conversation I had with him when he was the honourable member for Flinders in the Queensland parliament. He asked me did I have any questions for him to ask, because he had run out.
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (10:43): I do not want to keep the House for any great length of time in this debate on amendments to the standing orders, but I think this is an opportunity to say something about the style of how the parliament is run and how the niceties of parliamentary practice should be maintained. I do not mean that they should be either snobby or unduly obsequious. I am not suggesting that for a minute. I have noticed over the years I have been here that a lot of members do not perform the courtesy of bowing to the Speaker when coming in and out of the chamber or when approaching the chair—or they do it in a very superficial way. I remember that when John Howard, who was a parliamentarian in every sense of the word, came in or went out or crossed from one side of the chamber to speak to the other side on some matter he would always acknowledge the chair. I also note that some of the members—and the clerks also do this, in particular Bernard Wright, our senior Clerk, when he breaks the line of sight between the Speaker and a member on his or her feet—always bow to go under a symbolic line of sight between the Speaker and a member. Inherent in that is that, as you speak from your place in the parliament and address the Speaker, you are, in effect, speaking through the Speaker to the parliament and, if we are in broadcast mode, to the wider nation. I think such niceties should be maintained.
One that always sticks in my craw is the finish of the second chamber, that being the Main Committee or the Federation Chamber, whatever you want to call it. Most deputy speakers certainly start with the ritual bow to both sides of the House but at the end—and I think this always looks like Brown's cows—there is no sort of finishing aspect, because there is no door through which the Deputy Speaker can escape, as we have here in this House of Representatives chamber. Sometimes the Deputy Speaker goes out one of the doors at each end of the room, at the back, and sometimes he or she walks across and goes out with the members. I think that chamber's proceedings should finish with a bow from the Deputy Speaker to all the members, signifying that he or she has vacated the chair and the proceedings are finished and then people can talk or walk around and do what they like. Otherwise you stand around for about 30 seconds, like a stale sav, wondering whether you should say anything, until the Deputy Speaker has left the room. I think that is something that we could polish and it probably does not need any formal regulation.
I have some sympathy with one of the ideas that the member for Kennedy was talking about, and what follows is not said with criticism of either side of the House. We all know today that a lot of questions, if not all of them, are scripted. They are scripted for tactical and policy reasons. I think to some extent that has taken a lot of the spontaneity out of the House. I propose that perhaps time every day or perhaps one afternoon a week be devoted to unscripted questions by individual members. I do not agree with the member for Kennedy that you should send a prior notice to a minister. In saying that, I note that it is not to catch the minister out but rather to maintain spontaneity. I suppose that, if it were a question that required the minister to bring in some data, that courtesy might be extended with: 'I'm going to ask a question about so-and-so and you may need to have some data available.' But I think spontaneity is important, because in our electorates sometimes something happens which can be a state or a significant regional issue and, while it may not be particularly germane to our individual political parties, it can be very important to the constituents in our area and might even have national significance. So I think people should be able to ask a question and have an unscripted, spontaneous answer from the minister. That may involve the minister giving a commitment to do something. If you are going to give advance notice of your question, you might as well put in a written question because inevitably in that circumstance it is going to become the work of some bureaucrat. As I said before, it is not to catch the minister out; it is to get a spontaneous response to something that is germane to your electorate or, in your opinion, is of some state or national significance. So I would recommend that in any ongoing reforms, Mr Speaker, you might look, in conjunction with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of government and opposition business, at what a great thing it would be if we did have some time each day or each week that was devoted to unscripted questions.
Finally, I would like to return to the Federation Chamber, or the second chamber, as we sometimes call it, or the Main Committee, as we sometimes call it. I am not altogether sure that Federation Chamber is the right name, but if that is the will of the Committee and the parliament I will go along with it. There was some ambivalence towards it when it started but it is now well established, and I think both sides would recognise that it has become a successful mechanism for non-controversial legislation, for eulogies that would take up too much of the time of the House of Representatives chamber and for other measures such as extended debates on reports. I think it does serve a very valuable purpose, and the fact that other parliaments—including the UK parliament, using Westminster Hall—are picking it up and running with it proves that we have developed a very good model.
Of its nature, the chamber that we have is temporary. We have had meetings with the clerks, previous speakers and the whips—and I am one of the whips—where we have talked about what we might do there and we were consulted when some of the draft planning documents for a more elaborate chamber were discussed. So what I would like to put to you today, Mr Speaker, in the context of this debate about procedures and of the coming next year of the 100th anniversary of the foundation of Canberra—of its foundation, not of its completion—is that that would be a great opportunity to do something significant with that chamber. What are we in this parliament going to do? After all, the city of Canberra and the ACT were put together specifically for there to be a national, neutral seat of government. It had to be a minimum of 160 kilometres away from Sydney, it had to be between Sydney and Melbourne and it had to be on neutral turf, like the District of Columbia in the United States is. The genesis of that was in the year 1913, and we celebrate the hundredth anniversary—the centenary—next year. What are we in this parliament going to do? Wouldn't it be a great thing if we could complete that chamber? Yes, there would be a few million dollars involved. I am not suggesting that there would not be an expense involved, and I recognise that we are in fairly tough economic times, but there is sometimes never a right time to do these things. If you waited for the right time to build this building it would probably have never been built. Sometimes, the government and the opposition of the day just have to seize the initiative.
I would recommend, through you, Mr Speaker, that the next time you are in consultation with the Clerk and the leaders of both sides of the House you canvass the question of what we are going to do for 2013 to celebrate the formation in 1913 of what went on to become the national capital. I understand the ACT will do quite a bit of celebrating. What are we going to do here? My suggestion to you is that the completion, in its new designated position, of the Federation Chamber would be a fitting adjunct to that significant anniversary.
The SPEAKER: I am actually ahead of the honourable member for Hinkler insofar as I have already asked that those plans be updated and shown to me. The honourable member's suggestion is something that the parliament should seriously consider.
Mr RANDALL (Canning) (10:54): I have just a very brief intervention after listening to this debate. I refer to the standing order 98 regarding questions to ministers. It says:
(b) During Question Time, a Member may orally ask a question of a Minister (but not a Parliamentary Secretary) without notice and for immediate response.
Can I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that there appears to be creeping into this place a practice—and we have just heard it from the member for Kennedy and others—of handing to the ministers their questions before question time. So it is not an oral question; it is a question basically on notice—a written question—which I think is not in line with the standing orders. We have had the spectre of some ministers, particularly the member for Kingsford Smith, then reading a whole dissertation as a result of having had the opportunity to answer a question with notice. I do not think it is in the spirit of the standing orders on question time in this place for both the opposition and the government to receive that. To have that admission in this place today, I find rather unusual.
The other observation I will make, and I know it has been largely agreed to today, is that because of certain idiosyncratic members we will give them the latitude of going past the time required for questions. How idiosyncratic do you need to be to break the time limit of a question? I place those observations on the record because I think we should be fair to all when we ask questions in this place.
The SPEAKER: Briefly remarking on the comments made by the member for Canning, I do not think that giving a minister prior notice of a question is outside the standing orders, but certainly it is outside the spirit of the standing orders at the time when the standing orders were written. I would like to see more spontaneity but I suspect that dorothy dix questions have been asked by private members of governments on both sides almost forever. The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011
Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (10:56): I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 and related bills. The universal service obligation is a vital aspect of Australian telecommunications. Every Australian needs and deserves access to basic telephone services at a reasonable price. The USO guarantees that these services will always be available. It is important to note at the outset that these bills do not implement or amend the USO. Rather, these bills implement part of the government's backroom deal with Telstra to create the NBN.
The USO primarily benefits residents in regional and remote Australia. For these residents, access to a basic phone service is vital because other communications options are often not available or affordable. In rural and remote areas the provision of basic phone services is often not economically viable, so a subsidy is needed to ensure telephone services are accessible and affordable. The coalition strongly support the USO and we recognise the vital role the USO system plays in keeping regional Australia connected. The USO also provides a subsidy to ensure that payphones continue to be available. Although pay phone use is decreasing, the USO for payphones is vital in regional and remote towns, particularly where mobile coverage is patchy or nonexistent. In metropolitan areas, payphones may seem largely unnecessary, but the experience in country electorates has been that rural communities value the security and certainty offered by the availability of a payphone.
As the government's National Broadband Network is implemented and Telstra moves towards structural separation, there is a need to reform the USO system. Telstra has historically been a vertically integrated operator of Australia's fixed line phone network. As a result, Telstra has been subject to a regulated obligation to ensure that all Australians have access to a standard phone service. As the NBN rolls out and Telstra's copper network is gradually decommissioned in NBN fibre areas, Telstra will transition to effectively become just a retailer competing with other telecommunications retailers. The general thrust of the government's changes to the USO appears to be reasonable, moving from a regulatory system to a contractual system that will eventually be open to competition and should provide benefits to consumers in the long term. However, as with most policies of our current government, the devil is in the detail. While the USO will technically be open to competition, the government has signed long-term contracts with Telstra to deliver the USO as part of its backroom deal to prop up the NBN. These contracts are not publicly available. We simply must take the government's word for it that the contracts offer value for money to both taxpayers and telecommunications users. After watching this Labor government in action over the past four years, I have no confidence that the government has got this right. I will have more to say on that shortly.
Now I will turn my attention to the details of the bills before the House. There are three bills before the House today. The first of these, the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011, provides the framework for the new USO system. The bill will create a new statutory authority, the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency, to be known as TUSMA. TUSMA will be responsible for entering into contracts on behalf of the Commonwealth for the delivery of public interest telecommunications services. This includes standard telephone services, payphones, the emergency call system and the National Relay Service. TUSMA will also be responsible for ensuring that voice-only customers are migrated onto the NBN fibre before Telstra's copper network is decommissioned. TUSMA will also be required to support research and development aimed at ensuring public interest services, such as traffic lights and public alarm systems, can migrate onto the NBN with minimal disruption.
Part 2 of the bill sets out the scope of grants and contracts to be administered by TUSMA and provides the minister, subject to the scrutiny of parliament, with the ability to set standards and benchmarks that will apply to contracts and grants managed by TUSMA. The agency will monitor the performance and compliance of contractors and grant recipients and maintain a register of all contracts and grants.
Part 3 sets out TUSMA's corporate structure, accountability and reporting requirements. TUSMA will be a statutory agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. The minister will appoint a chair and between four and six board members. In appointing TUSMA members, the minister is required to select candidates with a diverse range of skills and expertise. The remuneration for the chair and members will be set by the Remuneration Tribunal. TUSMA will also have a CEO and staff who will be employed under the Public Service Act.
Part 3 also provides for TUSMA to maintain registers of public interest telecommunications grants and contracts. These registers will need to include details for each contractor and grant recipient, contract duration, costs and the services each contractor or recipient is expected to deliver. These registers must be publicly available on the agency's website. TUSMA will also be required to provide a report to the minister every year detailing how contractors and grant recipients have performed. This report will be published in TUSMA's annual report to parliament. The bill also provides for a review of the USO arrangements before 1 January 2018.
Parts 5 and 6 of the bill set out the funding arrangements for TUSMA. Currently the USO for standard phone services and payphones is funded by a revenue based industry levy. The National Relay Service is currently funded by a similar levy. Under the new arrangements, TUSMA will receive government funding with residual funding requirements to be met by a consolidated industry levy.
The government has agreed to pay Telstra $230 million per year to provide standard phone services and $40 million per year for payphones. These amounts will not be adjusted for inflation, but these amounts may be revised up or down as a result of changes to government policy. Telstra will be paid up to $20 million per year for the emergency call service. As part of the government's agreement with Telstra, the emergency call service will be put to tender within five years. If no tenders are received or none of the tenders are acceptable to TUSMA, Telstra will continue to be the emergency call service provider.
The National Relay Service contracts currently cost around $17 million per year. These contracts with WestWood Spice and the Australian Communication Exchange are due to be retendered in 2013. The government estimates that TUSMA will also spend about $15 million per year on migrating voice-only customers onto the NBN and $20 million over two years on developing solutions for the migration of public interest services onto the NBN.
This takes the total expected liability for TUSMA to around $340 million per year, reducing to $330 million after two years, including a component to cover the agency's administrative expenses. This is a significant increase in the cost of delivering the USO. By way of comparison, Telstra received a subsidy of around $145 million to deliver standard phone services and payphones in 2010-11. The cost to provide the USO has long been a contentious issue in the telecommunications industry, with Telstra claiming its cost to provide the USO exceeds the subsidy it receives. But, on the other hand, other carriers claim Telstra is paid too much to deliver USO services.
The government commissioned a report by telecommunications consultant Paul Paterson, who concluded that the net cost to provide the USO for standard telephone services is between $215 million and $262 million per annum, and the net cost to provide the USO for payphones is $35 million to $48 million per annum. The payments to Telstra are in the lower half of these ranges.
This increase in the subsidy provided to Telstra and the government's policy decision to expand the scope of services to be funded by the industry levy mean that telecommunications carriers will be asked to pay a significantly increased levy. In order to give the industry time to adjust to the increased levy, the government has promised to cap the levy on carriers for the first two years so that the overall liability of carriers other than Telstra does not increase. Individual carriers may still pay slightly more or less as their share of industry revenue changes, but the carriers' collective levy will be capped. For this period, the government will provide additional funding to cover the shortfall in the levy collected due to the levy cap. After the initial two-year period, the government has committed to provide $100 million per year towards TUSMA's operations, with residual funding needs to be met entirely from the industry levy.
The second bill before the House is the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011. The primary purpose of this bill is to make consequential amendments to telecommunications legislation and other legislation related to the introduction of the TUSMA Bill. This bill contains amendments to the consumer protection act which would allow the minister to progressively remove the current USO regulations for standard telephone services and payphones if specified conditions are met and appropriate contractual arrangements are in place. Proposed section 8J sets out the process by which the minister can remove the USO regulations. Before the minister can remove the regulations, a contract to provide the USO must be in place, the minister must be satisfied that Telstra is complying with the contract and the minister must obtain advice from ACMA and TUSMA.
Similar obligations apply to the removal of the payphone regulations, as detailed in proposed section 8K. The minister must wait at least 18 months from the commencement of this section before making a declaration under this section. In effect, there will be two USO systems in place for at least the first 18 months after the NBN is rolled out in a particular area. The final bill before the house is the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011. The bill is the procedural mechanism by which the levy is imposed on telecommunications carriers to support the operation of TUSMA. The new levy on telecommunications carriers will replace the USO and NRS levies. ACMA will be responsible for collecting the levy and assessing the levy amount, as is currently the case.
I want to turn my attention to matters of concern with regard to the TUSMA proposal. The general concept of transitioning the USO away from the traditional regulatory basis is a natural outcome of the government's development of the NBN. However, I find it ironic that the government has only chosen to develop a more competitive USO model because it is building the NBN—the biggest government owned monopoly that Australia has ever seen.
The government loves bureaucracy. If there is a simple way to do something and a complicated and expensive way to do something, this government always picks the complicated and expensive way. At present, ACMA oversees the USO and collects the USO levy. This system has worked reasonably well for a number of years. Instead of utilising the existing capacity within the existing agency, the government has seen fit to create a new bureaucracy with a new platoon of public servants. The new agency will have little incentive to keep expenses down, particularly as the government funding for TUSMA is fixed and any increase in cost will be borne by the telecommunications industry.
To provide incentive for the government to keep TUSMA's administrative costs in check, I have circulated an amendment, which I will move at the consideration in detail stage, which will require ACMA's budget for any given year to be reduced by an amount equivalent to the administrative budget of TUSMA. This amendment is intended to ensure that TUSMA's costs are not duplicated within ACMA. Any increase in TUSMA's costs will flow through to the industry levy and ultimately to the telecommunications consumers. As a result, it is appropriate to ensure that TUSMA is efficient and streamlined.
The coalition is also committed to ensuring that Australians in regional areas will continue to have access to standard telephone services. To that end, I have circulated an amendment to require the minister to obtain a favourable independent review of the quality of standard telephone services before being permitted to roll back the USO regulations. This provision will ensure that an independent expert certifies that the standard telephone services are of sufficient quality to justify rolling back the USO obligation. This amendment will add an additional safety net within the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 to ensure that the USO regulations are not rolled back too soon.
The coalition also has concerns about the scope of TUSMA's responsibility to expand without reasonable basis. The government has indicated that TUSMA's budget funding will be set at $100 million per year. The residual requirement will be funded by the industry levy. This creates an incentive for the government to shift further responsibilities on to TUSMA under the guise of public interest telecommunications services while shifting the cost away from the government's budget on to industry and ultimately on to consumers. The opposition will carefully scrutinise every move the government makes in this regard. The Senate environment and communications committee has taken submissions on the bills and heard evidence at a public hearing last week. The coalition will wait for the outcome of this Senate inquiry before deciding whether further amendments may be appropriate to ensure that taxpayers and consumers are protected through the transition of USO services to a contractual basis.
It is also important to consider these bills in their context. These bills would not be before the House if the government was not building the most anti-competitive, expensive, ill-conceived white elephant in Australia's history. The TUSMA system was created as part of the government's backroom deal with Telstra to prop up the NBN. As a result, we really do not know what services Telstra will actually be delivering for the $270 million payment. We do not know what conditions have been placed on Telstra in its contracts with the government. We do not know if the contracts represent fair value for money. We do not know whether consumers are getting a raw deal from this agreement.
What we do know is that this government cannot be trusted to prudently manage public funds. We know that the NBN was not the subject of a cost-benefit analysis. We know that the telecommunications industry will be subject to increased levies, which will flow through to consumers. We know that the government is embarrassed to reveal the true cost of the NBN.
Every time the NBN committee asks NBN Co. or the minister for information about the network rollout, the information that is eventually released provides little insight into the status of the project or is presented in a form that does not allow the project to be appropriately scrutinised. From the little information that has found its way into the public domain, we know that the NBN is struggling with low take-up rates. The Australian reported last year that the take-up rates in Armidale in NSW were as low as two per cent at one stage. This is despite a lavish $138,000 launch.
We know that the NBN project is already behind schedule, with key agreements yet to receive approval from the ACCC. We also know that the ACCC still has significant concerns about Telstra's structural separation undertaking, which is a key component of the NBN deal. We also know that NBN Co. abandoned the construction tender process—on April Fools' Day last year—because none of the 14 tenders was acceptable to the government. We just do not know what the replacement contract with Silcar means with regard to taxpayers. I will conclude now and I look forward to speaking further on this bill at the consideration in detail stage.
Mr LYONS (Bass) (11:12): Mr Deputy Speaker Leigh, it is a pleasure and an honour to be here before you. I believe it is your first sitting in the chair and I congratulate you on your elevation.
I rise today to speak on the Telecommunications Universal Services Management Agency Bill, or TUSMA; the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011, the reform bill; and the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011, the levy bill.
Like electricity and gas, broadband has become an essential infrastructure for Australians wanting to participate in an increasingly online world. Like the rest of the world, Australia is experiencing an insatiable demand for speed and data. I am pleased to hear that many of those opposite support a national broadband. The Gillard government understands that if Australia is to remain competitive in our region that, as the world moves to the 21st century digital economy, we need to act now. That is why we are getting on with the delivery of the NBN. The NBN will turbocharge our economy and enable Australia to become a global leader in using the online world—the world of the 21st century. The NBN will provide the infrastructure that will allow retail service providers to deliver advanced digital services to the nation. It will make possible new and improved ways of connecting with one another, from health and education to business and lifestyle.
The TUSMA bill, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011 and the industry levy bill form a package of legislation to ensure the continuity of the key telecommunications safeguards in the transition to the National Broadband Network. This package of bills implements the reform of the universal service obligation first announced by the government in June 2010 and establishes the necessary legislative framework to create a new statutory agency, TUSMA, to support the government's service agreement with Telstra announced on 23 June 2011.
I am very pleased to speak on this package of bills today as the NBN is the single largest infrastructure project in my lifetime. To quote Mr Michael Ferguson, who is a Tasmanian Liberal parliamentarian in my electorate of Bass, the previous member for Bass in this federal parliament and the future Liberal candidate for Bass, 'The NBN is a good thing for Tasmania and the possibilities are endless.' I know Michael Ferguson turns up at all the BER openings as well and congratulates everybody on the wonderful achievement. At least he has his head in the right place.
This is an exciting time and we need to move quickly to make sure that we are not left behind. The TUSMA Bill provides a governance, funding, reporting and accountability framework for the new statutory agency to make sure that the universal service outcomes and other key public interest services continue to be delivered effectively in this new competitive environment. TUSMA will have the responsibility to put in place contracts or grants so that Australians continue to have reasonable access to standard telephone service and payphones; calls to the emergency call service continue to be handled and transferred to the relevant emergency service organisation; the National Relay Service continues to provide voice equivalent services for those with hearing or speech impairment; appropriate consumer safeguards are in place to support voice-only customers migrating to the NBN fibre service as the Telstra copper network is decommissioned where those customers remain fixed-line voice-only customers after migration; and technological solutions will be developed as necessary to support the continuity of public interest services, public alarms, traffic lights et cetera.
The key focus of the Gillard Labor government is to minimise disruption for consumers and industry by maintaining basic safeguards as the NBN fibre network is rolled out and replaces the old copper network. Telstra is being required to maintain its copper network to deliver voice services outside the NBN fibre areas and importantly, under the agreement it made with the government that was announced on 23 June 2011, Telstra will also be required to be the retailer of last resort for voice-only services over the NBN fibre network. The TUSMA legislation will ensure that basic telecommunication services remain available to all Australians and that the new agency responsible for delivering these services operates efficiently, transparently and with a high degree of accountability. I also note that the TUSMA Bill creates a rigorous oversight and accountability framework for TUSMA's activities. This includes a requirement that it maintain a publicly available register with key terms and services to be provided under all contracts and grants it makes.
The National Broadband Network is a wholesale communications network being created to deliver high-speed broadband to all Australian premises and the NBN will be the single largest infrastructure investment made by an Australian government, delivering a once-in-a-generation upgrade for our telecommunications infrastructure that will benefit all Australians. This is an exciting time, with so many possibilities available for education, business and health. It also has the potential to create many employment opportunities. We, the Gillard Labor government, understand that investment in the NBN is essential for Australia to be an innovative, knowledge based economy of the future. The NBN opens up many new and innovative ideas for local businesses.
The coalition will take us backwards. They have no broadband plan and they have made no secret of the fact that they will shut down the NBN, disadvantaging local homes, businesses, schools and hospitals across the country. The Leader of the Opposition opposes key investments Australia needs to modernise and move forward, including the NBN. Let me say this to those opposite: to shut it down would be a backwards step for Tasmania. Residents in my electorate of Bass are connected to the NBN and most are pleased with the speed. The only complaint I receive from constituents is that they want access sooner. The opposition leader wants the world to stop still and to go back to the past. Some of us remember the past, like 1983, when the Liberal government had double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment at the time they were removed by the Australian people. Let us not go back to the past.
My office receives many calls asking when the callers will be able to get the NBN. Innovative local businesses such as Pivot Maritime and Autech, both Australian Exporter of the Year Award recipients, are very excited about the NBN rollout and how it will benefit their businesses. The NBN will also facilitate the restructuring of our telecommunications industry, providing a level playing field on which telecommunications providers will compete and innovate.
The NBN is a nation-building investment that will pay for itself over time. It will boost our economy and deliver benefits in areas like health, education, business and entertainment. The Gillard Labor government's NBN investment is the envy of the world. Vint Cerf, who is the Vice President of Google and recognised as one of the fathers of the internet, was quoted in January 2011 in the Australian as saying:
I continue to feel a great deal of envy because in the US our broadband infrastructure is nothing like what Australia has planned.
He went on to say:
I consider this to be a stunning investment in infrastructure that in my view will have very long-term benefit. Infrastructure is all about enabling things and I see Australia is trying to enable innovation.
Another endorsement comes from Craig Mundie, the Chief Research and Strategy Officer with Microsoft. He was quoted in the Australian Financial Review in April as saying:
In the grand scheme of things going on in the world, it probably ranks up there at the brilliant end of the scale, certainly in terms of what a government can do to prepare its citizens and businesses for an all-digital world of the future. I think the leadership that has been provided here in Australia with this is farsighted and one that I commend. It is a bit like ensuring that the population has water, roads and electricity. To some extent I think that broadband connectivity is going to become recognised as an essential service.
Yet those opposite, Mr Deputy Speaker, have continued to attack our plans and fail to have their own. They seem to be the only ones who do not understand the importance of this investment in our nation's future. I ask those opposite to come clean about their broadband plan. The shadow minister for communications and broadband has been deftly silent on the Liberals' plan for broadband. The coalition needs to come clean on what their actual policy is, what technology they propose to use and what it will cost. Only Labor has a plan for the future direction of Australia.
The world is changing. Australia faces many challenges and big opportunities in the years ahead: an ageing population, increasing global competition, environmental degradation, keeping the economy strong beyond the mining boom, a future for manufacturing and rapidly developing new technologies. If we do not face up to the changing world and if we put our heads in the sand it will not be the well off that get left behind; it will be ordinary Australians who will miss out. This is why Labor is pursuing the policies Australia needs for the future: putting a price on the carbon emissions of big polluters; building the NBN; and a mining tax that will mean all Australians can share in the benefits of the mining boom, increasing retirement savings through superannuation. We are improving living standards for this generation and future generations of Australians. That means making the right decisions now.
We are delivering affordable, high-speed broadband to all Australians and Australian businesses, no matter where they live. It will mean better education, better health care and better access for Australian businesses to the biggest marketplace in human history. The NBN will connect all Australians to high-speed broadband internet services. Ninety-three per cent of homes, schools and businesses will be connected with a fibre footprint and will receive speeds of up to one gigabit per second. Remaining premises will be connected with a combination of next-generation wireless and satellite technologies that will provide peak speeds of at least 12 megabits per second, much faster than most Australians receive today. The NBN will provide local businesses with the opportunity to expand and reach new markets anywhere in the world in an instant, will lower telephone bills for small business and will enhance business services such as teleconferencing, videoconferencing and virtual private networks. Every child will have access to world-class education resources, access to better health care and high-definition, multichannel and interactive TV services. I am pleased to be part of a government that is investing much-needed infrastructure to prepare our nation for the future.
But let me remind the House that the Liberals have had 21 failed broadband plans in 12 years and left Australia with some of the slowest and most expensive broadband in the developed world. On all of the big economic calls like transforming our economic capacity and driving prosperity through the National Broadband Network, the opposition gets it wrong. The Liberals went to the 2010 federal election with a broadband policy that Peter Reith has acknowledged completely ignores Tasmanians. Tasmanian Liberals do not have the gumption to stand up to the member for Warringah's nay-saying and do something constructive for our state and for Australia. Instead, the Tasmanian Liberal team would prefer to play politics at the expense of Tasmania's access to decent broadband services.
It is clear the Liberals are terrified of upsetting the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Eric Abetz. Tasmania has the lead in the country in installing the National Broadband Network, and our schools have been some of the first to take advantage of the benefits it can provide. Launceston, in my electorate, will be connected to the National Broadband Network as part of the third-stage rollout. I look forward to that development and the many opportunities that will be created. These bills have my support, and I urge those opposite to get off the fence and support the NBN package of legislation. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Leigh ): I thank the member for his contribution and for his generous remarks on my membership of the Speaker's panel.
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (11:28): I too welcome you to the role and hope it will be as satisfying for you as it will be for us backbenchers.
We are talking today about the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011 and the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011, which will change the telecommunications regulatory environment in preparation for the continued rollout of the NBN. The first of these bills is the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011, which provides the government's framework for the new USO system and will change the way the universal service obligations are delivered and funded. The bill establishes a new agency, the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency, or TUSMA, which will operate as a statutory body and will be responsible for the implementation and administration of contracts and grants, which will be the primary method of delivering universal telecommunications services in Australia.
Let me say at this point—right at the beginning—that I am ambivalent about this. I say 'ambivalent' because the coalition's dislike of the NBN in its current form is well known. We have to accept that the government has had its basic NBN legislation passed and therefore it has to set out a regime commensurate with the new system. Having said that, the regime has to be something that is within the bounds of fair play and is not going to be inordinately more expensive than what we have at present—or it should not be. You would think that, if the NBN is going to deliver all the marvellous things that the government and its members have said it will, things would be cheaper and more efficient, not more expensive. The member for Bradfield pointed that out very eloquently in his speech today when he pointed out that the non-Telstra telecommunications providers will be paying infinitely more by way of levy under the new system than under the old.
TUSMA will be charged with ensuring that voice-only customers are shifted onto the NBN fibre network before Telstra's copper network is decommissioned. It will also have to support research and development to make sure that public interest services such as traffic lights and public alarm systems can be shifted across to the NBN without disruption. Part 2 of the bill relates to the scope of grants and contracts which TUSMA will administer and provides for the minister, subject to the scrutiny of parliament, to set standards and benchmarks for those grants and contracts. The agency will also maintain a register of all contracts and grants and oversee the performance and compliance of contractors and grant recipients.
Part 3 of the bill sets out TUSMA's corporate structure, accountability and reporting requirements and provides for TUSMA to maintain a register of public interest telecommunications grants and contracts. The organisation will also have to provide a report to the minister every year detailing the performance of contractors and grant recipients during that period. That information must also be published in TUSMA's annual report to parliament. The bill also provides for a review of the USO arrangements before January 2018. That seems a bit far off, but at least it is there.
Parts 5 and 6 of the bill relate to funding arrangements for TUSMA. I ask at this point whether another bureaucracy within the telecommunications bureaucracy is necessary. Time will tell whether it is. The USO funding for standard phone services and pay phones is currently carried out by way of revenue based on a levy; the National Relay Service is funded by a similar levy. However, this will change under these new arrangements, with TUSMA set to receive government funding which will be topped up by an industry levy. All in all, the government is set to give Telstra $230 million a year for the provision of a standard telephone service, with another $40 million for the payphone service. This funding will not be adjusted for inflation, but it may be increased or decreased depending on the policy of the government of the day. Telstra will also receive $20 million each year to operate the emergency call service; however, the provision of the service will be put out to tender within five years. If no suitable tenders are received, Telstra will continue in its role as the provider of the emergency call service. TUSMA will also manage contracts for the operation of the National Relay Service, which currently costs around $17 million a year.
I will touch briefly on the NRS. It is a service that is not as high profile or sexy as some of the others, but it is crucial for many Australians who have a hearing or speech impairment. The NRS is operated on an Australia-wide basis and incorporates teletypewriter, or TTY, technology, which involves individual relay officers translating typed text to speech and speech into typed text, and provides the voice-over system to a wide range of Australians. Industry funds the cost of the NRS contracts through a levy arrangement similar to the USO scheme. This funding arrangement will change as the levy is consolidated with the one relating to the provision of the USO. Let us hope that the service does not drop in quality.
The NRS is a remarkably effective way for hearing and speech impaired people to use modern telephony to stay in touch with friends, family, business contacts and public entities. One of the most important things a government can do is provide an efficient and reliable telecommunications service for people with special needs. We must get the ongoing operation of the NRS right, because our ageing population means that there will be much more demand for its services into the future. In my own electorate, which has the highest over-65 profile in Australia, the need is self-evident. It is crucial that, as we transfer them to other operators, we do not allow these services to be weakened in any way.
Going further on the costs associated with TUSMA, it is estimated that around $15 million will be spent each year in migrating voice-only customers to the NBN, while $20 million will be spent over two years to migrate public interest services to the NBN. Tallying up these figures brings the total expected liability for TUSMA to around $340 million each year—a huge increase on the $145 million provided to Telstra in 2010-11 for the USO. That is the point that the member for Bradfield made very eloquently this morning. Whether it is by direct government subsidy or by going through the non-Telstra providers, ultimately we the taxpayers are going to pay for it: indirectly, in our taxes, or directly, in increased phone charges. That is unavoidable if you are going to more than double the cost of providing the service.
There has long been contention surrounding the costs associated with delivering the USO, and the increased costs associated with this bill give rise give rise to some scepticism. As the chairman of the standing committee on communications in earlier times, I can vouch for that, because one of the great unknowns was the real cost of the USO. The increased subsidy to Telstra and the expansion of services to be funded via the industry levy mean that all carriers will be paying a much higher levy. The government says that to provide some lead time it will cap the levy on carriers for the first two years so that their overall liability does not increase. Again, what happens after that?
In the remaining minutes I have I want to talk about the circumstance in my own electorate. It is not, strictly speaking, a USO matter, but it is germane to the debate we are having today. During the floods 12 months ago, an underriver cable from Bundaberg city to North Bundaberg became dislodged, floated to the surface, was damaged and, progressively during the year that has just gone, became more and more crackly and unusable. Then in December last year there was a great failure throughout the suburb of North Bundaberg. One estimate says that 900 people were affected, but Telstra told one operator that I dealt with that they were dealing with 2,400 households—which I find an extraordinary figure.
What happened, of course, is that they lost phone services or data services, and in some cases both. This went on for six weeks or more. The impacts were quite extraordinary. Imagine a service station without its EFTPOS facilities, or a real estate agent without regular phones—because they live on their phones. Imagine a major developer trying to juggle works and sales programs without a phone, a pony club secretary trying to arrange events involving nominations from out of town, or a supermarket struggling with communications while trying to do orders and the like. This was a very serious thing. Virtually a whole suburb of Bundaberg was without phone services.
But the attitude of Telstra was quite remarkable. At no stage did they send out a letter to the whole of North Bundaberg—which we do as members of parliament when something happens in a particular suburb. No, that did not happen. They did not send out a news release. People found out only when they rang Telstra, and they had to go to one of those 1300 numbers. The call could take anything from 30 to 45 minutes to be answered, and then it was answered from a foreign country. Now I am not in racist mode today; please do not misinterpret my comments. But the people in these overseas countries did not understand the significance of what was going on. When you are trying to explain what is happening in an Australian town in an Australian flood circumstance, you require people with whom you can communicate clearly. This becomes even more important when you want to ring a 000 service and you cannot get through.
Some of the people told me that they felt that Telstra did not use this as an opportunity to find alternative methods of communications for people while they fixed this cable but rather as an opportunity to sell some of their other, more expensive, services. In one case someone was using the Apple iPhone as a modem. This particular person had a limit of one gigabit per month on their phone. Once that one gigabit was exceeded, it was 25c per megabit. As he pointed out, if he went up to two megabits it was going to cost him another $250 a month. Telstra seemed to think that was quite a good idea. I would have thought that the principle put into play there should have been that when a phone went out Telstra would give the person a mobile phone on a temporary basis. But, no, that did not happen in this instance.
It took a long time for anything to happen. Eventually people got a letter from Telstra—on 27 January—backdating to 3 January advice that Telstra felt it was exempt from the telecommunications customer service guarantee standard. The rationale was that because this was some sort of act of God it was not liable and would not have to make the customer service payments. Telstra seemed more interested in going out and covering its own backside rather than in providing its customers with alternative means of communications. If that is the case, how can it be trusted with the USO?
Debate adjourned.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Shorten.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (11:43): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
There are two additional estimates bills this year: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4).
The additional estimates bills seek appropriation authority from the parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. These funds are sought in order to meet requirements that have arisen since the last budget as well as to take into account impacts on Australia's economic and fiscal outlook that have arisen as a result of the European sovereign debt crisis and instability on the global financial markets. The total additional appropriation being sought through additional estimates bills 3 and 4 this year is a little over $3.1 billion.
The recent Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook identified several impacts on the Australian economy that have implications for Australia's near-term outlook.
Since last year's budget, the European sovereign debt crisis has had an increased impact on international growth and overall market stability. Despite the pressures this has placed on the Australian economic and fiscal outlook, Australia continues to outperform the developed world in economic growth, low unemployment, resources investment and strong public finances. The government remains on track to deliver a budget surplus in the 2012-13 financial year.
Turning now to Appropriation Bill (No. 3); the total appropriation being sought in this bill is $2.8 billion. This proposed appropriation arises from: changes in the estimates of program expenditure; variations in the timing of payments; forecast increases in program take-up; reclassifications; and policy decisions taken by the government since the last budget.
I now outline the major appropriations proposed in the bill.
The government will provide $1.3 billion in appropriations across several agencies to support its commitment to a Clean Energy Future for Australia.
The government will provide $1 billion to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to provide cash payments to highly emissions-intensive coal-fired power stations to assist their transition to a carbon price.
The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency will be provided with $106 million to complete remaining complex inspections and rectification services under the Home Insulation Safety Plan.
The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency will receive $37 million for the establishment of the Clean Energy Regulator, which will administer the carbon-pricing mechanism. The regulator will be responsible for monitoring and assessing the emissions data as well as enforcing compliance with the carbon-pricing mechanism.
The government will provide a further $100,000 in 2011-12 for the Department of Finance and Deregulation to conduct gateway reviews of the establishment and operation of the Clean Energy Regulator.
The government will also provide the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency with $6 million to assist the delivery of information about the implications of a carbon price on small businesses and other community organisations.
The government will provide the coalmining industry, through the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, with $222 million to assist the most emissions-intensive coalmines to transition to a carbon price. The assistance includes a Coal Sector Jobs Package and a Coal Mining Abatement Technology Support Package.
The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities will receive $36 million to establish a Biodiversity Fund. This fund will support the establishment, restoration, protection and management of biodiverse carbon stores, for example, reforestation and revegetation in areas of high conservation value, including wildlife corridors, and action to prevent the spread of invasive species across connected landscapes. The department will also be provided with $2 million as part of a package to support the Tasmanian forest industry as it transitions to a more sustainable and diversified industry.
The government will provide $49 million to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to support the management of extractive industry activities, especially coal seam gas and major coalmining developments. This initiative aims to build scientific evidence and understanding of the impacts on water resources of coal seam gas extraction and large coalmines.
AusAID will receive $30 million in official development assistance as part of Australia's contribution to the Horn of Africa as it deals with drought and famine. This humanitarian assistance will be provided through various organisations, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Program and other non-government organisations.
AusAID will also receive $10 million of funding to implement the International Mining for Development Centre, provide scholarships through the Australian Mining Awards program and build administrative capacity in Africa.
The Department of Human Services will be provided with $36 million to facilitate payments to assist households in meeting the additional costs associated with a carbon price. This funding supports the government's commitment to helping families with children, the aged, pensioners and people with a disability adjust to the carbon-pricing mechanism. The government will also provide support to other income support recipients and low-income earners.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will receive supplementary appropriations to support businesses within the live cattle exports industry. The government will provide $24 million of assistance to businesses affected by the temporary suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia and to improve animal welfare outcomes. The assistance will include a combination of assistance payments and the subsidisation of low-interest loans to support businesses directly affected by the interruption in trade.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will also be provided with $30 million to extend the Carbon Farming Initiative to include two new programs, Carbon Farming Futures and the Indigenous Carbon Farming Fund. The department will also receive $45 million to support the Tasmanian forest industry support initiative being led by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
The government will provide the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education with $9 million to assist the manufacturing industry transition to a low-carbon economy. The assistance will comprise direct assistance to manufacturing businesses with an energy consumption of at least 300 megawatt hours of annual electricity or five terajoules of natural gas. The assistance will include grants to trade exposed industries such as metal forging and foundry industries as well as targeted assistance to improve energy efficiencies within these industries.
The government will provide $14 million to Norfolk Island through the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport. The funding will support the Norfolk Island government in the provision of essential services. The funding will also help the Norfolk Island government to develop reforms that will improve its efficiency and effectiveness.
The Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport will also receive $16 million to support the Tasmanian forestry industry support being led by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
The government will also provide the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport with $15 million for the redevelopment of Bellerive Oval in Tasmania. The redevelopment will include an increased capacity for the venue and upgraded facilities. This project will ensure that Tasmanians will get to see more sporting events in Hobart.
The Department of Human Services will be appropriated $10 million to facilitate payments to strengthen incentives for parents to have their children immunised. This funding supports changes to the eligibility criteria for the family tax benefit part A as well as expanding the immunisation program to include meningococcal C, pneumococcal and chicken pox vaccines.
Movement of f unds i nformation
I now outline the major reclassifications proposed in Appropriation Bill (No.3).
The government will reappropriate $45 million across six departments.
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations will be reappropriated $20 million related to providing employment services to job seekers.
The Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport will be reappropriated $7 million relating to the sport and recreation program.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will be reappropriated $6 million across several programs including those that support the fishing industry, drought relief programs and sustainable agricultural resources.
The Department of the Treasury will be reappropriated $2 million related to the education tax refund campaign.
The remaining amounts that appear in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) relate to estimates variations, minor reclassifications and other minor measures.
Debate adjourned.
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Shorten.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) (11:52): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Appropriation Bill No. 4 provides additional funding to agencies for:
payments direct to local government, and some national partnership payments through the states, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory;
requirements for departmental equity injections; and
requirements to create or acquire administered assets and to discharge administered liabilities.
The total additional appropriation being sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012 is a little over $341 million, the more significant amounts of which I now outline.
The Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport will be reappropriated $53 million of funds directed to local governments and regional development. This reappropriation, in part, will be used to offset the amounts provided to the department earlier in the year through the Advance to the Finance Minister mechanism.
The government will provide $29 million of capital funding for the establishment of the Clean Energy Regulator which, as outlined in the second reading speech for Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012, will administer the carbon-pricing mechanism.
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations will be provided with $37 million. This is a result of a transfer of $50 million from Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2011-2012 for the Reward for Great Teachers program, offset by payments to government schools that have been transferred to the Department of the Treasury.
The Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education will provide a $25 million loan to Howe and Co. Pty Ltd and its parent company Howe Automotive Ltd. The loan is to be fully repaid over 10 years with annual interest and principal payments. The provision of this loan and its subsequent repayment have no impact on the government's fiscal balance but affect the composition of the government's assets.
The remaining amounts that appear in Appropriation Bill No. 4 relate to estimates variations, minor reclassifications and other minor measures.
I would like to turn now to the general drawing right limits for the nation-building funds, which specify the maximum limit on payments from the funds in a financial year exclusive of GST. The general drawing rights limits for the Building Australia Fund, the Education Investment Fund and the Health and Hospitals Fund proposed in this bill will replace the limits declared in Appropriation Act (No. 2) 2011-12. The limits for the Building Australia Fund and the Health and Hospitals Fund have been increased. The limit of the Education Investment Fund has been decreased. These changes recognise adjustments in the timing of payments to better reflect project milestones and previously announced funding.
The remaining amounts that appear in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) relate to estimates variations, minor reclassifications and other minor measures.
Debate adjourned.
Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011
Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (11:55): I rise to voice my strong support for the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 and cognate bills. Before I do that, I would like to pass on my thoughts and prayers to the people of my hometown of St George, who are having a tough time with the flood. To quote a bit of poetry:
It pelted, pelted all day long, A-singing at its work,
till every heart took up the song way-out to Back o'-Bourke ...
And now all those rains are flowing into the Balonne river and through the township of St George and on to New South Wales. To quote Adam Lindsay Gordon:
And floods, freed by storm,
From broken up fountain heads, dash on ...
I know it is causing a lot of heartache to my friends and cousins in St George. I grew up in St George and experienced a lot of floods, but nothing like the one they are experiencing now.
It is interesting to think back to my time in St George. I left St George in 1985 when accessing information was a completely different experience. Now I can look on Facebook and see photos and videos posted almost instantaneously. I can see what is happening in my street and what is happening along the riverbank. Back then I would ride my bike down to the local library to flick through the library cards or ask for a book to be sent from Dalby or somewhere like that. A week or so later I would get notice of the book arriving and go in and have a look. Accessing information is now a completely different process. When I was making plans to go on a round-the-world trip I would go and talk to my travel agent and go through the information. I would get a quote and they would type up the information. I would then go down to the bank and line up in the bank queue to get some money out, then go back and pay the travel agent for the tickets they had typed up, and they would post them out to you a few weeks later. I would go to the airport, normally with luggage filled with books because I would be travelling for such a long time, and then I would check in.
When I was travelling I would have to find local money to put into payphones so that I could let my family know what I was up to. When I was backpacking around the world, I would occasionally find some old Australian newspapers that were a few months out of date so that I could find out what was happening back in Australia. I would come back from holidays, I would take my film down to the chemist, leave it at the chemist and wait a few days for my Kodak photos to come back. I would then post them off months and months later to share with my friends from overseas.
It is amazing how much things have changed since my time growing up in St George. Kodak has now filed for bankruptcy—you can take photos and share them with your friends around the world instantaneously on Facebook. You can use Skype to communicate instantaneously with people around the world. Whilst there are still travel agents, people can now book their own tickets and pay for them online. You can do your banking online. You can do your research on the internet. Education has changed significantly since I left St George to go to teachers college. Now the digital world and the digital revolution have completely changed education. In the holidays, I took my two young boys to the Dubbo zoo on a bit of a road trip. I went with my brother, who unfortunately is currently single, so I got an insight into the world of online dating through RSVP. I heard about how much things have changed since, for example, the member for Corio—who is on duty in the chamber at the moment—was out dating, a long time ago admittedly, with all respect to his wife. Now the internet has completely changed even something as simple as finding a new partner. I think there might be a certain wisdom in, rather than going out drunk to a pub, making a sober decision while looking at RSVP. Perhaps it will bring some benefit to society.
I am here to talk about the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011, but I think that discussion of how rapidly things have changed illustrates how important it is to focus on the NBN and the benefits that will flow from it. I particularly commend the speech of the member for Hinkler where he stepped out from behind the 'No' placard that most people opposite hide behind. He talked about some of the benefits. Coming from Bundaberg and representing a regional area, he appreciates more than most how important the NBN will be for people in the bush and for people in regional Australia.
The Gillard Labor government is delivering the most significant infrastructure project in our nation's history, and I am proud to be able to say that. The National Broadband Network is a major once-in-a-generation nation-building piece of infrastructure. The NBN will ensure that all Australians can access a world-class high-speed broadband network.
For the benefit of the opposition leader, I need to explain that the NBN is not only about faster YouTube downloads; it is about changing the way Australians live, work and play—and I particularly focus on the word 'work'. You do not need to be a tech-head to know that. Most people under 20 would know that and most people who grapple with new technology know that. It is a revolution that will deliver affordable, high-speed broadband for hospitals, innovations in health; for households, innovations in how work can be done at home and in terms of entertainment; and for businesses and schools, no matter where they are in Australia. It will revolutionise education, health care and business. There is no escaping the fact that it is a major, once-in-a-generation infrastructure project, and that is why I am so excited about it. Why? Because of what it will do for Australian productivity.
Let's have a look at productivity. You can look at it from quarter to quarter but it is more instructive to look at how productivity has changed over time—over five years, over 10 years, over those longer times. When the Rudd Labor government came to office, productivity growth was at zero, and that reflected the fact that basically the former government, the Howard government, had not made the tough calls. When the Howard government came to office in 1996, they were able to reap the benefits of the tough reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments, and that is acknowledged by those opposite. It is especially so now in 2012. But rust never sleeps; you need to keep making changes. You need to keep investing in infrastructure, especially critical infrastructure, and that did not happen. Whether you are flying over Dalrymple Bay or Newcastle and seeing all those boats waiting out to sea or looking at railroads and roads, you know that there were not the long-term investments in productivity-enhancing reforms. It was basically a decade of neglect.
If we look at productivity, the 3,000 flagpoles were an important contribution to Australia and gave a few people jobs. We invested in 3,000 libraries—big investments in education, training and skills. You look at roads, rails and ports: we doubled the investment in these things, and they will all eventually increase productivity. That $455 billion pipeline of investments will eventually increase the productivity of this nation. Obviously, if you are building a pipeline or a road or a railway or a gas processing plant now, it is not producing right now, but in the long run they will increase the productivity of this nation.
Training, skills, education—these are the things we need to focus on as a nation. The tough decisions are the decisions we need to make, and I am proud to be part of a government that is making these reforms. Future governments and future parliaments will see those benefits, but I would rather do the hard yards and suffer the political consequences than shirk the responsibilities that come with leadership.
These bills before the House will ensure a smooth transition to the National Broadband Network and create a more competitive and open telecommunications market. They do so firstly by establishing a statutory authority, the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency. The agency will be responsible for the implementation and administration of service agreements.
The government has entered into an agreement with Telstra to provide universal service outcomes for standard telephone services and payphone services. The bills define the agency's corporate governance structure, reporting and accountability requirements. It also imposes an industry levy to contribute to the agency's operating costs. The Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency will enter contracts or provide grants to deliver universal service obligations, emergency call services and the National Relay Services.
The bills will ensure that all Australians have reasonable access to a standard telephone service and to payphones. Triple-0 calls will continue to be transferred to the relevant emergency services, and those with hearing or speech impairment will be able to access the National Relay Service voice-equivalent services, a service that will be increasingly important to an ageing Australia. These bills are required in order to minimise the disruption for consumers and industry as the NBN fibre network replaces the old copper network. We need to use the right tools. The old tools were fine a long time ago but the new tools are what we need now.
Under the financial heads of agreement with NBN Co., Telstra agreed to maintain its copper network to deliver voice services outside NBN fibre areas. Telstra is also required under the agreement to provide voice-only services as a retailer of last resort. That is the Labor Party understanding of markets, in that we do not just let it rip and let people suffer. This is about ensuring that all Australians are able to access basic telecommunications services.
This legislation puts in place appropriate accountability measures. As well as the usual reporting measures such as annual reports and corporate plans, the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency will be required to maintain a public register of key terms and services provided under contracts and grants it makes. The bills also allow for the universal service obligations to be removed by the minister after the transition period. This would allow these services to go to the market. Universal service obligations can be removed only if the minister is satisfied within two years that there are satisfactory contractual arrangements in place.
Against muted criticism from those opposite—although I do not think this is something that regional Liberal and National Party members are against—the Gillard Labor government have continued to forge ahead with the National Broadband Network. We have continued to negotiate with industry and the communications sector to ensure we have the right system in place to deliver an effective national broadband network. It is not easy, but game-changing infrastructure of this magnitude never is. I am particularly wary of people who are muted or neutral about this, because I think that in years to come they will reap the benefits of it. I am wary of what you might call 'policy leeches'. They do not actually do the hard yards. If you go bushwalking and you collect a leech and take it to the top of the mountain, while you are doing the hard yards walking up the mountain the leech is feeding off your blood, sweat and hard work. Then, when you get to the top of the mountain, the leech falls off. You have done all the hard work to get there but it reaps the benefits of it. I am wary of that sort of approach to this great nation building policy. I commend the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy for his commitment in this regard, because I know that it will increase the nation's productivity in the years to come.
The Labor approach is quite sensible. Some of those opposite have the approach to productivity that you just need to work harder, work longer and, obviously, cut the penalty rates. That is not the way forward. That is a simplistic approach to productivity. Productivity is a much more complicated beast. The Labor approach is much more compassionate. You work smarter and you support the community with an investment in skills and resources, and that is what this NBN legislation will do for the nation. I commend the bills to the House.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (12:10): It is important that we consider the bills before us today in context. We would not be debating these measures if the Gillard government were not embarking on the shambolic waste of money that is NBN Co. The whole Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency system was created as part of the government's backroom deal with Telstra to prop up NBN Co. It is yet another flawed component of the entire fiasco that is NBN Co.
There are three bills before the House today. The first of these, the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011, provides the framework for the new USO system. The bill will create a new statutory agency called the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency, to be known as TUSMA. TUSMA will be responsible for entering into contracts on behalf of the Commonwealth for the delivery of public interest telecommunications services. These include standard telephone services, payphones, the emergency call system, and the National Relay Service. TUSMA will also be responsible for ensuring that voice-only customers are migrated onto the NBN fibre network before Telstra's copper network is decommissioned. TUSMA will also be required to support research and development aimed at ensuring that public interest services such as traffic lights and public alarm systems can migrate onto the National Broadband Network with minimal disruption.
Part 2 of the bill sets out the scope of grants and contracts to be administered by TUSMA and provides for the minister, subject to the scrutiny of parliament, to set the standards and benchmarks that will apply to contracts and grants managed by TUSMA. The agency will monitor the performance and compliance of contractors and grant recipients and will maintain a register of all contracts and grants. Part 3 sets out TUSMA's corporate structure, accountability, and reporting requirements.
The structure of TUSMA will be a statutory agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. The minister will appoint a chairman and four to six members. In appointing TUSMA members, the minister is required to select candidates with a diverse range of skills and expertise, and TUSMA will also have a CEO and staff, who will be employed under the Public Service Act—even more bureaucracy and swelling of the Public Service.
The government has chosen to introduce yet another duplication of services as an attempted solution. At present, ACMA oversees the USO and collects the USO levy. This system has worked reasonably well for a number of years, yet instead of utilising the existing capacity within an existing agency, the government has seen fit to create a new bureaucracy with a new platoon of public servants. This new agency will have little incentive to keep expenses down, particularly as government funding for TUSMA is fixed, and any increase in costs will be borne by the telecommunications industry. Further, I have concerns about the associated costs of TUSMA. Under the new arrangements, TUSMA will receive government funding, with residual funding requirements to be met by a consolidated industry levy, which combines the current USO and NRS levies. The government has agreed to pay Telstra $230 million per year to provide standard telephone services and $40 million per year for payphones. Telstra will also be paid up to $20 million per year for the emergency call service.
As part of the government's agreement with Telstra, the emergency call service will be put to tender within five years, but if no tenders are received, or none of the tenders are acceptable to TUSMA, Telstra will continue to be the emergency call service provider. On top of this, the National Relay Service contracts currently cost about $17 million per year. The government estimates that TUSMA will also spend about $15 million per year on migrating voice-only customers to the NBN and $20 million over two years on developing solutions for the migration of public interest services to the National Broadband Network.
The government expects TUSMA's annual administrative costs to be approximately $5 million. This takes a total expected liability for TUSMA to about $340 million per year, reducing to $330 million after two years, including a component to cover the agency's administrative expenses. This is a significant increase in the cost of delivering the USO. By way of comparison, Telstra received a subsidy of about $145 million to deliver standard telephone services and payphones in 2010-11.
This increase in the subsidy provided to Telstra and the government's policy decision to expand the scope of services to be funded by the industry levy mean that telecommunications carriers will be asked to pay a significantly increased levy which, in turn, will be passed on to the consumer. After the initial two-year period, the government has committed to provide $100 million per year towards TUSMA's operations, with residual funding needs to be met entirely from the industry levy. Any increase in TUSMA's costs will flow through to the industry levy and ultimately to telecommunications consumers. Given this government's track record of poor and reckless financial management, there is little hope that costs will be contained.
The coalition has concerns over TUSMA, particularly for regional access. We are also committed to ensuring that Australians in regional areas will continue to have reliable access to standard telephone services. To that end, the shadow minister will move an amendment to require the minister to obtain a favourable independent review of the quality of standard telephone services before being permitted to roll back USO regulations. This provision will ensure that an independent expert certifies that standard telephone services are of sufficient quality to justify rolling back USO regulations.
This amendment will add an additional safety net within the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 to ensure that the USO regulations are not rolled back too soon. The coalition also has concerns about the scope for TUSMA's responsibilities to expand without reasonable basis. The government has indicated that TUSMA's budget funding will be set at $100 million per year. The residual requirement will be funded by the industry levy. This creates an incentive for the government to shift further responsibilities onto TUSMA under the guise of public interest telecommunications services, while shifting the cost from the government's budget onto the industry and ultimately the long-suffering consumers.
They say that a week is a long time in politics—in the CIT industry we talk about nanoseconds. The rate of change and advances in technology and communication is breathtaking. We probably cannot imagine what innovations will be introduced in five years time, yet this agreement has a term of 20 years. In 20 years time there is a good chance that payphones will be obsolete, yet this government is committing us to a 20-year agreement. Given this government's track record across the board, the cost of TUSMA has the potential to be yet another financial nightmare, with the real losers being ordinary Australians.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (12:19): I rise to speak on the three bills before the House, the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011 and the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011. These are designed to ensure a smooth transition to the National Broadband Network with respect to the universal service obligation.
The first of these bills, the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011, creates the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency, TUSMA—so eloquently put by the member for Ryan—which will be a statutory agency responsible for organising and delivering the universal service provision policy outcome in the telecommunications industry. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform ) Bill 2011 allows the minister to progressively roll back the current universal service obligation, USO, set-up as it becomes obsolete. The third bill in this package is the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011, which provides for a levy on the telecommunications industry to contribute to the costs of TUSMA.
In a country as big and sparse as Australia, having some form of universal service obligation is vital to ensure that those living in the remote parts of our country are not punished for it with telecommunication services that are not up to scratch. Coming from a regional part of Queensland—although from a fantastic city, Townsville—I fully support measures that make sure this is not the case.
At the moment, these provisions have been more than adequately provided by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA. While I recognise that the rollout of the NBN may require tweaking of this set-up, it is typical of this government that its knee-jerk reaction is to create a brand new bureaucracy to manage these provisions, which means brand new expenses for the taxpayer. The coalition is concerned about this expense, both the increased government spending in this area and the flow-on costs in the industry levy and the need for efficiency to keep this down. To deal with this, the shadow minister for regional communications will be moving an amendment to this bill that will require ACMA's annual budget to be cut by the amount of the new TUSMA administrative budget. This will not only avoid the duplication of costs that the new agency represents but also will provide the incentive for these costs to be minimised.
With these bills providing for the roll-back of current USO provisions, the shadow minister will also be moving an amendment requiring the minister to have an independent review of telecommunications services before this roll-back is allowed to go ahead. It is vital that this amendment be included to ensure that regional Australia is not left to suffer in the transition to the new USO framework.
I cannot consider these bills outside of the context in which they are required, the transition to the National Broadband Network. As one of the first trials and rollouts of the NBN has been in Townsville, any bill that provides for this transitional period is extremely relevant to my electorate. To ensure that the NBN roll-out has been dealt with properly, and because of the lack of information we have been able to get from the NBN people, I sent out a survey to residents in Townsville who have been offered the service. I asked for feedback on whether or not they had chosen to connect to the NBN and why.
I would like to take the opportunity throughout this speech to share with you some of the feedback that I have received from those people who have been so good as to return their forms. Overall, the responses have been quite mixed despite the fact that you might expect at least a broadly positive response from an infrastructure project carrying a $43 billion price tag. Of the roughly one third of positive responses, the biggest comment is of course the access to faster internet—it is what we all want—which has expanded the possibilities for internet phone services, movie downloads, and everyone in the family being able to make use of the internet at the same time. In particular, people have told me of how useful this has been for business and study.
James Cook University have brought to my attention in the past the benefits that the NBN offers their staff and students. I had one letter from a lady who was very effusive. She said that it is the greatest thing that has ever happened to her family. She emailed me her response and she said that while she was doing this her son was downloading a movie, her daughter was supposed to be doing her homework on the internet while simultaneously being on Facebook—fancy that!—and her other son was downloading music on iTunes. These are things that she said could never possibly have happened previously. She was most effusive in her support.
The NBN roll-out has certainly not been without bumps, though. One problem that has been frequently mentioned is the difficulty connecting to unit complexes or blocks of flats. While taking into consideration that this was a trial and that they must have rules it still beggars belief that you would not want people living in a unit complex to have the same service as the people living next door. The guys—the people installing these things—are right next door putting it into a house but they will not put it into a unit. That was just one of those things that we thought could have been done better. The lack of information on this coming back from NBN Co. to the residents in those units has left a lot of people disappointed. Body corporates have had issues; they often do not live in the complex.
There was also a consistent problem with a lack of information about how to connect to the NBN and what service and internet plans are available through it. Although a lot of these plans are from the providers and not the NBN Co. there has to be coordination of the two and a flow of information. A consistent problem all the way through has been that information was not all that great. Even many of those who want to connect just do not know where to begin. They are being given form responses and access to pages on the internet but those are very difficult for a lot of people follow.
While many people have appreciated the fast internet access provided by NBN others have pointed out that their internet speeds have not been any faster than what they experienced with their previous set-ups. The taxpayer is left paying for this huge infrastructure project to provide a standard of broadband already available through the private sector in most parts of the country.
One gentleman actually took the time to come in and sit down and speak to me. He does CAD designs for buildings. He has to send 10 meg, 12 meg or 15 meg files of CAD drawings throughout the country. He is quite the tech-head—is that a term you can use in the chamber?—and he said that the best speed he could ever get on NBN, and he had signed up for the full thing, at any time of day was 62 megabits per second. And most of the time it was running at around 30 to 32 megabits per second. He also knew of people in Douglas, another suburb in Townsville, who are on ADSL2. They are consistently getting 30 megabits per second. Whilst he signed up for the trial he did not continue afterwards because the cost differential between the two services was just too extreme.
If the NBN is supposed to be so great and you have so few people using it, surely there is something that they have to look at here. It seems to me that they are not listening to any of the feedback from the customers. Despite this government's insistence that the NBN will not be more expensive to consumers many people have come to me telling me that the prices are far more expensive than their current plans, or are just way out of their price range. This has particularly been a problem for pensioners living in the area in which it is being rolled out.
One of the people who responded to the survey said that when they had signed up for the trial they had to sign a two-year contract with one of the internet providers. But two months in, the internet provider more than doubled the price of the access for the rest of the trial. Even though they had a signed contract for two years the internet provider said, 'No, that is not right.' The Telecommunications Ombudsman sided with the internet provider, sho said that it was not a contract. That is the sort of thing we have to watch out for. Those are the sorts of problems we are having.
One of the major pieces of feedback we have received has been about the decision by NBN Co to string cable overhead. This is occurring within 12 months of Cyclone Yasi. We have had the Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister in Tully. We have had the Premier up there. We have had all these things going on in relation to Cyclone Yasi and yet the NBN is being strung up from telephone poles.
We have also had a larger number of people than would be expected complaining that rats and mice have eaten through the fibre optic cable, disconnecting them from the NBN. They have said that NBN Co. have come back and fixed it at no cost to the consumer but it is happening an awful lot.
A number of residents have complained to me about the fact that the government apparently overlooked the risk of cyclones. They have expressed the concern that on top of the enormous expense of this project, all it will take is a cyclone smaller than Yasi and not only will they be without internet and telephone services, but the taxpayer will have to foot the repair bill.
I liken the way the government is marketing the NBN to the way a new car is marketed. It is all shiny and new and it should be fantastic. That is not my experience out there. If the government are to be serious about this national broadband network I think that they have to pull their collective fingers out, do some serious thinking on this and knuckle down to the job.
The NBN say that it is about bringing people from the outside in yet they are running the optic cable past Julia Creek but not allowing anyone in Julia Creek to log on. It is a sin and they should be brought to book on that.
This whole thing is marketed as if it were a brand new car but it turns out that it might be the Lada Niva, the Mahindra or the Ford Edsel. It speaks a good game but just does not deliver. Across this survey you would expect that in a trial area you would have a great, positive response about how wonderful this thing is but we are just not getting it. For the amount of money we are spending on this thing, the amount of effort going into it and the amount of credibility the government is investing in it, you would think that they would be able to deliver 100 megabits per second to 1,000 people in Townsville. But they cannot deliver it. To use an analogy, if this were a car, there would be warranty claims on this vehicle forever, and they would not be accepted. They would have to get an extended warranty from another provider and try to get it fixed up by some bloke down the street.
As a part of the coalition, I support the principles of the universal service obligation that these bills provide for. But the NBN rollout is proving to involve expense after expense. While many Townsville residents appreciate access to fast broadband, our experience has continued to leave me sceptical that taxpayers, even those who already have the NBN, are getting anything that remotely resembles value for money.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (12:30): I rise today to speak on the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 and associated bills. This package concerns Labor's National Broadband Network. Specifically, it establishes a new government agency to ensure that universal service obligations are being met. If passed, the legislation will take effect from 1 July this year. The universal service obligation ensures that all Australians will have reasonable access to telephone services, payphones and, of course, 000 emergency calls. It is vitally important, especially in regional and rural areas, where mobile phone coverage is not always readily accessible or reliable.
Eventually, the provision of these services will be open to tender, which will be good news for customers, as competition often leads to reduced prices. However, a long-term plan has already been signed by this government to have Telstra provide the service, and we the public do not have access to the price details—or any of the submission details, for that matter. This Labor government talks of transparency and then goes out of its way to hide the detail. Note that from the outset the coalition will move amendments to ensure that our rural and regional areas get a fair go here. We already know that Labor does not plan to deliver fibre-to-the-premises broadband to every home under its NBN. We need to be absolutely sure that people will not lose phone services under the switch, and before the USO is scaled back.
In order to ensure quality, we believe an independent review should be undertaken when more than 10,000 voice-only telephone services are being delivered via the NBN. The review would need to consider price, quality of voice reproduction, reliability, repair time and convenience for customers. It would also need to guarantee that services were at least equivalent to that currently being delivered by Telstra over its copper network. In this way, the NBN would have some accountability on its services. People in rural areas rely on their telephones for communication, whether that be for safety, household services, work or simply entertainment. Taxpayers cannot be funding reduced services.
Of course, it could be a fair while before 10,000 connections are actually made in this country. At the moment, we are five years into Labor's federal leadership and yet we only have a handful of internet customers under the NBN. The then Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, went to the 2007 election promising superfast broadband for the nation, to be paid for by taxpayers. Yet, despite millions of dollars having been spent, no such upgrades exist for anyone in my local area or indeed the Hunter as a whole.
I remember reading a news article on 19 October in the Newcastle Herald, just after it was announced that Newcastle would not be among the first to get the NBN. The member for Charlton, Greg Combet, was quoted as saying:
"Given that this was a joint Hunter and Central Coast submission, and the highly competitive efforts to secure the NBN roll out, this is a good outcome for the region generally …
So here is Greg Combet, member for Charlton, telling the people of the Hunter to be glad the Central Coast was getting the NBN. After all, the Labor MPs from around the Newcastle region campaigned for better internet services for local homes and businesses. We then had the member for Newcastle, Sharon Grierson, urging local businesses to work hard to make a good case to bring the NBN to Newcastle. In a meeting back on 1 September last year, she told business leaders that the NBN was vital for the region and that it was up to stakeholders to put together a coordinated tender that would convince the government to make the Hunter a priority.
So all of a sudden the government has gone from, 'Elect us and we will deliver superfast broadband to your area,' to saying, 'If you convince us you need superfast broadband then we will consider rolling it out to you; otherwise, you will get services eventually—sometime over the next 10 years or so.' I would have thought fighting for the local area was the member for Newcastle's job as their elected MP. In truth, I would be lying if I said I was surprised. After all, the Gillard Labor government had a choice between the Hunter, where it holds four very safe Labor seats, and the Central Coast, where it is trying desperately to save face thanks to the scandal surrounding the member for Dobell, Craig Thompson, who is accused of misusing union funds for personal purchases and procuring the services of prostitutes.
What we know for sure about this Labor government is that we cannot trust the Prime Minister. After all, it was Julia Gillard, our Prime Minister, who said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' What we can be absolutely sure of is that this government will do whatever it can to stay in power. As Labor stalwart Graham Richardson so famously once said: 'whatever it takes'. That has become the Labor mantra This government's focus is firmly rested on its own political ambition, not the true good of our country. That is why Labor's marginally held seats, and those crucial to its political survival, will be the first to get connected to the NBN.
Back home in the Hunter region, where the average local Labor MP has a winning margin of around 16 per cent, there is simply no need for Labor to buy votes with an early installation of the NBN. I wish the member for Newcastle, Sharon Grierson, good luck on convincing her Labor colleagues to install the network in her electorate. But I know she has already given up, because she has been convincing local businesses to have a go instead.
I keep listening to Labor spout about how the NBN will improve internet access for every Australian. But it is not every Australian—it is only 93 per cent. For many people in my electorate of Paterson, no fibre upgrades will ever arrive. Towns with fewer than 1,000 people, such as Coomba Park, Boat Harbour, Pacific Palms, Gresford, Vacy and Stroud, just to name a few—in fact, most of the electorate of Paterson—will not get fibre-optic cable under the NBN. They have been promised satellite. But, instead of rolling that out now, Labor has said, 'You can wait until everyone else has it.' In other words, they are saying to the people, 'We in the Labor government don't really care about the other seven percent.' Well, the coalition does, and we will fight tooth and nail to ensure phone services do not fall into the same category. If Labor is determined to push ahead with its over-priced, under-delivered network, it has to benefit everyone who is paying for it. That is why the coalition has been arguing for a mix of technologies—cable, wireless, whatever is cost-effective and quick to deliver—so that everyone has a chance to improve their services as soon as possible. Our plan would have been delivered at a fraction of the cost of this massive white elephant that will kill competition. Labor would have you believe we did not have an internet policy at the last election and that we had not taken any action while we were in government. But that is simply not true. ADSL2 was not even available until 2005, and as the technology took off we developed a policy to upgrade internet access for everyone as quickly as possible through a mix of technologies that would be affordable for the consumer.
The coalition's OPEL plan would have been delivered by now, had the ALP not interfered. That plan would have cost the taxpayer just $958 million, not $50 billion, and residents in Paterson would have been among those to benefit from metropolitan-equivalent broadband services. The coalition would have delivered 25 new WiMAX base stations and eight telephone exchanges upgraded to ADSL2 in my electorate alone. One of the beauties of our plan, which included a mix of technologies, was that people would have been able to access the internet while on the go in the electorate. With most people now owning an iPad or iPhone or an Android equivalent, they do not necessarily want to be tied to a fixed line in their home.
While the rest of the world is going wireless, our government completely ignores wireless needs with its NBN. Affordability is also key here. Our own government studies show that it is the low-income earners who are least likely to have the internet connected at home. That means we should be trying to make it cheaper. But people are starting to realise that the NBN is not going to mean a cheaper service. It is going to be expensive for the taxpayer at a cost of $50 billion or more, and plenty of that has already been spent without much to actually show for it. For example, from June 2010 to June 2011 the number of NBN employees grew by 648, with each person's pay and entitlements costing the taxpayer almost $224,000.
The NBN is also going to be expensive for the consumer. The government will be keen to recoup its costs, and since it has banned Telstra and Optus from providing voice and broadband services on their copper and cable networks respectively, it has cut out competition and will be able to charge high prices. A paper by telecommunications analyst Ian Martin has already shown that the NBN will have to boost its revenue, per customer, by 5.7 per cent every year, just to meet its corporate plan.
I have not even mentioned that, despite promises by Labor that every major project undertaken would include a cost-benefit analysis, this, the biggest project undertaken by a federal government in Australia's history, has conveniently not been subject to such an analysis. Worse yet, all this spending does not necessarily mean that services are going to be better for everyone. When it comes to voice services, as soon as you start providing them with a fibre line, you cut off people's home phones every time there is a blackout. If your phone or internet goes offline, under the NBN, we also have no guarantee that it will be fixed in a timely manner, which can cost safety and productivity for regional and rural people.
A number of my constituents in Dungog and Gresford could tell you what a big problem it is when you cannot rely on a fixed-line phone service or the internet. Janelle from Dungog contacted me last week about her phone and internet service, which still has not been fixed to this day. She has been told to wait anywhere between seven and 10 days for a reconnection. Meanwhile, other business owners in the area say they are losing customers because they operate their businesses online. That is typical of the many businesses in regional and rural areas, which have been able to use their internet and phone to bridge the distance gap. Yet, ironically, it is these same people who will not get any foreseeable upgrades because their towns are under 1,000 and they are covered by this government's plan. It simply is not good enough.
The year 2007 was the year that former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd promised fast, reliable internet and phone services for Australians. Here we are in 2012, millions of dollars later, and nothing has been delivered. We are all sitting here waiting for fibre cables to be laid when we could have reliable services already delivered through a mix of technologies. I have a message for the government benches: people do not really care how they get quality services, as long as they get them.
These bills would not be before the House if Labor were not still pushing ahead with its over-priced white elephant, the NBN. While those on the other side of this House spruik the benefits of faster download speeds, most people have not seen any improvement in their internet services and will not get the NBN for another 10 years—and certainly no-one in the Hunter region has access, despite their taxes going towards hefty salaries for NBN employees.
As Australia and the world move towards a more connected society built around advances in telecommunications, it is important that we continue to upgrade services. However, with speed of delivery being a crucial factor for businesses and homes that need better internet speeds now, having to wait for cable to be laid some time during the next decade simply is not good enough. By upgrading internet through a mix of technologies, the coalition would have been able to deliver upgrades now. Yes, some people want and need speeds of 100 megabits per second, but some people, including many of my constituents in the Dungog area, Port Stephens, Great Lakes and East Maitland, just want an internet connection that does not drop out right when they are about to make a purchase, download a file or see the end of that movie.
Through Labor's NBN plan, everyone will be forced to pay for a service that many do not want or need. I have spoken to people in Dungog this week and they are pleading with me to get an internet service that actually works—not an internet service with a 100 megabits per second download rate. The government needs to allow people to walk, not keep them locked up with the promise that one day—one day in the distant future—they may be able to run. A universal service obligation is important, but so is honesty and transparency in the timely delivery of services.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (12:43): I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate on the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 and related bills and, in doing so, I intend to focus on the need for further investment in telecommunications in regional areas to ensure that all Australians benefit from the rollout of new technology—and I hasten to add, old technology, because we still face the situation in many parts of regional Australia, including numerous locations throughout the Gippsland electorate, where relatively old technology, in the form of mobile phones, do not provide coverage to locals and visitors to the region.
I have noticed that many regional MPs have taken the opportunity to speak in relation to the bills before the House, and I can understand why. It is because in regional communities we understand that the opportunities in terms of social growth and economic opportunities that are linked in to making sure that our communities have good access to telecommunications technology make it such an important issue for us. And I congratulate the regional members who have taken the opportunity to participate in this debate.
The Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011, which is before the House, provides a framework for the new universal service obligation, or USO, system. The bill, as others have said, will create a new statutory agency called the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency, to be known as TUSMA, with a review into the USO arrangements before 1 January 2018. I will not go into the full details of TUSMA's responsibilities because many other members have covered them, but I note that, in all, the total expected liability is in the order of $340 million per annum for the government to pay in subsidies to Telstra, which is a significant increase in the cost in delivering the USO. By way of comparison, Telstra received a subsidy of about $145 million per annum to deliver standard telephone services and payphones in 2010-11. As other speakers have indicated, the coalition strongly supports the USO. We recognise that the USO system is critical in ensuring that regional Australians remain connected and that subsidy is provided to assist in ensuring services such as payphones can still be provided, particularly in regional areas which lack mobile phone coverage, which I will get to in just a moment.
I have spoken before in the House on the need to keep investing in telecommunications services in regional areas. I note that the previous speaker made some very strong comments on the fact that, with the rollout of the NBN, there is absolutely no guarantee that many parts of regional Australia will enjoy the benefits but they will certainly wear their share of the cost of that expensive program. Many parts of my electorate do not enjoy anything like the level of service enjoyed by metropolitan areas.
The second bill before the House is the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill. The purpose of this bill is to make consequential amendments to telecommunication and other legislation related to the introduction of the TUSMA Bill. This bill contains amendments to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act which would allow the minister to progressively move the current USO regulations for standard telephone services and payphones if the specified conditions are met and appropriate contractual arrangements are in place.
The final bill we are considering is the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011. This bill is a procedural mechanism by which the levy is imposed on telecommunications carriers to support the operations of TUSMA.
As I indicated at the outset, I want to focus my contribution on the need to ensure that regional Australians benefit from government investment in new technology. Given the level of subsidy to Telstra in the future to provide services such as basic phone services and accessibility to payphones, I intend to keep lobbying within the coalition and the current federal government for further investment in mobile phone coverage improvements throughout regional Australia. There are still significant black spots in my community. I want to refer to the most recent announcement made by the federal government and the state government in Victoria in relation to a location based solution for emergency warnings. That system allows the authorities to send text messages to people based on the location of their mobile phone at the time of an emergency, whether it be bushfire, a major traffic accident or a flood event. Text messages give the authorities the opportunity to warn people of impending dangers but there are some very significant obstacles to overcome. Most significantly, I believe, some of the most bushfire prone and flood prone areas of Australia are also the areas which have patchy, poor or non-existent mobile phone coverage. In my electorate that is the biggest challenge we are going to face.
To be fair to governments of both persuasions, mobile phone coverage has improved significantly in the Gippsland electorate over the past 10 years. As I travel the region I am still aware of black spots which exist even on the main highway throughout the electorate. The development of the location based solution, which will be very important in emergency situations, is not going to assist local residents or visitors to my region if they do not have mobile phone coverage. I believe we should be rolling out a mobile phone black spots program to accompany the rollout of this emergency warning system so that residents and visitors to our regional communities have access to that technology.
I hasten to add that I support the location based solution. It is very worthwhile technology and I understand why state and federal governments are investing money in it, in partnership with Telstra. We need to make sure that, in the rollout of this new technology, regional areas do not miss out.
There is another aspect to this which I do not think has been recognised by the minister concerned. When we have such an increasingly connected community and an expectation that you will always be able to receive some level of coverage on your mobile phone or other technological devices, people start demanding this level of service wherever they are. We need to make sure that we do not oversell this particular technology to the community to make them think we can give them 100 per cent coverage, because we really do not want people to rely on receiving a text message or a warning for relevant authorities in times of a disaster.
Nothing will ever take the place of people being prepared particularly in bushfire prone areas and making sure bushfire plans are in place. When you have people making decisions about where to take a holiday with their family, every regional area needs to have access to the technology which people expect. It is a significant issue, certainly in terms of the social benefits and community health and safety. There are also some important economic considerations to take into account when talking about these types of systems and regional communities' access to them.
I have a fear that when metropolitan based people, tourists, are looking to visit a regional location to take a holiday, they will become increasingly conscious of the technology provided there. Issues such as mobile phone coverage and accessibility to the emergency warning system will be a part of the decision making process and communities without access to technology may be disadvantaged. It is so important that governments—the current Labor government or any future coalition government—are in a position to improve coverage in regional communities from social and economic perspectives.
It has been three years now since the Black Saturday disasters. Images of the Black Saturday disasters portrayed very vividly in the media the damage and devastation, creating a great sense of fear among some people who perhaps do not understand the regional environment as well as others. With such an enormous tragedy—173 people lost their lives and thousands of homes were destroyed or damaged—we need to ensure that people in metropolitan areas are not scared away from visiting our communities. Part of our challenge is to reassure them that it is safe to visit regional communities. One of the tools at our disposal in coming years will be the location based solution for the early warning system but it will work only if you can access technology right throughout regional Australia.
The extent of the black spots across Gippsland is alarming and I would suggest in many other regional areas, including my neighbouring electorate of Eden-Monaro, where the topography is very similar with heavily forested areas. There are many popular camping and holiday destinations in remote locations where people will not be able to access mobile phone coverage or take the benefit of the early warning system if and when it comes online. I have invited residents in my electorate to tell me about black spots in their area. I am passing those on to the relevant ministers. I can give a sense of the concerns people are raising, and these concerns are very similar to mine. Sally and Craig in Devon North wrote to me:
Our home was heavily impacted by the Black Saturday Bushfires. After the fires we had no landlines for well over a week and with such poor mobile phone service it was the cause of a great deal of stress, with a lot of family and friends having difficulty contacting us with such poor phone service.
We would hate to have to rely on our mobile phones for emergency warnings etc.
Graham in Bete Belong said:
Mobile reception is non-existent at this address rendering the mobile early warning system proposed by the Victorian Government inoperable in our area which has a population of approx. 20 people and holdings of farm land.
Many other locations in my electorate, some of them very close to major population centres in the Latrobe Valley such as Sale and Bairnsdale and others in more remote parts of East Gippsland or coastal locations, have similar problems. While many of them do not have large resident populations, they tend to be areas along the coast, often camping areas, which have quite significant holiday populations. I have urged the federal Minister for Emergency Management to undertake an audit right throughout Australia of some of these locations to get an understanding of exactly how many people are in these areas in the peak holiday periods and what we can do to allow them to access this emergency warning system, this location-based solution that has been promoted. I have urged the minister to get a better sense of the gaps in the current coverage.
Finally, I refer to the contribution of the shadow minister for regional communications and associate myself with the concerns he raised about the bureaucratic, complicated and expensive model chosen by this government as it sets about building the National Broadband Network. I have just referred to the lack of rollout of mobile phone coverage to regional communities. Quite frankly, regional people have no reason to trust this government when it says they will benefit from the NBN, because they have seen throughout history how they have fallen behind in service provision, whether it be mobile phones or in this case the rollout of the NBN.
I support the amendment circulated in an attempt to reduce the cost to the industry and also to ensure that TUSMA offers value for money to taxpayers. The government has failed to grapple with this concept of value for money. We have seen the home insulation debacle and the school halls program, but the Australian people expect us to spend their dollars like we would spend our own personal dollars. What they are seeing from this government just does not stack up. That is one of the biggest concerns about the NBN—people in regional Australia are concerned that they are not going to benefit much, if at all, and that may still be 10 years down the track, but their taxes are going to pay for it anyway. Some of them would be happy just getting a basic and reliable internet service and not the 100 megabits per second service being promised under the you-beaut NBN scheme.
The government and the minister responsible misunderstand the level of angst in the community about this issue. Regional Australians are going to miss out on all the bells and whistles associated with the NBN but they are still going to pay their share of taxes to fund it. They have no reason to trust this government when it comes to value for money. That sums up the concerns throughout the Gippsland electorate. People believe the NBN is looming as an enormous economic white elephant and they fear that they are not going to share in the benefits but will fall further behind. It is not a question of getting up here and being anti-NBN or anti new technology investment; it is a matter of making sure that regional Australians get a fair share and a fair go. That is all they ask for.
As I have said, regional Australians have no reason to trust this government with their money or to accept reassurances about value for money from the minister involved. I believe all Australians deserve a good phone service and all Australians deserve access to high-speed broadband but I fear that will not be the case under the NBN. Every day it is becoming more apparent to me, as I travel throughout my electorate and as I receive letters back from the minister's office in response to concerns I have raised, that there will be a significant number of haves and have-nots when it comes to accessing the NBN. I fear that regional Australia will be at the back of the queue.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa—Second Deputy Speaker) (12:57): I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011 and the Telecommunications (Industry Levy Bill) 2011. The Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 provides a framework for the new universal service obligation. We have to make sure the service is adequately funded and that it will meet the needs of people.
The notion that it is only rural and remote Australia that requires universal service provision is wrong. For instance, the payphones in some of the shopping centres in city areas are there to provide a service for those who do not have other means of communication. Quite often they do not pay, they are not viable—so these services are not just provided in rural and remote Australia; we often see them in our very big cities. Just like railway stations and bus stops are essential, payphones are an essential means of communication for those who do not have access to other communications technologies such as a mobile phone.
The bill will create a new statutory agency called the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency—to be known as TUSMA—that will be responsible for entering into contracts on behalf the Commonwealth for the delivery of public interest telecommunications services. This includes the standard telephone service, payphones, the emergency call system and the National Relay Service. Communications for people in Australia should not be considered a privilege but a right. Affordable communications should not be a privilege but a right. Access to basic communications technologies is a right, such as a clear voice signal on a telephone. I think increasingly we are going to have to look at how the USO will cover access to other technologies as they rapidly emerge. The universal service obligation is a vital aspect of our Australian telecommunications markets and every Australian deserves access not just to a basic clear voice signal on a telephone, so I believe we are going to have to look at the new emerging technologies, many of which are with us now such as iPads and mobile phones, and try to keep pace with the new developments, being technologies that universally people are going to want to access wherever they live in this vast land of Australia.
Certainly the USO is primarily of great benefit to regional, rural and remote Australia. But, as I said earlier, it is not just about regional, rural and remote Australia but about many of our capital cities. The coalition strongly supports the need for the USO. We need very strong legislation, we need to make sure that Telstra, which will be delivering this USO, are able to be funded adequately and also that they do deliver on the expectations of government and those on both sides of this House. The USO also provides for funding to ensure that payphones continue to be available. I know that in many areas of Australia payphones are diminishing especially, as I mentioned before, at bus stops, railway stations, street corners and other areas. But in many parts of my electorate, as you would be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, if people do not have a phone at home—and some do not—they will use a payphone as they are of modest means and have opted to use just the public telephone when they need a phone, particularly as in so many of these communities there is not a mobile phone option. So the payphone is the only other telecommunication available to these communities.
We have had pretty good arguments with Telstra from time to time about the removal from my electorate of some payphones, particularly from some of the smaller communities in the remote parts of my electorate, and they have said, 'Well, they're just not paying.' 'Well, that's what the USO is about,' I have said to Telstra. Telstra know they have got to maintain them—and that is fine—but I think this is important to some of those smaller communities where they have two payphones. What if they come in and take one out? What happens if that remaining one becomes inoperable? It might have been vandalised, although we do not see much vandalism out in the western parts of my electorate. But what if it is inoperable? Where would someone go? What if the mechanism has failed? That is why you need the back-up of a second payphone, which should be considered part of the USO—and it is. So it should not always be that it has to pay its way, as Telstra sometimes tell me. It should be considered as insurance against the failure of the system, the other payphone.
There are two more things. I want to give Telstra a bouquet and a brickbat as well. Let us start at the moment with the floods in my electorate, and this underpins the importance of good communications. My home town of Roma has had 300 houses and businesses inundated. In Mitchell, 80-odd kilometres to the west of my home town of Roma, 80 per cent of the homes and businesses have been inundated. The clean-up has started but the important point that I want to make is about Telstra CountryWide. This goes to one of the provisions which we as a coalition put in place to make sure that we had a face-to-face service with Telstra, which is the universal service provider, available in our country areas to be used rather than having to ring a 1800 number for a call centre somewhere in Australia or offshore to be able to access information when you have got a critical issue or you might want information about repairs and maintenance times as to communications networks in your area.
The people in the Telstra CountryWide office in Roma are part of natural disaster relief and have attended meetings every morning or twice a day. I have to say this is one of the other benefits of having a Telstra CountryWide, a physical Telstra presence in these communities, not just throughout the year other than flood times or times of natural disasters but even more so in times of natural disasters. It is about that physical presence and of being able to have someone available within minutes to be able to talk to them and see what Telstra could do to make sure that communications networks remain up and running, because that is what is critical when it comes to saving property and also people's lives, and in some cases it could be the difference between life and death. So I thank Telstra CountryWide and I thank Telstra for the way that they have operated during our natural disaster this year, just as they did last year, in 2011, and the year before. My home town of Roma has had three such years in a row. Mitchell is similar.
The other thing that I want to say is that Telstra CountryWide or Telstra generally have provided free, prepaid mobile phones to people who have lost connections. What a wonderful thing it is that they have provided those to those people who do not have a phone because it has been inundated with water or those people have had to be relocated to emergency evacuation centres. I congratulate and thank Telstra for that. I think they have also offered to waive any reconnection fees after people's homes have been cleaned up and to do any checks that are necessary. So once again this is about the importance of having Telstra maintenance staff on hand, so located geographically right across this nation, so people do not have to rely on perhaps a repair company or a subcontractor to come from a place remote from these communities. I thank Telstra for that. It is very much appreciated. I also thank the staff of Telstra Countrywide in Roma, Longreach and other parts of my electorate and all the maintenance staff who work beyond the call of duty during these times, and beyond. I often see them preparing lines that have gone down long after the five o'clock bell has rung, sometimes into the night. I thank those maintenance staff. It is about keeping the communication networks up and running in times of emergency. Last Friday morning, at 3 am, when houses were about to be inundated with water within four to five hours, the telephone was absolutely vital to making emergency calls to all of those farms in the predicted area of the flood zone. People could then start preparing to leave their homes or prepare their homes for what was expected to be a flood of 7.1 metres—within four hours it was revised upwards to over eight metres. Of course, that caused further devastation.
As I said, I had a bouquet, but I also have a brickbat. The brickbat is that people in the town of Eulo in the far west of my electorate, on the Paroo River, rang me during the flood and said, 'Do you know that the connecting cable from one end of town to the other,'—which had been running along the footpath as a result of a fire in the town last July—'is still running along the footpath and exposed above ground?' No, I did not know that. I rang Telstra Countrywide and they are going to get onto it as quickly as possible. But it flagged something that really concerns me. Why was the cable still on top of the ground? Telstra said a new store was going to be built and they would repair it then when the new installation was done. It really worries me that perhaps Telstra is not funded adequately or, through some of the cuts in its administration at the very senior levels, that maintenance is being compromised.
The cables were burnt in July. Telstra had to run a temporary cable along the top of the ground in the street at Eulo. Now, in early February, with floods in the area the cable is still on top of the ground. It is not good enough. We are also working—and I am lobbying very hard—to see if we can get mobile phone coverage in that area. If that cable had been cut or vandalised there would be no telephones in the community because it is the main connector from one end of town to the other. The only other communication medium would have been mobile phone coverage.
I will touch on one other issue: the government's announcement today of some $650 million to put two satellites into the sky by 2015 for high speed internet in relation to the NBN being rolled out to all Australians, including those in remote Australia. I am yet to see all the details of the speed that will be offered and I certainly look forward to seeing whether it really will live up to expectations. I only hope it does.
The western Queensland communities in the Diamantina, Barcoo, Quilpie and the Longreach regional council have all been lobbying for funding to run optic fibre cable to build the backbone of the infrastructure into those remote communities. They had a quote recently from Telstra of $20 million to roll this out. They already have a partnership agreement from the state government to put in $2 million. The councils themselves will put in $2 million. I call on this government and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, to spend some of the money that was put aside for the Future Fund by the previous coalition government under John Howard, when $300 million was going to be earned every three years from the Telecommunications Future Fund to fund infrastructure, when the market fails to provide it. We have seen about $100 million of that spent. There is still $200 million to be committed. I call on the minister to put that money up now to assist those councils out in Far West Queensland, who are going to put up their own money as well as the state government's, so that we can build infrastructure and replace microwave links and single channel radio systems with optic fibre cable connections. It is all very well to give them satellite connections by 2015—they have already had satellite coverage for internet access and maybe this will be faster—but I call on the government now to put that money from that fund towards that optic fibre network. (Time expired)
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (13:12): The Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 and related bills come in the context of a great national debate about economic responsibility and how we prepare for the future in telecommunications. We have on the table today from the government a system that does not represent the future. The future is the hand-held device. The future is the mobile phone, the iPad, the tablet and all of the successors with which we are each increasingly familiar. For political reasons, a hard wire system was conjured and imposed upon the Australian public at a cost that will be somewhere in the vicinity of $50 billion once all is said and done. It will be based upon money borrowed from future generations and it will rely upon the destruction of hard existing assets—the Telstra copper network as a functioning enterprise—and it will rely upon the destruction of competition through the most extraordinary effective renationalisation and removal of competition in the telecommunications sector in the developed world since the Second World War. It is a retrograde step in economic efficiency, competition and, above all else, in the planning of the right services for the future.
This bill in part responds to one element of what the government has proposed for telecommunications and the National Broadband Network. We are not opposed to the elements here because they maintain the universal service obligation by essentially transferring it from a regulatory arrangement to a contractual arrangement. What is fundamental here is that for the interim, until the Australian people have decided, there will be the preservation and maintenance of the universal service obligation. If we are successful it will remain there under us for the next hundred years and beyond, I imagine, to the point where we cannot even imagine the telecommunications and communication devices and networks that will be with us. This is simply reaffirming but transforming the means of delivery of the universal service obligation. That is a given, a foundation, a recognition of something that is fundamental to equity and to the prosperity of rural and regional Australia in the 21st century. Those points we accept. I want to put that on the record, as one of a number of opposition members who are speaking and representing either rural or regional electorates—mine includes the Mornington Peninsula, Western Port and Bass Coast as the constituent parts of Flinders, which is officially recognised by the Australian Electoral Commission as a regional electorate.
Having said that, I now move to the real delivery of services in the electorate of Flinders. Against that background, in 2007, when the OPEL network was being prepared, we set out a map of all those changes that would extend the service within the coming two to three years to those areas beyond the regional full broadband services within the electorate of Flinders. Essentially, almost overwhelmingly, we would have had coverage for those who missed out. I will not make a universal pledge, but it would have been extraordinarily close to universal within the electorate. Nothing has happened since. The OPEL contract was destroyed. The promised mobile services and the mobile broadband were crushed and there has been no replacement.
Let me give a simple example. Only in the last week we received a letter back from Senator Conroy, the relevant minister for communications, about a desperate need in Rosebud for extra broadband communications for those premises beyond the reach of the local exchange. No date, no time, no pledge, no commitment, no hope and no imminent prospect for the future was given. So we are looking at it being more than a decade on from the period in which they otherwise would have received services before there is an imminent and reasonable prospect of the outer lying areas of Rosebud, through Waterfall Gully and the areas out towards Boneo and out past the Rosebud Country Club estate receiving adequate and appropriate services.
Peninsula Sands in Rosebud South has poor internet access. It has poor mobile phone coverage. Four hundred residents have to date signed a petition calling for the situation to be remedied. It should have already been resolved, not recently but two or three years ago, and it would have been under the system proposed, pledged, committed to and contracted for by the previous government. That system was abolished and destroyed and the services are yet to arrive. Rosebud South, Waterfall Gully, Peninsula Sands, the areas out towards Boneo, parts of Red Hill, parts of Main Ridge and parts of the Korumburra Hills, so many different areas within the electorate of Flinders, are living testimony to the fact that they will receive the appropriate services—under the National Broadband Network, if they ever get it—more than a decade later than would otherwise have been the case. That is a failure of public policy. It is a failure of a practical system. That is before you even get to the massive cost of the NBN, the massive cost to consumers and the massive cost for the public debt, which will have so many other implications in terms of public borrowing and pressure on interest rates and will therefore impact on other elements of mainstream life in Australia.
There is, of course, a better way. The better way is a plan that does not try to create a system that would have been an advance in the 20th century but has missed the telecommunications leaps of the 21st century. We should be working towards the world's best wireless network using the existing urban cabling systems of Telstra and Optus and the wireless communications systems with which the United States and so many other parts of the world are leaping ahead. Whether it is through microwaves, wireless or satellite, these are the systems of the future, when combined with a fibre-to-the node concept.
I am fortunate to have worked in this space during my time with McKinsey. A decade ago it was obvious which way the world was trending. A decade ago it was obvious we were moving towards a wireless world. That was before the iPad and the tablet were imagined. These trends will only accelerate and it will be the compaction of data through wireless systems that represents the real future. That is the future and it is being completely and utterly ignored in the essential role of government and what it should and should not be doing.
Having said that, I want to finish with the notion that the same problem is replicated in Botanic Ridge in my electorate. They have ongoing issues to do with their lack of ADSL capacity. We have made representations on behalf of residents. I am pleased that Telstra recently confirmed that homes in the southern portion of Botanic Ridge will get upgraded ADSL this year. It will not be the National Broadband Network, to the best of my knowledge, but they will get ADSL. We will continue to push until homes in the northern part of Botanic Ridge also have access to ADSL.
In short, we should have solved this problem. We could have solved this problem. Instead, we are going to be wasting an enormous amount of money on a system that fails to imagine the future and provide flexibility for one of the fastest moving sectors in all of industrial and civilised history. This is the moment when the government should step back and recognise that what should be proposed is a flexible system focused on the world's best wireless rather than a system from last century that fails to recognise that we live in the world of the iPhone, the iPad and the tablet.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (13:22): I rise to address the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 and associated bills. Universal access is of course an essential plank of the delivery of telecommunications services in Australia. By any standards, the National Broadband Network has been a troubled child for this government. While it assures us that it is a raging success, it was born out of the 2007 election commitment of $4.7 billion of taxpayers' money to build a network. When that proved impossible, it morphed very quickly into what is now expected to be a $50 billion project. There are already reported cost blow-outs and a reported lack of customers. To reflect on the words of the member for Flinders, who has just left the chamber, it seems that almost once a month we hear news from around the world of some breakthrough heralding a new wireless technology. The technology in this area is moving the quickest and it seems as though we are in the process of locking ourselves into something that is inflexible. One of the great criticisms of the NBN is its inflexible approach and the stubborn resistance from Minister Conroy to the delivery of the last mile of service by alternative means, because that is after all where the bulk of the enormous cost of the NBN rollout is to be found.
This legislation is about the universal service obligations which, in large part, target the isolated and the disadvantaged in our community. I represent a fair proportion of those people in the electorate of Grey, particularly the isolated. Telecommunications in the modern world has become an essential service like education or health services, and that is as it should be. The universal service obligations are non-negotiable. This legislation is about fulfilling those commitments and its premise is well based. What I am unconvinced about is whether the government understand the challenges and whether or not they are truly committed to comparable services for all.
Much of my electorate, in area at least—probably around 90 per cent of its 904,000 square kilometres—will be left to rely on the old copper networks. Unfortunately, its residents are part of the seven per cent of Australia that will be bypassed by the biggest single civilian budget item in our history. They will not miss the account though: their share of the $50 billion that the government is putting on the slate for their children to pay. They will be responsible for the more than $6,000 a family. This seven per cent of Australia will miss out on the network. Instead, they will receive little improvement on current arrangements. I have grave concerns for those who will not be picked up in the fibre rollout.
Previously in this place, I raised a number of these communities, but they are by no means a definitive list of those in the electorate of Grey who will receive a lesser service. Streaky Bay springs to mind. It is a community with over 1,000 residents, but it appears the government has no intention of running the fibre into Streaky Bay. I could sort of live with that if they would run the fibre as far as the outskirts of Streaky Bay, but they are not going to do that either. The residents of Streaky Bay will not receive a wireless service either; they will connect by satellite. For me, this is a very poor replacement for a good wireless network. Not very far away is Wudinna, which is straddling not one but two fibre optic cables that go to Perth, but they will not be offered the service either. Many other smaller communities, and by no means a definitive list, include towns like Elliston, Tickera, Marion Bay on the Yorke Peninsula, Point Turton and Booleroo all have mobile phone reception of some sort or other at the moment, and could possibly get onto broadband services with an aerial on their roofs.
The monopolistic nature of the NBN prohibits mobile suppliers from marketing wireless services against the established NBN, whatever that might be, even though in many cases this will be the substandard satellite service. It is far from clear how the limitations on competition are likely to impact the delivery of services into these country areas, particularly as we realise mobile phone companies will be progressively rolling out a 4G service across the nation that will be capable of carrying much higher speeds and greater batches of information than the existing 3G. We do not know whether they will be allowed to roll out those networks, or even advertise those networks and tout for business, against satellite services.
Others communities in my electorate have absolutely no mobile phone service—places like Oodnadatta; Blinman; Robertstown, which has a very patchy service; Marree; and any number of farm properties, including my own where I have no mobile service. Those communities and outlying farms will be left to rely on satellite services. Large parts of my electorate rely on the old Telstra radio telephone network, which is a string of microwave towers across station properties. It is 45 to 50 years old. It has no caller ID capacity. It is virtually useless when it comes to delivering broadband services. It was not a bad service in 1975, but the world has moved on and to my knowledge there is no plan to upgrade any of these services. So the question remains: what happens to these communities? The government said in the case of the NBN that satellite would be the answer, but what of voice services? That after all is the universal service commitment. I have had a little bit to do with using satellites over my time. I had a satellite broadband service for some time. In fact, my television is currently delivered by satellite. It works pretty well for television, I have to say, because, while the speeds are not massive, it is a one-way service—the information comes directly in a stream down from the satellite and you can, theoretically at least, run a movie on it. But, when it comes to two-way conversations, there is always a gap. Any of you who have used a satellite phone or watched late-night television when an interview is beamed in from around the world will have noticed that delay. That happens because the satellites are orbiting at 37,000 kilometres above the Earth's surface and it takes around 0.8 of a second for the signal to go up and 0.8 of a second for the signal to come back down again—a 1.6-second delay. That means it is a very scratchy voice service. If the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has plans in the future to deliver voice services on satellite, I think we have got a real problem.
The answer to this—it would never have gone to all of Australia, though—is to invest more in mobile phone networks. The previous Howard government put aside $2 billion for a telecommunications fund which was to address the shortfalls within regional areas. Unfortunately the government has usurped that money and put it into the NBN process. At this stage, I do not see that the government is committed to increasing those voice services which would be delivered by mobile networks, which would then be capable of delivering better broadband services.
The legislation is supposed to be about delivering a competitive environment for the delivery of these services, but in fact we find that the government has upfront awarded a 20-year contract to Telstra to maintain the copper network. It makes you wonder what kind of competitive environment this provides. It seems more like just part of the bigger deal, part of the arrangements to get Telstra to decommission the bulk of its network so that the government can build a new monopoly—the very opposite of what is happening in every other comparable country in the world.
This arrangement to leave Telstra with a remnant of its former network has all the hallmarks of a nondecision, where the minister realised he had very little idea of what to do with regional and remote Australia, so it has been put into the too-hard basket and the government and the minister just hope that eventually all those consumers may just go away. But it is simply not good enough for us to be pushed to one side. What is needed for regional and remote Australia is a comprehensive, flexible plan which includes providing mobile phone services into towns like Blinman, Robertstown and Ungarra and encourages the operators to provide broadband services in that manner rather than restricting their ability to do so.
The universal service obligations, under this legislation to be administered by a new statutory authority but provided by Telstra, in my mind fit very uncomfortably under the umbrella of the NBN, which was supposed to provide service for all Australians. Telstra, who will no longer own or operate a major network, will have the responsibility for maintaining a museum piece. One has to ask the question: who will have the expertise and equipment to maintain that network once Telstra have moved on to a completely different business focus? There seems to be no planned alternative—or will the government force consumers onto the satellite platform?
I have said on a number of occasions that country consumers get very little out of the NBN. It will be basically the same as what they already have. It is a fast-moving world, and I have businesses come to me daily and say, 'We need to get onto this network.' They are upset that they will be given the opportunity to pay for the network but are going to miss out on what is to be the most expensive, overcapitalised, most anticompetitive broadband project in the world.
This legislation in itself is not bad—the idea that the government remains committed to the universal service obligation is good—but I just wonder whether the government really have their heads around the issues, the difficulties, the challenges, of meeting that obligation in rural and regional Australia.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (13:35): I too rise today to speak on the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011. Despite whatever else is happening in this country at the moment, telecommunications is still the biggest issue that my constituents deal with. Only the week before last, I was speaking with the mayor and the general manager of a very large council in the middle of my electorate and asking them what their priorities were, where they needed the most help. I expected they might have said something about roads or health services, but they said, 'No. 1 for us, without any doubt, is telecommunications.'
What is happening with telecommunications and the way that this country is now going, with this very clumsy National Broadband Network, is that we are ending up with two classes of Australians. A large proportion of my electorate still do not have the basic service of mobile phone coverage. They have no hope of that changing in the near future. If you do not have mobile phone coverage, the National Broadband Network is not going to help you, because most of the data now that is received—by those that have phone coverage—is coming to hands-free devices: BlackBerrys, iPads, iPhones and the like. But if you do not have that basic signal then you are left out of the loop. One of the problems is that a lot of people own a phone but it does not work where they live or where their business is. So customers or acquaintances will ring a mobile number, leave a message and think that they have made contact with these people. Quite often people tell me that when they go to town they will go over the hill where the phone coverage picks up and there will be 20 messages. I spoke to a small plant hire contractor in Coonabarabran a couple of weeks ago who was losing business to another town because his phone was not reliable. A customer had left a message on his phone requesting a quote for the hire of a certain piece of equipment and when the message finally came through, some three or four days later, the customer said, 'Well, you didn't get back to me so I went to Dubbo and hired the same piece of equipment there.'
It is having a real effect on the way people do business, and it is not just isolated properties. Two kilometres from the middle of the town of Coonabarabran, where there is a large number of small rural holdings, there is no mobile coverage. In the village of Goolma, which is quite a small productive farming community, they have absolutely no mobile coverage. There is quite a busy road there that connects a couple of regional centres. There is a lot of traffic and there is concern about road accidents. We are desperately trying to find the funds to build a phone tower for the village of Goolma. I have organised meetings with the local stakeholders—the volunteer SU Association, the Rural Fire Service, the State Emergency Service, councils, the neighbouring coalmine and anyone else I can think of—who might want to contribute to this tower, because Telstra are saying that it is not viable and they will not pay for the tower. If someone puts up the tower they will fund the hardware on it. Can you imagine any one of my colleagues in a capital city electorate or a regional city electorate having to tell their constituents that they had to find some way of funding their own phone tower? It is absolutely appalling that in 2012 citizens of Australia are expected to fund basic infrastructure like telephone towers. Most of the issues with telecommunications I see on the television are people complaining because there is a mobile tower going up in their suburb and while they want perfect coverage they do not want to have the unsightly tower. I tell you, anyone here that has got that problem with a tower that is not wanted can send it to the Parkes electorate because I have got 100 places where that infrastructure could go.
This hole that has been left behind will not be filled by the NBN. One of the great frustrations, and I could not believe it was happening in 2008 as a newly elected member to this place, was to watch this House vote to remove the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund—$2.7 billion that was set aside to fund towers exactly like the one I just spoke about. It is not as if the government does not know about this. To his credit, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, came to Hilmer and I think everyone who lived within 100 miles was at the town hall to greet the minister, and it was not to give him a pat on the back—I can say that. But I give him credit for coming along. It is not as if the minister is not aware of this being a problem but he seems to be completely unwilling or unable to act upon it.
With the NBN, most of the towns in my electorate will not get the fibre-optic cables; some will. The smaller towns are going to be delivered by wireless and while that is all right, it is not wireless that is going to your mobile device. It is wireless that is going to a fixed point in the home where you can then use a router to get it around to mobile devices. It not going to help the tradesman or the farmer who relies on mobile internet connections. Because we do not have the mobile service, they are going to miss out. I do not know whether people realise that when a technician comes to repair a tractor or a grain harvester the first thing they get out is a laptop, plug it into the machine and take a reading of what is wrong. The methods of repairing the machine are then downloaded to that mobile device. So we have a real case of haves and have-nots—of people who have the service and those who have not. That impacts on people who want to undertake education by remote means—people who might want to do a university degree. If they do not have adequate telecommunications coverage they are left out of the system. It impacts on a whole range of things like that.
The other thing that hopefully this USO will do is hang on to phone boxes. They might seen to be antique pieces—and I did see a humorous bit written in a Sydney paper where a young journalist had to learn how to use a payphone to make a phone call because his battery went flat—but the reality is that in towns like Goodooga, Boggabilla and a lot of other towns in my electorate where there is a low socio-economic level with a large number of the citizens, many people do not own a mobile phone. Most of them do not have the coverage, but if they do have the coverage they cannot afford the mobile phone. So they rely on the phone box to communicate. Travellers coming through who have a mobile phone that does not work in a regional area rely on the phone box for basic communication if they need to call for roadside assistance or something like that. While the focus of this place and this country seems to have been on ultrafast broadband and communication going forward, which is very important and very important to the people in my electorate, the great frustration for me and the people I represent is that they are largely being left behind. They have been pushed aside and they have not been included in this vision for connecting Australia to the 21st century. I find that to be a disgrace and a scandal. As someone who represents over 30 per cent of New South Wales, I find that completely unacceptable.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Symon ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Young, Mr Lamert
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:45): It is with sadness that I note the passing of Lamert Young, commonly known as Cyril. I feel very blessed to have known Cyril. I first met him on the campaign trail prior to the 2010 federal election. Despite Cyril's serious illness, he was always willing to give up his time for me to share some of his wisdom. He made an outstanding contribution to the Top End community. He spent a large portion of his time raising large amounts of money for charity and helping those less fortunate than himself. Cyril was a proud member of the Freemasons, the Country Liberal Party and the Northern Territory seniors association and was also president of the Royal Commonwealth Society's Northern Territory branch. Cyril was born on 17 February 1927 and passed away on 7 January this year. I am sure Cyril is up in heaven now, watching down on parliament with a smile on his face—he was an avid question time watcher. Our sincerest condolences go to Cyril's wife, Paula; his children, Jane and Chris; his sons-in-law, John and Mark; and his grandchildren, Alison, Alana, Daniel, Jeremy and Brandon. As is always the way, you do not miss your water until the well runs dry. Thank you, Cyril, for your guidance. May your memory never fade.
Towns, Mr Zac
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:46): I rise to commend a very impressive young batsman in my electorate of Bass. His name is Zac Towns and he plays for the Riverside Cricket Club in the A-grade competition. His recent cricket accomplishments have been unbelievable. At the end of last year, during the Greater Northern Cup semi-final, Zac made an impressive 68 not out—a fantastic effort for a young cricketer. He also made 116 against Queensland in the under-17 competition. Zac is a special talent, and I am sure that he will be playing at a higher level in the near future. His unbelievable footwork and timing are a joy to behold. Zac represents an ever-increasing pool of talented cricketers that Tasmania is producing. I have no doubt that Zac will join the greats of Tasmanian cricket, such as David Boon and Ricky Ponting, to carry his bat at a national level. Zac is surely a future Australian cricket star.
While on the subject of cricket, I would like to offer my congratulations to Launceston born Ricky Ponting on being awarded an AO and on his outstanding contribution with the bat in Australia's 4-0 victory over India in the recent test series. He will continue to play a pivotal role in rebuilding the current Australian test side.
Kerr, Ms Nicole
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (13:47): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my constituent Nicole Kerr, who is a resident of Wanneroo and was a student in 2011 at Woodvale Secondary College. Nicole distinguished herself in 2010-11 by winning the state's top vocational education and training prize: the Beazley medal. The award is the most prestigious prize for year 12 students in Western Australia. To win the award Nicole scored an ATAR of 90.45, which put her in the top 10 per cent of the state. She completed certificates II and III in business and certificates I and II in hospitality and also studied accounting and finance, English, ancient history and mathematics—all at stage 3 level. Nicole now hopes to continue her passion for numbers by studying commerce at the University of Western Australia.
I have taken this opportunity to congratulate Nicole because I believe that Nicole is the sort of person that students in the electorate of Cowan and more widely in Western Australia should try to emulate. When I spoke to her at her home in Wanneroo she told me that the secret to her success was good organisation, of course, but also keeping up to date with her homework to allow plenty of time to study for tests as they came along. Congratulations to Nicole, and I hope other students in Cowan will follow in due course.
Reid, Ms Valerie
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:49): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to share with the House the outstanding contributions made by a wonderful woman in my community, Valerie Reid. Born in 1925, Valerie is the granddaughter of Robert Hayles, the founder of the pioneering Hayles Magnetic Island ferry company, which began in 1898 and over 80 years became a significant player in tourism in Queensland. After serving her country in World War II at 107 Australian General Hospital Darwin, Valerie returned to her life when in 1954 her uncle asked her to join the family business. However, Valerie found that her ambitions were never going to be accommodated in what was then a male domain. Her solution was to move to Canberra, and with the same pioneering spirit that had motivated her grandfather in 1898 Valerie decided to start a business. She submitted a tender for the first tourist launches on the newly formed Lake Burley Griffin. Valerie said that in 1965 it was not easy being in private enterprise and trying to work with the government. In fact, it took her nine years to get a liquor licence.
Valerie's tender was successful and her business brought new opportunities to Canberra and the lake, which was quickly becoming a focal point in Canberra. She pioneered a new business and a new industry in Canberra at a time when having women in business was not an everyday occurrence. She is an inspirational Canberran. I was amazed to hear that she is off to Singapore this year as part of the 70th anniversary of the war. It will be a special trip for Valerie, whose husband was a prisoner of war. (Time expired)
Gold Coast Airport
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (13:51): The Gold Coast airport is the sixth-largest airport in Australia, with more than five million passenger movements, but it does not have an instrument landing system. It does not have a system that will assist pilots with landing in poor visibility conditions. Other regional airports that have significantly fewer passenger movements than the Gold Coast, such as Cairns, Townsville and Launceston, already have an ILS, and some have had one operating for quite some time. The recent wet weather on the Gold Coast resulted in a number of aircraft go-rounds and diversions to other airports. There is obviously a safety concern here, as well as a risk to aircraft and a financial burden on operators, because of aborted landings, go-rounds, holding patterns and diversions to other airports such as Brisbane.
Whilst I understand that planning is underway for the implementation of an ILS at Gold Coast airport and I am aware of the work currently being undertaken by Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd and Airservices Australia, I call on the government to fast-track this project. The Gold Coast is a major tourist destination, with the sixth-largest airport in the country. Our flight and passenger movements are increasing and will continue to increase. We on the Gold Coast deserve proper recognition from the government and we need world-class facilities delivered to us now.
Automotive Industry
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:52): Today, in my capacity as chair of the Labor manufacturing caucus, I had the great pleasure of meeting with a delegation of auto workers from South Australia and Victoria—and I am pleased to see them here in the gallery today. These workers are lobbying all sides of parliament to tell of their deep concerns about the future of their industry, their jobs and their livelihoods. Their No. 1 concern is the certainty around government policy. This is important because it dictates long-term investments in the automotive industry. That is in turn important because the automotive industry directly employs over 46,000 Australians and employs another 3,000 in research and development and, through the supply chains, over 20,000, keeping their families in a livelihood.
Directly in challenge is the future of the Automotive Transformation Scheme, a scheme by which the government is providing over $50 million worth of assistance to help the automotive industry transform and compete in a competitive international environment. This side of the House supports the scheme. The other side has said that if it ever gets to sit on this side of the House it will do away with the scheme. This is a dagger at the throat of the automotive industry. It matters not only to those workers directly engaged in the automotive industry but also to electorates like mine, where there is a steel industry that delivers about $1.3 billion worth of local steel into the automotive industry every year. It is a dagger at the throat of that industry as well. We call on those opposite to change their position. They have got it wrong.
Ovarian Cancer
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (13:54): Today I wish to speak about an issue of great importance to Australian women. Ovarian cancer is one of the most lethal gynaecological cancers, yet often little is known of it in our community. I am honoured to have been appointed as one of Ovarian Cancer Australia's national ambassadors. Last week I helped launch Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month with Ovarian Cancer Australia's patron, Nicole Livingstone, and the board of OCA The awareness month culminates in Teal Ribbon Day on 29 February. Purchasing a teal ribbon or participating in an 'Afternoon Teal' will raise valuable funds for research into ovarian cancer as well as fund important support for women and their families.
Over 1,200 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer this year. A staggering 800 of those women will lose their battle with the disease. The outcomes for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer are generally poor, as three-quarters of ovarian cancers are advanced at the time of diagnosis. Ovarian cancer does not discriminate. While having a family history of ovarian cancer increases your risk, 90 to 95 per cent of all ovarian cancers occur in women who do not have a family history. Ovarian cancer can occur in any woman, but the risk increases in women over 50 years of age. Alarmingly, 40 per cent of women incorrectly believe ovarian cancer has no symptoms. Because there are no early-detection tests it is often thought that ovarian cancer is a silent killer. However, that is not the case. Ovarian cancer does manifest itself through a number of symptoms. I urge anybody who is interested in receiving further information to log onto my website or the Ovarian Cancer Australia website.
O'Connor Electorate
Mr CROOK (O'Connor) (13:55): Two weeks ago I travelled into the Great Southern and south-west regions of my electorate to meet with local residents, small businesses and community leaders about issues important to their region. Over the course of a week I visited the communities of Katanning, Kojonup, Boyup Brook, Manjimup and Bridgetown. In Katanning, I had the opportunity to visit the new sheep saleyards construction project, a $22 million project jointly funded by the state and the federal government. I spent Australia Day in Bridgetown—a cool 41-degree day!—where I had the opportunity to welcome new citizens Andrew and Sue Brown; their two young children, Sophie and Dylan; and their dog, Jasper, into Australia. I would like to extend a welcome to all new Australian citizens across O'Connor, across regional Western Australia and right across the nation.
I would also like to thank Pat Scallan, the unofficial mayor of Greenbushes, for giving up his time on Australia Day to take me on a tour of his lovely town. Greenbushes is a particularly proactive regional town located just 150 metres from a major mining operation. I was particularly impressed with the Greenbushes Discovery Centre, an interactive museum with displays highlighting the mining and forestry industries in the south-west. I thank all the residents who took time to meet me and raise their concerns and issues with me while I was in the area.
Surf Lifesavers
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:56): I rise to thank those thousands of surf lifesavers who have so tirelessly and selflessly patrolled the beaches around Australia this summer. The hard work and dedication of those lifesavers around the country have kept safe the millions of people who visit our beaches. I would like to make special mention of the two clubs in my electorate of Bass, and they are Bridport and Launceston.
I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate one member of the Bridport Surf Lifesaving Club, a club that is only two years old. This member successfully performed CPR in December. Over the summer, the Bridport Surf Lifesaving Club also recovered a beachgoer from an isolated beach and transported that person by inflatable rescue boat to an ambulance. On the same day they treated a broken wrist when another beachgoer fell off rocks. To add to the excitement, the following weekend the beach was cleared due to a shark alarm. This is an example of the hard work our volunteer surf lifesavers put in to help keep our beaches safe. With the warm summer weather continuing, please remember to swim between the flags.
Macarthur Electorate: Christmas for the Troops
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (13:58): I would like to publicly thank the Macarthur community for its outstanding contribution to this year's Christmas for the Troops campaign. Boxes of donations were dropped off at my office in Camden to send to Australian troops serving overseas during the Christmas period. The parcels were sent to Aussie soldiers, sailors, airmen, airwomen and explosive-detection dogs. Locals donated completed care packages and items to be put into care packages, which were all sent to troops serving in the Middle East, East Timor and the Solomon Islands, just in time for Christmas.
To most Australians, Christmas is a great opportunity to spend time with our family and friends. This is why, with the help of the local media, I encouraged residents in Macarthur to spare a thought for the Australian troops serving overseas who would not be with their families this Christmas. My father served in Vietnam, so I know all too well what it is like to have a loved one out of reach during those special times of the year. We also have many troops from the Macarthur region currently serving overseas, so it was important that we show them support at this time.
I think it is fantastic that Australia Post allows everyday Australians to send parcels to our troops serving overseas, free of charge. It is a great example of the Aussie spirit when strangers send comfort food, magazines, toiletries, socks, DVDs and letters of support to our troops. Seeing so many donations come into my office made me feel very proud, not only to be the son of an Australian veteran but also to be an Australian and a member of the Macarthur community. I thank everyone who donated items for this year's appeal and look forward to coordinating this campaign from my office again next year.
Twenty20 Cricket
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:59): I would like to congratulate the Tasmanian Twenty20 cricket team for their inaugural interstate competition success. They are a fantastic Tasmanian cricket team and they are really building. It is just amazing to see George Bailey, the captain of the Australian Twenty20 side, coming from Tasmania.
The SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
CONDOLENCES
Report from Main Committee
Order of the day returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the motion presented.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House express its deep regret at the death on 8 December 2011 of the Right Honourable Sir Zelman Cowen AK, GCMG, GCVO, QC, a former Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia from 1977 to 1982, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
The SPEAKER (14:00): The question is that the motion moved by the Hon. Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Australian Natural Disasters
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:01): On indulgence, I believe it is appropriate for the House to mark the fact that it is one year since this House spent a lot of time sending its condolences to the people of Queensland and also to people of other parts of our nation that had suffered during the summer of natural disasters, not only through the flooding that hit Queensland but the cyclone, the flooding that hit other parts of our country, and of course there were also devastating bushfires in Western Australia.
Communities across the nation, particularly in Queensland, have been marking the one-year anniversary of these events. I had the privilege of attending the commemorative event in the Lockyer Valley. It was also attended by Her Excellency the Governor-General, Her Excellency the Governor of Queensland and Premier Anna Bligh. I had the opportunity to attend, along with my parliamentary colleagues the members for Blair and Oxley, the event in Ipswich, where what was unveiled was a flood marker in one respect, but it was appropriately referred to as a 'pillar of courage' to mark the way that that community had pulled together. In both of those communities, of course, the local leadership, by Steve Jones in the Lockyer Valley and by Paul Pisasale in Ipswich, was very important to how those communities got through. I acknowledge that members on the other side of the House were also with us for those events and thank them for that.
Having attended those event, I had the opportunity to reflect a bit on how people are feeling. When you went to those commemorative events you met some people who wanted a moment to reflect but who are getting on with their lives. You met some people for whom the pain is so raw it is as if it happened yesterday. Perhaps most disturbingly of all you heard the stories of some people who could not actually make it to the event, who had the intention of going but then could not get there because they are not quite ready to take their grief to a public place yet. So there is a lot of hurt around still.
When we met here a year ago we said we would not forget. Today is one time when we can say again that we are not forgetting and we will not forget. As we reflect on those events, our thoughts are with those around the country, particularly in Queensland and northern New South Wales, who are battling floodwaters even now.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): In rising to support the remarks of the Prime Minister, I know I speak for my colleagues the member for Wright, the member for Groom and the member for Leichhardt, and I think I may also presume to speak for the member for Kennedy on this matter, in honouring all who were the victims of the floods and cyclones a year ago.
The physical scars of flood and storm can quickly heal, but the mental scars, as the Prime Minister has just indicated, can take much longer. I know that for the people of the Lockyer Valley in particular the events of 12 months ago will always be with them, and all of us in this place need to be with them on the difficult journey that they will have in the months and years to come.
There were many victims of those terrible events 12 months ago, but for me one stands out—the young boy Jordan Rice. It is my hope, if I may express it, that this could be a lasting memory of that inland tsunami: the sacrifice that a small boy made for his brother. That may be one way that we can draw some inspiration from what was otherwise just a terrible tragedy.
The SPEAKER: I thank both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their moving words.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Carbon Pricing
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the multiple job losses already announced this year from Westpac, the Royal Bank of Scotland, ANZ, Holden, Toyota, BHP, Reckitt, Manildra, Norsk Hydro, Tomago Aluminium and Thales, and I ask: why did the Prime Minister describe these losses as growing pains, and isn't this more evidence that this is the worst possible time to introduce the world's biggest carbon tax?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:06): What I would say to the Leader of the Opposition is that at a time when there are workers in some sections of the economy who are losing jobs it is incumbent upon us to understand why that is happening and to respond, not to make up reasons in the way that the Leader of the Opposition is making up reasons.
Can I particularly say I was disgusted this morning to see the opposition trying to use job losses at Alcoa to continue its fear campaign on carbon pricing when the CEO of Alcoa made it absolutely clear that this was not to do with carbon pricing. What sort of people would use the distress of working people, on hearing about job losses, for their own political ends? And we saw that done by the opposition this morning. We are in economic times when our economy is strong. We came out of the global financial crisis strong. We came out of it strong because of the way in which we invested in the economy, an investment that was opposed by those opposite, who did not care about jobs then. We saved 200,000 jobs and have unemployment at just over five per cent.
Yes, there is structural change occurring in our economy because of the strength of the Australian dollar and because economic weight is moving into our region, which will drive a different pattern of demand for Australian goods and services. Then there are the structural changes that are necessary to take us to a clean energy future and to get us the best of technology. And where does the Leader of the Opposition sit as we go through this period of change? Opposed to jobs.
Mr Abbott: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. Why did the Prime Minister describe these job losses as growing pains? These are real people and she ought to answer that question.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I am listening very carefully to the answer being given by the Prime Minister. She is addressing the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.
Ms GILLARD: The Leader of the Opposition is referring to a speech that I gave on the economy. He is trying to twist words and take them out of context. Every time I hear about job losses in this country, I am concerned; every time the Leader of the Opposition hears about job losses, he works out how he can use that to his political advantage—just like he did this morning with Alcoa, a disgusting approach at a time when working people are in need and under pressure. It is a disgusting approach.
The Leader of the Opposition's plan for the economy is to not support jobs in car manufacturing, to not support jobs across the economy and to keep our economy at a standstill so that we miss out on the opportunities of the future. We on this side of this parliament are determined to make sure that we support working people today and get them great opportunities in the new economy that we are building for our nation's future.
Automotive Industry
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (14:09): My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the government building Australia's future through the car industry?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:10): I had the great privilege this morning of meeting people who work in the car industry, and they are present in the gallery now. I welcome them to this parliament. They came to parliament to talk about the future of their industry and its importance to the Australian economy. There is a lot of nonsense talked about the car industry in the public domain, some of it in the pages of our newspapers and some of it in this parliament. There is a lot of nonsense suggesting that the car industry is somehow part of our past. It needs to be part of our future. The member for Wakefield, who asked me this question, knows that very well from his local experience in his electorate, where car marking is very important.
Australians want to see us continue to make cars. They want to see the iconic brands like Holden and Ford still in this nation. In order for that to happen, we need to recognise that the car industry is at the forefront of innovation. The car industry is a high-productivity, high-skill industry. It needs to compete in the world and with the dollar as strong as it is at the moment that is a very difficult thing to do. It needs government to work in partnership with the industry to make sure not that there is no change—because we cannot guarantee no change and we cannot guarantee every job, either—but that we are a country that still makes cars. I am determined to do that, not only because 46,000 Australians rely on the car industry for their employment but because, when you go through the supply chain, around 200,000 Australians rely on that industry. When you look more broadly, a million Australians work in manufacturing, and what is done in the car industry is important to manufacturing around the nation. Whether it is technology such as robotics going elsewhere or whether it is skill sets going elsewhere, this industry is important to the jobs of a million Australians.
Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition was channelling Dirty Harry. Perhaps he should recognise today that Clint Eastwood, who gave Dirty Harry to the world, is out there supporting the American car industry. What the Leader of the Opposition should be saying—
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister was not asked about the Leader of the Opposition's position. She was asked about the government's position.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to the substance of the question and be directly relevant.
Ms GILLARD: I was asked about the future of the car industry. Let me conclude by saying that we stand for a future for the car industry in this country. The Leader of the Opposition stands for doing the dirty on the car industry and ending car manufacturing jobs.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (14:13): Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The Prime Minister was talking about the government's manufacturing policies. Can she outline how they might affect local communities in Salisbury, Elizabeth and Gawler and perhaps what the alternative policy approaches are?
The SPEAKER: The supplementary question is in order if the honourable member is referring to car manufacturing.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:13): I thank the member for Wakefield for his supplementary question. He is concerned about the future of Holden because of its importance to his local communities. When we met today and talked to the car industry workers who are in the gallery, I met with Michael Etherington from Holden, who spoke about the importance of Holden to the future of suburbs like Salisbury and Elizabeth, which the member for Wakefield represents in this parliament. I want those communities to have a future. I want them to have a future that includes car making and those high-skill, high-wage jobs in their local community. That is why I am determined that the industry has a future in this country. That is why it is so devastating that the opposition is robbing this industry of certainty and therefore robbing these workers of jobs.
I invite my Labor colleagues to look up at the workers in the gallery, confident in the knowledge that we are working to support their jobs. I invite the opposition to turn around and look in the eyes of those workers whose jobs they are setting out to destroy.
Employment
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:14): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his statement last year that the budget was about jobs, jobs, jobs. Given that 2011 was the first year in 20 years when Australia had no net jobs growth, given that he has now admitted that his estimates in the budget on job creation were dead wrong, will the Treasurer now admit that the carbon tax will cost Australians jobs, jobs, jobs?
Mr SWAN ( Lilley — Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer ) ( 14:15 ): I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question because there is nothing more central to the Labor Party purpose than jobs. They go to the very core of the quality of life and the security of families. We understand that and, because it is based on our values, we put in place the response to the global financial crisis and the global recession which protected jobs in this country. On this side of the House, we understand how damaging high unemployment can be, what it does to our skills base and how it destroys communities. There is nothing more central to us, as a Labor government, than creating prosperity, which generates jobs and spreads opportunity to every corner of our country.
There is nothing we are more proud of than the fact that we have unemployment at 5.2 per cent. If those opposite had been in power three years ago, it would have gone through the roof and great parts of this country would have experienced very high unemployment. Because of our concern for jobs, we acted swiftly. We got the big economic calls right and now we are entering a new phase in our economy, as the Prime Minister was saying before. We have low unemployment but there is pressure on our economy. A higher dollar is causing stresses and strains across a numberof sectors of our economy. We understand it is our responsibility to work with industry, to work with local communities, to work our way through these issues. We are committed to an auto industry in this country but we also understandthatit faces great challenges in terms of global demand, challenges in terms of competitivenessbecause of a higher dollar. We also understandthatthere are challenges in tourism, education export and so on, but we are planning for the future. We are putting in place the reforms which will make our industries competitive.
One of the things I cannot understand when we get this question from the shadow Treasurer is that we are about to bring in a substantial tax cut for 2.7 million small businesses to make them more competitive and they want to stop it. But it is worse than that. They want to give a tax cut to Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart —just one example of the twisted priorities of those opposite.
We on this side of the House are committed to a competitive Australia, one which creates jobs with decent and fair working conditions and one which provides opportunities to our children and our grandchildren .
Broadband
Ms BIRD ( Cunningham ) ( 14:18 ): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline the next steps in providing high-speed broadband to all Australians through the National Broadband Network?
Ms GILLARD ( Lalor — Prime Minister ) ( 14:18 ): I thank the member for Cunningham for her question. In this parliament she represents a community which knows what it is like to undergo structural change, a community that is working together understand ing that there are some job losses in steelmaking which they need to confront but a community which is fighting back and making sure it has a plan for its economic future . Making steel will be part of that economic future but I know her community is looking forward to the benefits that the National Broadband Net work can and will bring to businesses in her electorate, increasing their productivity. T hat is because people in her electorate and people right around the country get the commonsense proposition that we as a nation cannot compete if we are using yesterday ' s technology. We have a great resources sector, but imagine if it were t rying to compete in the world using picks and shovels instead of forefront technology. Imagine if manufacturing were using hand tools instead of robotics in the forefront of technology. Of course they would not be able to compete .
What is true for an individual business is true for our whole nation. We need to have the best of technology to be able to compete in the world, which is why we are determined to roll out the National Broadband Network to ensure Australians get the benefits of the best of that technology and that we do not fall behind the standards of the world. The 100-year-old copper wire network has done very well indeed but it will hold us back in the future. It does not have the capacity to do what we will need to do in the future. If anyone doubts the benefits to productivity of having the kind of ICT which broadband can bring, what we know from international experience is that 70 per cent of product innovation is linked to ICT and 73 per cent of process innovation in manufacturing is linked to ICT. We need those benefits here.
Today we have made an important announcement about how Australians who live in the most remote parts of our country will get benefits too in terms of faster technology. We have announced that we will join with NBN Co. and Space Systems/Loral in putting up two satellites which will improve services for Australians who live in the most remote places. We do not want to see them left behind. We want them to get a better service and to pay the same uniform wholesale price as Australians in other parts of the country. This is a vital step in moving us to the new technology we will need for our future economy. (Time expired)
Carbon Pricing
Ms JULIE BISHOP ( Curtin — Deputy Leader of the Opposition ) ( 14:21 ): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer the minister to reports that the Chinese government has told the European Union that it will not pay a carbon levy on emissions from Chinese airlines flying to Europe. What representations has the minister made to ensure that Australian airlines are also exempt from payment of the EU carbon levy?
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:22): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. This EU policy has been around for some time. The same issue is one in which I, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Minister for Trade and other ministers of the government have robustly engaged the Europeans on. We will continue to make those representations. We are acutely mindful of the dependency of this country and its tourism industry on long haul civil aviation. We will be out there defending the Australian national interest.
Economy
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (14:23): My question is to the Treasurer. How is the government supporting economic growth to benefit all Australians?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:23): I thank the member for Deakin for his question. This side of the House does understand the challenges that we face in this country from what is going on in the global economy. We have acted in the face of global uncertainty to get the big economic calls right. As a consequence, we have supported growth and jobs and we are putting in place all of the tough measures that are required to ensure that continues, including bringing our budget back to surplus. Indeed, today we introduced the mid-year budget review bills into the House to achieve that purpose. We on this side of the House are putting in place the important reforms to secure future prosperity; for example, investment in skills and infrastructure and investment in the NBN, which the Prime Minister was talking about today. These are opposed by those opposite. We are introducing a carbon price because we understand that no first-class First World economy can continue to be like that unless they are substantially powered by clean energy. That is, once again, opposed by those opposite. We are spreading the benefits of the mining boom and, in particular, giving some tax relief to small business and other corporates because we understand the pressures in the economy. Most importantly, we are bringing our budget back to surplus because we expect growth at trend.
Today, and in the past week, I think we have seen the worst we could possibly see from the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance spokesman. They are the 'Three Stooges' of opposition economic policy. Today we have had the classic—
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. Mr Speaker, I would ask you to draw the Treasurer back to the question and stop the 'slag and bag', which I had hoped would end under your Speakership.
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer is being directly relevant to the question; however, it would assist the chamber if he withdrew the inappropriate references he made to a number of opposition colleagues.
Mr SWAN: Certainly, Mr Speaker. Bringing the budget back to surplus is absolutely important.
Opposition members: Withdraw!
Mr SWAN: I do withdraw. Bringing the budget back to surplus is critical. We have a commitment to bringing the budget back to surplus. But the opposition leader today walked away from that idea and scrapped his commitment to returning to surplus. We had the opposition finance spokesman do the same a couple of days ago.
What is more extraordinary is that we have found out why. Why are they walking away from that commitment to surplus? They are doing it because the shadow Treasurer said there is a $70 billion crater in their budget bottom line. It is that big. We have had some progress from the shadow Treasurer on this today. He has been running around the country insisting he never said it was $70 billion, despite the fact that it was there on Sunrise. It is there for everybody to see, but he has been running around the country saying that he never said it. Today on radio, this is what he said: 'Okay, I shouldn't have said it.' The extraordinary thing about that is he does not know that that is not the problem. The problem is: how did they get to $70 billion in the first place? How many commitments have they made that cannot be funded? The truth is that their numbers do not— (Time expired.)
Member for Dobell
Ms LEY (Farrer) (14:27): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to freedom of information documents that reveal collusion between the then Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations' office and Fair Work Australia in the media management of inquiry into the member for Dobell, and which end with the statement:
Thanks, that's awesome should minimise any run it gets in the morning.
Will the Prime Minister immediately release all communication between her government and Fair Work Australia in relation to this matter?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will remain silent so that I can listen to the point of order about to be made by the Leader of the House.
Mr Albanese: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on a point of order: the assertions made at the beginning of that question should be ruled out of order.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order because the office of the minister is not protected by standing orders in the same way as the minister would be. Consequently, because there was no assertion made against the minister, the question is in order.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:28): What I would say in response to the question is that no amount of dramatic flourish is going to change the facts here. The facts are that the opposition are trying to reheat very old news because they have nothing to say about the economy. They have nothing to say about jobs. They do not want to talk to these car industry workers and explain how they are going to destroy their jobs. They cannot explain their $70 billion black hole. They cannot explain when the budget would come back to surplus under them.
Mr Simpkins interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Cowan, if he does not—
Ms GILLARD: They have walked away from their promises of tax cuts. I refer the House to—
Mr Simpkins interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. I want to deal with the honourable member for Cowan, who will remain silent.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister was asked whether she would immediately release all communications between Fair Work Australia and her government. She was not asked about any other matter and everything else she is talking about is straying from the question she was asked.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will be directly relevant to the specific question.
Ms GILLARD: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and in relation to what was a question with a very broad range of adjectives in it, I would refer the House to Hansard of Wednesday, 19 October last year where this matter was fully canvassed and fully answered by Senator Chris Evans. I would also say to those members opposite who want to deal with these matters—I say this because they are incapable of dealing with any of the public policy challenges that our nation faces—that, as I said yesterday, they can hardly come into—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will be heard in absolute silence for the rest of her answer and anyone who breaches that ruling will have an hour outside.
Ms GILLARD: The opposition can hardly come into this place one day saying to direct Fair Work Australia to get this inquiry done and then the rest of the time complain about its fanciful allegations that the government is somehow intervening in this Fair Work Australia investigation. Fair Work Australia is an independent authority going about an independent investigation. It is time that the opposition stopped this muckraking, particularly when they are unable in the court of public opinion to answer basic questions like when a budget would come to surplus under them. Five years away, according to the shadow minister for finance. How big is their black hole: $70 billion. What is it going to cost working people when they slash services to try and fill it?
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to the substance of the question and will be directly relevant.
Ms GILLARD: Mr Speaker, I would suggest to the opposition that they spend some time doing those things instead of this pathetic muckraking.
Economy
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (14:31): My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Section 10 of the Reserve Bank Act states that the bank pursue policies that 'best contribute' to the maintenance of full-time employment in Australia and the 'economic prosperity' of the Australian people. In light of this and yesterday's decision which will price more Australian goods and services off the world market, would he not agree that the continuation of this fight-inflation-only policy will jeopardise hundreds of thousands of jobs in tourism, manufacturing, agriculture, retailing and base metals? In light of the prevailing rates in the US, 0.13 per cent, Japan, 0.05 per cent, and the EU and Canada, one per cent, could he assure the Australian people that it will be pointed out to the RBA that continuing with a four per cent—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members on my left will remain silent. The member for Kennedy has the call.
Mr KATTER: I can't hear myself speak, let alone listen to the galahs on my right.
The SPEAKER: The member for Kennedy will not continue to have the call if he makes those comments. The member for Kennedy will conclude his question.
Mr KATTER: In light of the prevailing rates in the US, 0.13 per cent, Japan, 0.05 per cent, and the EU and Canada, one per cent, could he assure the Australian people that it will be pointed out to the RBA that continuing with a four per cent-plus rate is contrary to their charter and is a policy that has already driven the dollar from US60c eight years ago to US$1.10 today?
The SPEAKER: I now call the honourable Treasurer and I suspect the member for Kennedy will understand that I gave him some benevolence.
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:33): I thank the member for Kennedy for that very important question, because he, like me, is a great fan of the late Ted Theodore, who was one of the early Keynesian advocates in this country and was indeed a former Treasurer of this country. Ted Theodore believed in appropriate fiscal and monetary policies that worked together to support employment and to support jobs and to support economic prosperity. One of the reasons we moved like we did through the global financial crisis and the global recession was to stimulate our economy through appropriate fiscal policy and appropriate monetary policy through the independent Reserve Bank. The consequence of that is that Australia is one of the strongest developed economies in the world, if not the strongest, according to the IMF. But you cannot be Keynesians on the way down and not be Keynesians on the way up, and our current policy settings, our fiscal policy settings and our monetary policy settings, reflect the strength of our economy relative to the rest of the world.
As for those countries that the member for Kennedy referred to, where he talked about low interest rates, those are countries which have very, very high levels of unemployment and they have very big problems in terms of sovereign debt. We do not want those problems in this country. We have not got those problems in this country because we have deployed fiscal and monetary policy in an appropriate way. Indeed, if you look at the reports from the IMF, the OECD and the World Bank, they have all made the point that in Australia the deployment of monetary and fiscal policy has been the most effective in the Western world. The consequence of that is a rate of interest that some people may feel uncomfortable with, but could I make this point. The cash rate in this country is currently 4.25 per cent and when we came to office it was 6.75 per cent. And, of course, if you take a $300,000 mortgage, that is a saving of $3,000 per year for a family with that mortgage.
What we must do is dedicate ourselves to taking every responsible step to keep pressure off inflation so we can keep rates down. The most important thing that we have got to do to generate jobs in this country, to generate wealth and to spread the opportunities around the country is to deploy our fiscal policy appropriately, and that is what the government is doing by bringing the budget back to surplus, and the independent Reserve Bank will take its judgments from time to time on monetary policy. We had two rate cuts at the end of last year and they were welcomed. Yesterday the Reserve Bank decided they would hold, but they did make the point that if further cuts were required there was room. Why? Because of the appropriate fiscal policy that the government has in place right now, which has received a big tick from the IMF. (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:36): I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from Samoa led by Deputy Prime Minister Fonotoe. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Manufacturing
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (14:36): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, and Minister for Industry and Innovation. Minister, how is the government ensuring that Australia has a strong manufacturing industry that creates jobs and builds the economy for the future?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:37): I thank the member for Throsby for his question and, indeed, he understands that in a changing world we do have to prepare for the economy of the future. In recent months I have made a number of visits to the Illawarra, one to open the SMART Infrastructure Facility at the University of Wollongong—a world class facility that is attracting international attention, making sure that we are at the forefront of innovation when it comes to manufacturing and when it comes to ensuring that we remain a country that makes things.
In recent months also, I was with the Prime Minister when she announced the rollout of the National Broadband Network to the suburbs of the Illawarra, in the electorates of Cunningham and Throsby and also down to the electorate of Gilmore. The fact is that we do need to innovate. That is what the National Broadband Network is doing, replacing the old copper wire network of a hundred years ago with the technology of the future.
Today we have with us an important sector of the manufacturing sector, the people who are involved in the auto industry. These people are ensuring we are able to innovate, not just stay as we are but move forward and produce the cars of the future—cars that are cleaner, cars that are greener, cars that are more efficient.
We know that the auto sector is so important in terms of driving manufacturing innovation right across the economy. It reaches a tipping point—just as it has in shipping, which is why the government is acting there—whereby if you do not have a certain level of industry it disappears completely. That is something this government understands and it is why we are determined to stand with those communities when it comes to the auto sector. That is why we have the New Car Plan for a Greener Future. It produces some 46,000 jobs in auto manufacturing but, as a result of that, it has a multiplier effect on the millions of jobs that exist in manufacturing across the system.
We understand that. That is why we are voting for our plan. We understood that when it came to steel manufacturing, when we voted for the $300 million Steel Transformation Plan. Remember that night, the late Tuesday night sitting, when those opposite voted 'no' 32 times to the MRRT, including the support for the steel industry. We have on this side a group of people committed to maintaining jobs and maintaining a future for manufacturing. Those opposite have nothing but cuts. We know the shadow minister offered up the cuts— (Time expired)
Prime Minister
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (14:40): My question is to the Prime Minister. What precisely did the Prime Minister's staff say to Ms Kim Sattler on Australia Day that would have led her to instigate the subsequent events? If the Prime Minister expects us to believe that her staff related what the Leader of the Opposition's words were exactly, how can she explain why a riot ensued?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:41): In response to the member for Hasluck's question, as he would be aware, I dealt with these matters at the time. Following Australia Day, I obviously dealt with these matters publicly and what I said then is what I will say now, which is, a member of my staff made a very grave error. He acted alone. His conduct was unauthorised. Both he and Ms Sattler—the participants in the conversation—have been very clear that Mr Hodges relayed to Ms Sattler the words of the Leader of the Opposition from that morning, that he did not relay any other version and, of course, the rest has been reported publicly. To the member for Hasluck I say, as I said at a press conference on the Saturday after these events, Mr Hodges did make a very bad mistake. He has paid a very severe price for it. He relayed the words of the Leader of the Opposition accurately on the question of the tent embassy to Ms Sattler.
Economy
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (14:42): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the importance of supporting jobs right across our economy in the face of global uncertainty?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:42): I thank the member for Calwell for that question because she is a real champion of jobs in her area of Melbourne. As I was saying before, there have been something like 700,000 jobs created in this country over the past four years. Just compare that with what has gone on in other developed economies around the world. This has been perhaps the most difficult time in the global economy since the Great Depression. For our country to create 700,000 jobs in that environment is something that we are all proud of.
But we on this side of the House do understand that there are stresses and strains in our economy and that some sectors are coming under enormous pressure. The rise of Asia, the growth in the region, the fundamental strength of our commodities sector is putting upward pressure on our dollar, and that demands a responsible approach by all political parties in this House. Until now it had been a matter of bipartisan agreement that we would have support for the auto industry, for all of the reasons that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport explained before and, as the Prime Minister indicated before, it is absolutely essential to our skills and technological base. We come to this problem with goodwill, wanting to work with the industry and with local communities. It is important that we put in place the investment we need, particularly in skills, training and innovation, but it is also important that we have a very strict fiscal policy in this environment. As I explained before to the member for Kennedy, despite all of these pressures in particular sectors we have an economy where growth is still at trend. As a consequence of having an economy where growth is at trend we have to bring our budget back to surplus because we do not want to add to inflationary pressures in the economy.
We know that this is something those opposite do not get, because when they were last in power there were 10 interest rate rises in a row. That was despite the fact that they promised in 2004 to keep them at record lows. When it comes to the employment of fiscal policy they are a complete shambles. That is why they have a $70 billion hole. That is why they have thrown a surplus commitment out the window and that is why they are now threatening the auto industry.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer will return to being directly relevant in his answer.
Mr SWAN: We on this side of the House know what we must do to successfully manage our economy in this period of great change. Those opposite are simply in shambles.
Prime Minister
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (14:45): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement that the staffer responsible for the Australia Day disturbance at the Lobby restaurant acted alone. Can the Prime Minister explain why staff in her media unit briefed the press gallery on Australia Day that the Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the disturbance when they knew that to be false?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:45): On the member's question, it is true to form that we see the opposition throwing around allegations for which they can produce no proof. I have dealt with these matters on the public record and I will deal with them again. Mr Hodges made a very grave error in judgment. He has paid a price for that error in judgment.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was not asked about the actions of Mr Hodges; she was asked about the actions of her media unit. That is the question she should be answering.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business is correct. The Prime Minister will be directly relevant to the question.
Ms GILLARD: I would have thought if the opposition were truly interested then it would wait for the details of the matter—and the details do matter—and making things up does not work. What happened, as I have said publicly, is that Mr Hodges acted alone. He was not authorised in his actions. It was a bad error of judgment and he has paid a price for that. No-one was more angry than me that something to honour people who had done remarkable things in times of natural disaster and other circumstances when Australians needed aid was disrupted. In terms of what Mr Hodges and Ms Sattler said in their telephone conversation, I would refer the opposition to Ms Sattler's statements, which verify that Mr Hodges told Ms Sattler that Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, had said that people should move on from the tent embassy—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume her seat for a minute. The question asked of the Prime Minister is a very important one and the Prime Minister is entitled to be heard entirely in silence by all honourable members who are interested in the answer that the Prime Minister is providing this chamber.
Ms GILLARD: The comments of the Leader of the Opposition from earlier that morning were accurately relayed from Mr Hodges to Ms Sattler. In the aftermath of the incident, what my staff did was first and foremost ascertain the whereabouts of each of my staff members because I was concerned about their safety. I also personally ascertained the whereabouts of Senator Lundy and Minister McClelland because they were at the Lobby restaurant and, as television cameras spectacularly recorded, we left them behind. So I wanted to know that they were okay. In the aftermath of the incident, that was our first and foremost concern. The allegation that I or anybody on my behalf—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will be heard entirely in silence and the next person who utters a word while the Prime Minister is providing her answer will, shall we say, experience the provisions of standing order 94(a).
Ms GILLARD: In terms of anything that I have said about this incident, I do not today and I never have believed, said or thought that this incident arose because of the words of Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, and that somehow this was his fault. That has never been my belief. The conduct of the individuals involved, which was violent conduct, is the responsibility of those individuals.
Broadband
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts. How is the government improving broadband for families and businesses in regional Australia? What benefits will this deliver for jobs in regional communities?
Mr CREAN (Hotham—Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts) (14:49): I thank the member for Kingston for her question. I know she knows the fundamental importance of getting broadband into her community because I was with her earlier this year and we were talking about the benefits for the residents of Willunga in her electorate.
Today the Prime Minister has already indicated the important announcement that the government has made about the contract with NBN Co. to launch the satellites that will bring faster, more reliable broadband access to the remotest parts of our country. Why is this important? It is because we want every part of this patchwork economy to have the opportunity to take advantage of the enormous growth potential this nation has.
We have already indicated that this government in its four years has created 700,000 jobs, the fastest rate of employment growth ever in the history of this country. Treasury estimates indicate that by the year 2020 there will be another 1.6 million jobs—in other words, more than double what we have already achieved as the greatest achievement. We want to make sure those benefits are spread. We can do that only if we invest in the essential infrastructure that enables communities and regions to take advantage of an economy in transition and to diversify their economic base. They can do that only if they can get access to the infrastructure that enables it, and fast-speed broadband is one essential element of it.
Anyone who doubts the benefits of what this will do for regional Australia should have a look at Tasmania for a start and the Launceston hospital's ability to deliver health services to regional parts or have a look in Smithton at what the two schools are doing to access the opportunities for training kids in their region through world-class activities and e-education opportunities. Those who doubt it should go to Armidale, for example, and talk to the photographic company that is using fast speed broadband to establish its business in the region because it can upload as well as download activity. These are the benefits that exist out there now for those who have access to fast speed broadband. We want to ensure that the whole of the country gets it to maximise its potential. The only party that is committed to achieving this is the Labor Party. Those opposite think this can be done for a pittance and they want to give people vouchers to try and find it. They seem to think that those living in the regions should not have the same access as those who live in the cities. (Time expired)
Prime Minister
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:53): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to her earlier answer to the member for Mackellar when she said that she did not believe that the Leader of the Opposition's comments had been the reason for the Australia Day riots. Given that, why was the Prime Minister's media unit briefing precisely the opposite to the press gallery that afternoon, which the press gallery knows to be true?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:53): To my knowledge no such briefing was given to the press gallery. If the opposition have a specific allegation, then they should put it. If they do not have a specific allegation, then they should stop muckraking.
Education
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, who also represents the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research. Would the minister inform the House about the government's commitment to providing Australians with the skills they need to contribute to the national economy?
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith—Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) (14:54): I thank the member for Blair, who happens to have the Ipswich Trade Training Centre in his electorate. At that trade training centre, high school kids get the opportunity to go up to a Certificate III in automotive. That is an important message that I want to emphasise as I answer the question that the member asked me. The fact is that this government is strongly committed to making sure that young Australians have the right education and the right skills training so that they can get good jobs for the future, jobs in the new economy. We recognise that the link between education and skills and future productivity and the link between education and skills and job certainty is a very, very direct one.
That evidence can be seen in the commitment in spending on education by the Gillard Labor government, which has nearly doubled the spending of the Howard years. In particular, the evidence can be seen by looking at the commitment that we have made to kids learning the basic skills of literacy, numeracy and mathematics under NAPLAN testing. The evidence can be seen in the very welcome figures that we saw about the numbers of young women who are going on to university to learn, which show that we are ahead of the target that we as a government have set. The evidence can be seen in the commitment that we have to invest in trade training centres, and we already have funded projects benefiting over 1,000 schools around Australia. They are terrific facilities, as members behind me know very well, because they are places where students can get hands-on experience and good vocational learning that sets them up for life with skills in that career path. It is evidence too that those people who might want to work in industries like automotive can start getting on that skills pathway in those trade training centres.
Before the last election, the opposition promised to cut over $1 billion from the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program. That would have meant that tens of thousands of young kids who might have chosen not to go to university but who might have wanted to get those skills under their belt would have been denied that opportunity. That is not an opportunity that this government is going to deny them. In particular, I make this simple point: Mr Abbott does not seem to get it about what we are doing for young people in schools. When we made the announcement that we would help eligible families with teenagers aged 16 to 19 to have a boost in family payments so that they could stay at school or in vocational training he said on 2UE on 28 November:
I guess I would want to carefully study this and make sure that the right kids are getting the money and that we really were keeping the right kids at school.
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister is straying from the question and he will return to the substance of the question.
Mr GARRETT: Mr Abbott then said 'occupational therapy, basically'. The fact is that on this side of the house we do not distinguish between the right and the wrong kids. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Sturt have a supplementary question?
Mr Pyne: No, I have a primary question, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: You are correct.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:57): Before I call the member for Sturt, I take this opportunity of welcoming some people with the Haywire program sponsored by the ABC. I hope that you enjoy your visit to Australia's Parliament House and this question time in the House of Representatives. I am sure that I speak for all members when I say that you are truly welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Prime Minister
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:58): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer her to her previous answer in question time when she said that Mr Hodges related precisely the words of the Leader of the Opposition to the tent embassy protesters. If that is true, why was he forced to resign?
The SPEAKER: Could the member please repeat his question.
Mr PYNE: My question was—and I assume the clock will start again—
The SPEAKER: The clock will start again.
Mr PYNE: I referred the Prime Minister to her previous answer in question time when she said that Mr Hodges had relayed the Leader of the Opposition's words precisely to the tent embassy protesters and had not strayed from those words. Given that is her claim, why was Mr Hodges forced to resign? If that is not the case, what did—
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He no longer has the call.
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, a point of order: you gave the Manager of Opposition Business two attempts to get it right. The Prime Minister did not say what he asserts at all.
The SPEAKER: I call the Prime Minister.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:59): I say again: if the opposition is genuinely interested then it should try following the details of this, not making spurious accusations. What I said at the time, what I said in answer to the last question, what I will say now and what I will always say because it is the truth is that Mr Hodges contacted Ms Kim Sattler of Unions ACT. The Manager of Opposition Business is putting a label on her. It is not for him to label people. She is an officer of Unions ACT. Mr Hodges has relayed and she has relayed the contents of their conversation. I refer to the public statement that Ms Kim Sattler released regarding the contents of that conversation. The contents are:
I would like to make a statement about my involvement in the events of Thursday.
Tony Hodges spoke to me by phone on Thursday afternoon. He told me what Tony Abbott had said - that people should 'move on' from the Tent Embassy.
He also said that Abbott would be at an event at the Lobby that afternoon.
Other people knew that already as Tony Abbott had been spotted at the Lobby already by other people walking back from the cafe next door.
I merely passed on that information to the organisers at the Embassy in case they wished to make a statement to the media.
Following media reports, Ms Sattler issued a further statement—
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: in order to be directly relevant she now has to explain why he therefore was asked to resign.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is being directly relevant and she continues to have the call.
Ms GILLARD: I will answer that question, but I will not have stand on the record of this parliament the inaccuracies that the Manager of Opposition Business put in his question. That ought not to stand on the record. The record should say this: Ms Sattler's second statement that I would refer the Manager of Opposition Business to—
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms GILLARD: They say they are interested in the details, yet they are not prepared to listen. Ms Sattler said in her second statement:
Reports in today's newspapers are inaccurate.
As I said in my statement yesterday, Tony Hodges from the Prime Minister's office told me what Tony Abbott had said - that people should move on from the tent embassy.
Yesterday the Prime Minister gave an accurate account of my role.
On why I accepted Mr Hodges' resignation after it had been offered: I accepted it because I viewed his conduct as making a grave error of judgment, particularly seeking to introduce a note of partisanship into what should be a bipartisan event on a bipartisan day. That was inappropriate conduct and, as a result, I accepted his resignation. If my standards are too high for the opposition, well so be it.
Employment
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. How is the government prioritising economic reforms that help Australians both in their working lives and during retirement?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation; Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (15:03): I thank the member for Wills for his question. His electorate and mine border Essendon and Tullamarine airports and we know that, when we talk about prioritising for workers now and in their retirement, under this government Australia is still passing the airport test. We know in this country that when Australians come back from overseas, wherever they have travelled all over the world, this country is passing the airport test because people who come back to Australia are happy to be back in Australia. We know this country is doing all right. It does not mean that our future is guaranteed, but we know that compared to the rest of the world we are doing okay.
We have 5.2 per cent unemployment. Every job loss is a shame, but we are doing relatively better than the eurozone and we are doing better than North America. We know we have low net Commonwealth government debt compared to foreign governments in terms of their net debt. We also know that we are engaging in the fastest fiscal consolidation in Australian history. We know why this is the case. It is because this government is interested in jobs, in skills and in making sure that people do not retire poor. The way we are doing that with jobs—and you can look at the record of the last four years because we have been consistent—is by guaranteeing the banks. Unlike the financial sectors in other parts of the world during the global financial crisis, that saw jobs saved then that would otherwise have been lost. Not only did we do that but we spent more money on the educational infrastructure of our school system than in Australian history. That also retained hundreds of thousands of jobs.
We also know that, unlike the rest of the OECD, which has seen a contraction of 30 million jobs throughout the world, we have still created 750,000 jobs. This is a good record. We are also very committed to the car industry, which puts us about 20 miles ahead of the opposition. We actually believe this is a country that should be making things and we can look at the car workers of Australia and say, 'We are on your side.'
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: Looks like I touched a sore spot. The more they shout, the more they cannot hear it.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members are entitled to listen to the minister in silence and they will.
Mr SHORTEN: We also know that the best job security in the future is making sure that all Australians are well trained so that they can change jobs and they can find the new opportunities that are created as our economy adjusts to the rise of Asia and the creation of services industries.
Finally, it is not just people at work that this government is motivated by; it is not just the current jobs; it is not just the skills development of the future. We are the only party in Australian politics who want to make sure we can lift super from nine to 12 per cent so people do not work hard their whole life and retire poor. Those are our priorities. Where are the opposition's?
Prime Minister
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:06): Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister has admitted that Mr Hodges informed his superiors of his phone calls to the office of the ACT minister for Indigenous affairs and Ms Sattler on Thursday, at what time and on what day was she informed?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:07): I have answered these questions before and let me answer them again. I answered them on the Saturday following Australia Day and I refer the Leader of the Opposition to my transcripts, seeing that he has obviously missed it somehow. When I answered these questions on that day, what I said is what is accurate, which is that I went to Flowerdale on the morning after Australia Day, I returned to my office in Melbourne and I was subsequently briefed in full by my staff on their investigations of what by then were a wide set of allegations that were circulating through the media—not one allegation but a wide set of allegations. When I received that briefing in full I was also briefed that Mr Hodges had offered his resignation to my chief of staff. In those circumstances I met with Mr Hodges, he offered his resignation to me and I accepted it for what I viewed to be a grave error of judgment by Mr Hodges. Mr Hodges acted alone; his conduct was not authorised; it was not the right thing to do and he has paid the price for it.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:08): Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister seriously expect the public or this House to believe that in a matter so serious she was not told by her office for 24 hours?
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: questions cannot contain that sort of argument and polemic.
The SPEAKER: The supplementary question is ruled out of order.
MOTIONS
Prime Minister
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:09): I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Sturt moving immediately:
That the Prime Minister be called on immediately to give a full explanation to the House about the circumstances involving her office and the representatives of the Tent Embassy protesters that led to the disturbance at The Lobby Restaurant on Australia Day and, in particular, to answer the charge that a culture of dirty tricks exists in her office preventing her office from addressing the serious policy issues besetting the nation at this time.
Australians instinctively want to believe the best about their Prime Minister but whilst so many questions remain unanswered about the role of her office in the Australia Day riots the Australian people cannot help but question the credibility of this Prime Minister. Standing orders need to be suspended to allow this motion to be debated and agreed to so the Prime Minister can do the right thing: give a full explanation to the House and dispel the notion that is abroad in this country that the office elevates dirty tricks above addressing the policy challenges that beset the nation.
We know that this Prime Minister would walk on a million corpses to become a cabinet minister. She told us this herself. We know she would dispatch a Prime Minister of her own party to gain the office of Prime Minister. We know she would tell the Australian people one thing to win an election and then do the opposite immediately after an election to stay in power. We know she would dispatch a Speaker to gain an extra vote in this chamber. We know she would dispatch a friend and cabinet colleague in Senator Kim Carr to keep the faceless men of the caucus happy. We know she would tear up her contract with the member for Denison to keep the foreign minister at bay. Comparing her to Lady Macbeth is unfair on Lady Macbeth—she only had one victim to her name; this Prime Minister has a list of victims longer than Richard III.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Sturt no longer has the call.
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Manager of Opposition Business is being disorderly and he should withdraw.
The SPEAKER: It would be enormously helpful to the House if the Manager of Opposition Business withdrew the imputation that he just articulated.
Mr PYNE: I withdraw. But surely this Prime Minister would draw the line at allowing her office, the office of Prime Minister, to become tainted by the suggestion that it is engaged in black operations to damage the Leader of the Opposition. The Australia Day riot was no idle matter. It was the most serious breach of a Prime Minister's security since the Fraser government. No-one enjoyed seeing the Prime Minister in a headlock, dragged downstairs and along a path, chased by an angry mob, shoved in the back of a car and losing a shoe in the process. Nobody enjoyed that. It was shocking, it was terrible and it was humiliating both for the Prime Minister and for Australia as these images were flashed around the world.
If anyone should want to get to the bottom of the circumstances surrounding this unfortunate event, it should be the Prime Minister. If anybody should want to get rid of the lingering stench that hangs over this government because of the actions of her staff on Australia Day, it should be the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister is to have any credibility in the future, she should want to get to the bottom of the circumstances surrounding the most serious security breach to a Prime Minister since the Fraser government. And yet it took the opposition to refer this matter to the Australian Federal Police, having given the Prime Minister four days in which to do the right thing and refer it to them. In the teeth of inaction on the Prime Minister's part, the opposition acted.
Too many questions remain unanswered about this matter for it to simply go away. Let me go through them. What precisely did the Prime Minister's staff say to Kim Sattler on Australia Day that would have led her to instigate the subsequent events? If the Prime Minister expects us to believe that her staff relayed Mr Abbott's words exactly, why did Kim Sattler write on Facebook and in an email to 3AW that Mr Abbott had suggested the tent embassy be cleared? Did Mr Hodges speak to any other activists?
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Sturt will refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his title.
Mr PYNE: I will. Did Mr Hodges speak to any other activists or protesters on Australia Day in relation to the events that were unfolding at the Lobby restaurant? If so, to whom? What was the content of those conversations? Why were the Prime Minister's media advisers telling press gallery journalists on Thursday afternoon that the Leader of the Opposition had started a riot if they were not trying to gain political mileage from the events of Australia Day? Who were those staff members? Has any action been taken in her office in relation to those staff? Who were the other three prime ministerial office staff at the Lobby on Thursday when Mr Hodges was communicating with Kim Sattler of Unions ACT at the tent embassy protest? Have they been questioned as to their involvement in the events of the day? Can she guarantee that no other staff were involved in the events that led to the Australia Day affray?
What conversations occurred between her head of communications, John McTernan, and Kim Sattler on Friday, Saturday and Sunday? What was the content of those conversations that would lead Kim Sattler to describe herself as being the meat in the sandwich? Did any conversations occur between the Prime Minister's office and Kim Sattler on Sunday that would cause her to alter her account of her interaction with the Prime Minister's staff from the one she gave News Ltd papers on Saturday and upon which the Prime Minister relied today, conveniently forgetting the statement she had made on Saturday to the News Ltd press?
Did Mr Hodges, when passing on the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, make any mention of his remarks in his historic apology in 2008 or the proposal for recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution? When Mr Hodges informed his immediate superiors on Australia Day of his phone calls to the office of the ACT minister for Indigenous affairs and Ms Sattler, who else was subsequently told about the events? Who in turn did they tell? Why was the Prime Minister not told for close to 24 hours? Once informed on Friday afternoon, why did the Prime Minister not immediately tell the public rather than wait until after 6.00 pm that night, conveniently outside the media cycle? Was Mr Hodges required to sign a confidentiality agreement or an agreement of nondisclosure upon his resignation from the Prime Minister's office? When initially making contact with the office of Chris Bourke, the ACT Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, to whom did Mr Hodges speak? What was the content of that conversation? During that conversation, was the suggestion made that Mr Hodges speak to anyone else? Who made that suggestion?
Has anyone in the Prime Minister's office spoken to senior AFP figures in relation to the events of Australia Day? Given the gravity of the Australia Day protests, has the Prime Minister or her chief of staff initiated a review of their internal processes? To whom did Prime Minister's staffers Sean Kelly and John McTernan speak once they were informed of events by Mr Hodges on Thursday? While working to establish the facts, did they speak to anyone else in the Prime Minister's office or other ministerial offices or to other Labor or union figures? When did Mr Kelly or Mr McTernan inform Mr Ben Hubbard of the matters raised with them by Mr Hodges? What instructions did any member of the Prime Minister's office convey to Labor members of parliament on Australia Day about the use of social media, including Facebook and Twitter, about the events that had occurred? Of course, the final question is: where is Mr Hodges? Is he in a witness protection program? He has gone to ground. We have not seen him since his resignation, yet he was very prepared to be upfront on Australia Day.
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been reluctant, but this is a suspension of standing orders. There are limits to what he can talk about in terms of why the suspension should be supported. Going to character assassination of a former staff member is too much.
The SPEAKER: The member should focus on why standing orders ought to be suspended. However, former staff members are not extended the protection of the standing orders.
Mr PYNE: Standing orders should be suspended because, as Shakespeare also wrote, there is something rotten in the state of Denmark. There is something very rotten in the Prime Minister's office, and these questions remain unanswered. While the Prime Minister refuses to answer these questions, a rotten stench lingers over the Prime Minister and her office that saps the very confidence of the Australian people in the office of the Prime Minister and those who work for her. That is why this suspension should be agreed to and why this motion should be debated and carried. Of all people, the Prime Minister should want to pass this motion. She should want to debate this motion and have it pass through the parliament so that a full explanation can be given of her role in the events on Australia Day that have cast such a shadow over her office and her prime ministership.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (15:19): I second the motion. Standing orders must be set aside to require this Prime Minister to stand to account for the rotten culture that has overtaken her government and which would be the subject of the debate that would follow the motion. There is a stench about this government that grows stronger every single day. It is the smell of distrust, the smell of division, the smell of disloyalty and the smell of incompetence, arrogance, dirty tricks and cover-up. Above all, it is the smell of the decay that is eating into the very fabric of this government and that is affecting its very culture under the leadership of this Prime Minister. The events of Australia Day and the appalling and irresponsible conduct of the Prime Minister's office in the cover-up that followed are a window into the soul of this Prime Minister's government, of her office and of the culture that she has allowed to be created. What a dark place that is.
The events of that day betray the culture of this Prime Minister and the culture she has allowed to overtake her government. The Prime Minister seems to believe in spontaneous incitement, based on things she has said in this place. She fails to understand that on that day her office compromised the security of our national leaders for nothing other than to make a cheap political point.
The smell of this government is a very familiar one. We smell it in Queensland—it is in the air there—and I remember it all too well as the smell of the squalid Labor government in New South Wales. The culture of that government now infects this government here. The same dirty tricks, the same culture, the same responsibilities that are flouted daily and the same culture of cover-up. We remember that it was the New South Wales government just months out from an election that had parliament prorogued in order to ensure that there was not a parliamentary inquiry into the electricity sell-off in New South Wales. That is the culture of Sussex Street when it goes to Macquarie Street. Sussex Street came to this place with the election of the Rudd government and has been taken to supersize under this Prime Minister. We have to remember that it was the former New South Wales Premier who pump-primed her own discretionary budget tenfold in the final year leading up to the election. We all remember the 'Don't you know who I am?' culture of the former member for Robertson and certainly former minister in New South Wales, Minister Della Bosca. We also remember the underpant dancing of the New South Wales state government—I suppose that is something for us to look forward to from the culture that is infecting this government on a daily basis—the rorts that took place in New South Wales, the referrals to ICAC, the corruption following from this culture. The culture starts, the action follows and the rest becomes history.
This was a government that thought it could get away with anything. That is what the Prime Minister's office thought on Australia Day: they apparently refused, according to the Prime Minister's word, to inform the Prime Minister. So the next day when she was interviewed she knew nothing. She stood there and took a swing at Ray Hadley on 2GB, as she would do on any other occasion when she had the opportunity—blame the media, blame everybody else, blame Tony Abbott. She will find someone to blame: 'It certainly wasn't me.' So this Prime Minister went through this process that has become all too familiar. She distances herself, she denies the things that have taken place and she singles out those who are then cut loose to touch the void, as is so common when this government, using the Sussex Street tactics, takes over.
I think there are two certainties in Australian politics. One is that Labor governments invariably go out in disgrace. The other is that coalition governments are invariably elected to clean up the mess. We need to debate this motion because we need to clean the air. We need to clean it of the stench that rises out of this government on a daily basis, whether it is their disloyalty, their distrust of one another, their breaking of promises or this bizarre episode we saw over Australia Day which was apparently a spontaneous incitement. This is a government that needs to stand to account. This is a government that refuses to take responsibility, just as we saw in New South Wales. As New South Wales went, so this government will go—and so it shall deservedly go.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:24): I rise to talk about why this motion to suspend standing and sessional orders should not be agreed to, and I remind the House what this motion is about. It is about giving priority to parliamentary time. We say something to this nation about how we use our time in this parliament. We say something about what drives us, we say something about what we stand for and we say something about what we care about in how we use the time of this parliament. In that regard, I note that the time we are taking now is time that would normally go to the debate on a matter of public importance. And I note that today's matter of public importance, from the member for Lyne, is about the natural disaster relief payments for flood damage in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland and the assistance being made available urgently by governments. I do wonder what Australians looking at this chamber would be thinking about when they see members of the opposition—but not the Leader of the Opposition, because there are some things that are even too grubby for him—coming to the dispatch box with a stream of abuse, holding up debates about important national questions like dealing with flood damage in our nation.
More broadly, it is of no surprise to me that this is the opposition's topic today. They walked into question time today knowing that because of unwise statements by their economic spokespeople their economic strategy, which was always a shambles, has now been revealed as a shambles to the Australian people. They were determined to do anything today to distract from the real debate before our nation—the debate about the economy, about jobs, about running the economy in the interests of working people and getting them a fair share, about making sure that our nation is ready for the future. They knew that if the parliament focused on that today it would devastate them. We came into this parliament today and saw from the opposition inconsistencies everywhere about things that truly matter to our nation's future. The first inconsistency the nation should be focusing on today that matters to the nature's future is the incredible inconsistency across the opposition frontbench over the slashing of benefits to working families and over how many billions of dollars they intend to slash them by.
We have seen the spectacle of the shadow minister for finance on more than one occasion verifying upfront that, yes, they are going to cut $70 billion out of the budget—$70 billion that could only come out of the services that families need. Then we were treated to the spectacle of the shadow Treasurer, who originally adopted that figure and was then on the run from it, denying he had even said it whenever he was asked. Finally, today the shadow Treasurer actually managed to burble out that, yes, he had said that figure but it was a mistake.
I would say to the opposition frontbench that in its plans to cut $70 billion out of services for working families—whether they are plans to slash Medicare, cut the pension or slash family payments—it needs to answer these questions. But they did not want the spotlight on that today. They did not want the spotlight on their inconsistencies about how much of an attack they plan to make on working families if they are ever elected. And then, of course, they walked into this parliament today with a huge inconsistency.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will remain silent. There is too much audible conversation that I can hear.
Ms GILLARD: The Leader of the Opposition went to the last election campaign talking about one of his most fundamental commitments. The Leader of the Opposition is very fond of making allegations about honesty and election pledges. So what was one of his fundamental commitments during the election campaign? It was to bring the budget back to surplus in 2012-13. In fact, he was going to deliver a bigger surplus than the government would. Where is this fundamental commitment today?
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the Prime Minister, but I was interrupted. For five minutes we have waited for the Prime Minister to address the motion under debate, which is that standing orders should be suspended.
The SPEAKER: The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: I remind the House of what the motion is, even if the Manager of Opposition Business does not understand it. In terms of the priority for the order of business of this House, here we have the opposition walking into this parliament in a shambles about one of the things that the Leader of the Opposition described as one of his most fundamental commitments during the election campaign. We now know, courtesy of the shadow minister for finance, backed by the Leader of the Opposition, that if they were elected to government they cannot promise a surplus for the first five years. That is in very stark contrast to this government, that is determined in May to bring a budget into this House that gets us a surplus in 2012-13 exactly as promised, because that is the economic step that our nation needs now.
Then of course these inconsistencies continue. We have seen the shambles across the economic frontbench of the opposition about whether or not there would be tax cuts if they were ever in government. The Leader of the Opposition goes to the National Press Club and basically says: 'You know how I promised tax cuts? Well, I am not really sure anymore. During the first term, I could not possibly say that.' Then they send out the clean-up squad, because they know he has made an error, and the clean-up squad comes out—the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, for example—to say, 'Oh, yes, we will have tax cuts during our first term in government if we are elected.' Then there is some confusion about whether there is one round of tax cuts or two. The opposition is in a shambles.
This would all just be argy-bargy in politics except we are in a situation where what is at the core of our national interest today, at the core of our national interest for the Australian people, is approaches to the economy. Whether you stand for jobs, whether you stand for car industry jobs, the reckless approach of the opposition, even though they are only in opposition, is weighing heavily on the minds of the car industry today. There is the half a billion dollar cutback, there is the lack of certainty for the future and there are 46,000 Australians worried about their jobs because of the statements of the opposition, because of the recklessness of the opposition.
Mrs Mirabella interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The honourable member for Indi will remain silent and will cease pointing.
Ms GILLARD: And of course their refusal to put jobs first just goes on and on. We have seen it with the approach to the minerals resource rent tax, where they are determined to take money away from small businesses and other businesses and away from supporting superannuation and give it back to some of the most profitable mining companies on earth. There is the irresponsible approach they are taking to carbon, where they are peddling snake oil and a plan that would cost working families $1,300. There is the irresponsible approach they are taking to the National Broadband Network, with their plan to rip the National Broadband Network out of the ground and deny Australians the technology of the future. And the list goes on and on and on.
Here is the opposition looking for every distraction. Although the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, 'Make my day,' and that he wanted to have a debate about the economy, he knows that if in this chamber we are debating the economy then he will lose, because his economic plan is one of cutbacks for working families, of no support for jobs, of giving benefits to the biggest miners in this country at the expense of other businesses, of the most costly carbon plan and of standing still as we need to build the economy of the future. These are fundamental choices about who you stand with and who you stand for, and of course the Leader of the Opposition never wants to debate them.
We are very clear about who we stand with and who we stand for. We stand for running the economy in the interests of working people and supporting them and their families today, and the opposition frontbench will never stand for those things. They will only ever stand for the privileged interests of a few.
On the question of the matters of Australia Day, I have answered the questions put to me. I would refer the opposition to my transcript. Their muckraking and recklessness and their petty politics do them no good. Get involved in the big debate around this nation—get involved in the debate about jobs, about budget management, about preparing for the future—and if you are not capable of doing that then just come clean and say to the Australian people, 'We don't care about these things,' because that is what your conduct today is reeking of. You care about your petty politics; the national interest just passes you by.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion moved by the honourable member for Sturt be agreed to.
The House divided. [15:39]
(The Speaker—Hon. Peter Slipper)
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:44): 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:
Social Policy and Legal Affairs—House of Representatives Standing Committee—Reclaiming public space: Inquiry into the regulation of billboard and outdoor advertising—Status of Government response.
Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Act 2003—Quarterly report on the operation of the Act for the period 1 July to 30 September 2011.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (15:46): I present Selection Committee report No. 40, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 13 February 2012. The report will be printed in today's Hansard. The committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The repor t read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business.
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 7 February 2012.
2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 13 February 2012, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform
Interactive and online gambling and gambling advertising Interactive Gambling and Broadcasting Amendment (Online Transactions and Other Measures) Bill 2011—Second report
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10:20 a.m.
Speech time limits —
Mr Wilkie— 5 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
2 Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
Inquiry into the funding of political parties and election campaigns— Report
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10:30 a.m.
Speech time limits —
Mr Melham— 5 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
3 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services
Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011 — Inquiry
The Committee determined that statements on the inquiry may be made — all statements to conclude by 10:40 a.m.
Speech time limits —
Mr Ripoll— 5 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
4 Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Inquiry into Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder — Statements
The Committee determined that statements on the inquiry may be made — all statements to conclude by 10:50 a.m.
Speech time limits —
Mr Perrett— 5 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR BANDT : To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to create the opportunity for marriage equality for people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, and for related purposes (Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012). (Notice given 7February 2012.)
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41.
2 MR S. P. JONES: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to establish marriage equality for same-sex couples, and for related purposes (Marriage Amendment Bill 2012). (Notice given 7February 2012.)
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41.
3 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to provide for Parliament to approve the ratification of treaties, and for related purposes (Treaties Ratification Bill 2011). (Notice given 3November 2011.)
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41.
4 MR OAKESHOTT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to migration, and for other purposes (Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Assessment and Other Measures) Bill 2012). (Notice given 7February 2012.)
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41.
5 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes (Fair Work Amendment (Better Work/Life Balance) Bill 2012). (Notice given 7February 2012.)
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41.
6 MR WILKIE: to move:
That this House agrees that should the Marriage Act 1961 be amended to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples, any such amendment should ensure that the Act imposes no obligation on any church or religious minister to perform such a marriage. (Notice given 2November 2011.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits —
Mr Wilkie— 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue at a later hour.
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (8 to 9.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
7 MS SAFFIN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that as National Asbestos Awareness Week is formally recognised, it makes earnest representation to the Government to continue to call on Canada to ratify the listing of chrysotile asbestos in the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent;
(2) recognises the proactive actions of the Australian Government in mitigating the possible spread of asbestos-related diseases through continuing bans on the production and use of asbestos as well as strict controls on the removal and disposal of existing material;
(3) commends the Australian Government on a number of measures that have been put into place to manage and compensate the victims of asbestos related diseases which include:
(a) the recent ratification of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Asbestos Convention, as one of the first ILO Conventions to be ratified by the Commonwealth Government since 2006;
(b) Australian leadership on a strong closing declaration by 66 countries at the 2011 Conference of the Rotterdam Convention, which expressed deep concern that the listing of chrysotile asbestos had been prevented by a small number of parties and resolved to move forward to list chrysotile asbestos in Annex III;
(c) the $5 million grant made to support the Asbestos Disease Research Institute Bernie Banton Centre;
(d) funding for the new Australian Mesothelioma Registry, which was launched in 2010 to gather more detailed and accurate information on mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases;
(e) support for the harmonisation of health and safety legislation which will provide, for the first time, a uniform framework for the minimisation of exposure, the removal of asbestos, and the management asbestos materials in the workplace;
(f) the establishment of the Asbestos Management Review in late 2010 to recommend strategies for the development of a national strategic plan to improve asbestos awareness, management and removal;
(g) the loan agreement with the NSW Government to ensure asbestos victims and their families continue to receive payments through the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund; and
(h) the $1.5 million Comcare Asbestos Innovation Fund which sponsors programs and research to prevent and better manage asbestos exposure, as well as improve treatment for asbestos-disease sufferers;
(4) notes the unwelcome inheritance that asbestos has left on the Australian community, which sees Australian citizens suffering one of the highest rates of asbestos-related diseases in the world, with the effects of asbestos mining still being suffered by many, mostly Indigenous and past employees of James Hardie's operation at Baryulgil in the electoral division of Page, and the poor health and mortality they and their families suffer;
(5) extends its profound sympathies to all individuals suffering asbestos-related diseases as well as their friends and families and the friends and families of those who have passed away as a result of asbestos-related diseases;
(6) notes the current and potential damage that imported asbestos is creating to the people in the Asia Pacific region where, despite these well documented health risks, it remains an attractive commodity due to its low cost compared to other comparable building material;
(7) calls upon the Canadian Government to recognise the potentially catastrophic health and social implications of Canada's production and sale of asbestos and products containing asbestos to these lower socio-economic markets; and
(8) supports the Australian Government in using strong diplomatic efforts to convince the Canadian Government to cease both production and trade in asbestos. (Notice given 21November 2011.)
Time allotted — 50 minutes
Speech time limits —
Ms Saffin— 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 10 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
8 MS PARKE: To move:
That this House:
(1) expresses deep concern to our inter-parliamentary colleagues in the Iranian Parliament regarding serious and systematic human rights violations occurring in the Islamic Republic of Iran;
(2) notes the following from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's report on The situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran released in September 2011, that:
(a) Iran has stepped up its crackdown on human rights workers, women's rights activists, journalists and government opponents;
(b) since the beginning of 2011, Iran has seen a notable increase in the use of capital punishment for political and juvenile prisoners;
(c) Iran has increased discrimination, in some cases amounting to persecution, against a number of religious and ethnic minority groups;
(d) the United Nations continues to hold long-standing concerns in respect of the treatment of the Baha'i community and the trial and sentencing of seven Baha'i community leaders, which did not meet due process and fair trial requirements;
(e) there is limited enjoyment of political, economic, social and cultural rights by, inter alia, Arabs, Azeri, Baloch and Kurdish communities, and some communities of non-citizens; and
(f) since May 2011, security forces conducted raids on the home of individuals involved in the activities of the Baha'i Institute for Higher Education and arrested 15 of its members in various cities;
(3) notes that in recent months there have been:
(a) further reports of the denial of access to Iranian universities for young people on the basis of their political or religious beliefs; and
(b) prison terms of between four and five years imposed on seven Iranian Baha'is in relation to their association with the Baha'i Institute for Higher Education; and
(4) calls on the National Consultative Assembly of Iran as fellow members of the inter-parliamentary union and as the parliamentary body of a member state of the United Nations, to:
(a) promote and protect fundamental human rights irrespective of origin, ethnicity, sex, religion, opinion, or other status;
(b) investigate the denial of access to universities for student activists, Baha'is, and others barred from universities for reasons other than academic capability; and
(c) seeks a judicial review of the trials of prisoners of conscience, including the seven former Baha'i leaders, lawyer Ms Nasrin Sotoudeh, and other human rights defenders and lawyers. (Notice given 21November 2011.)
Time allotted — 40 minutes
Speech time limits —
Ms Parke— 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 10 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration
of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for Main Committee (approx 11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR OAKESHOTT: To move:
That this House request the Prime Minister and Treasurer to:
(1) direct the Commonwealth Grants Commission to allocate an annual fixed percentage of Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenue directly to the 654 local councils throughout Australia;
(2) include this annual allocation as part of the GST Review currently underway and for implementation through any required legislative or executive government processes; and
(3) consider constitutional recognition of local government only in the event of any successful legal challenge to the direct annual allocation of GST revenue to local councils within Australia. (Notice given 7February 2012.)
Time allotted — 30 minutes
Speech time limits —
Mr Oakeshott— 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
2 MR HAYES: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises:
(a) the extensive historical connection and contribution of the Mandaean religion and that of other indigenous people, to the country of Iraq and humanity overall;
(b) the ongoing plight since 2003 associated with a systematic loss of culture, heritage and language of the Sabian Mandaean and various Christian minorities in Iraq; and
(c) that Australia was part of the 'coalition of the willing' that prosecuted the war on Iraq in 2003, and due to this involvement, Australia, along with its coalition partners, has a moral responsibility to compassionately support and protect the indigenous minorities of Iraq from ongoing persecution;
(2) condemns the horrendous acts of violence and persecution against the Sabian Mandaeans and other religious minorities in Iraq; and
(3) encourages the preservation and continued prosperity of the heritage, culture and language of the Sabian Mandaean and other indigenous people of Iraq. (Notice given 24August 2011.)
Time allotted — 50 minutes
Speech time limits —
Mr Hayes — 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 10 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 10 mins + 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
3 MR BANDT: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) HRL Limited was awarded a $100 million grant in 2007 by the Coalition Government under the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund;
(b) to date, HRL Limited has been unable to meet the pre-conditions of the grant, and no money has been dispersed;
(c) the grant would facilitate the building of a new coal fired power plant, contradicting the current Prime Minister's statement that no new dirty coal fired power plants will be built in Australia;
(d) there are a number of low emission renewable technologies that deserve government support; and
(e) the Australian community strongly supports public funds being used to support the development of renewable technologies; and
(2) calls on the Government to immediately withdraw the grant offer to HRL Limited and allocate the $100 million to the Australian Renewable Energy Authority. (Notice given 15September 2011.)
Time allotted — 30 minutes
Speech time limits —
Mr Bandt— 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
4 MR MELHAM: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes with regret the death on 19 November 2011 of Basil Lewis D'Oliveira;
(2) recognises his contribution to world cricket, especially in South Africa and England;
(3) notes that his quiet dignity in the face of rejection by South Africa for reasons other than cricket helped to transform public opinion in England and beyond;
(4) particularly recognises his long battle against apartheid in South Africa, his actions in bringing to the world's notice the disenfranchisement of non-white cricketers in South Africa, and that he became a leader of a worthy cause without ever seeking a leadership role; and
(5) notes that, as a result of the life of Basil D'Oliveira, non-white cricketers are able to represent South Africa with pride and distinction. (Notice given 21November 2011.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits —
Mr Melham— 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 10 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for Main Committee (6.30 to 9 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
5 MR OAKESHOTT: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) microbreweries are important niche businesses in Australia, providing valuable job opportunities and economic growth, particularly in rural and regional areas;
(b) microbreweries need recognition within the tax system through the Microbrewery Refund, given that they are competing in a domestic market heavily dominated by large multinational companies, following the sale of both Fosters and Lion Nathan to overseas interests;
(c) the Microbrewery Refund was introduced in 2000 and that the definition of a microbrewery has not been reviewed and is now markedly out of step with industry reality; and
(d) the maximum excise refund has remained capped at $10,000, while the beer excise has been raised twice a year for the past 11 years with the consumer price index; and
(2) calls on the Government to amend:
(a) the definition of a microbrewery under the Excise Regulations 1925, regulation 2AB, to significantly increase the current maximum volume of 30,000 litres; and
(b) Excise Regulations 1925, regulation 50(l)(zzd), to remove or significantly increase the maximum of $10,000 excise refund that can be claimed in a financial year. (Notice given 2November 2011.)
Time allotted — 20 minutes
Speech time limits —
Mr Oakeshott — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
6 Ms Rishworth: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the findings of the Letting the Children be Children review into the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood commissioned by the Government of the United Kingdom including that:
(a) children are growing and developing against the backdrop of a culture of increasing commercialisation and sexualisation;
(b) parents are concerned about clothing, services and products for children which reinforce gender stereotypes and portray children as being more sexually mature than their chronological age would indicate;
(c) children are under considerable pressures to be consumers; and
(d) parents often feel their concerns are not being listened to despite the fact that they are often in the best position to decide what is appropriate for their children;
(2) welcomes the Ministerial Statement in respect of this review by the Government of the United Kingdom which acknowledges the need to protect children from excessive commercialisation and premature sexualisation, and accepts the recommendation that efforts to address this are focused on industry and regulators with government monitoring progress and legislating to protect children if necessary;
(3) notes with concern that the sexualisation of children is a growing issue not just in the United Kingdom but also in Australia;
(4) recognises that the sexualisation of children, and in particular girls, has been associated with a range of negative consequences including body image issues, eating disorders, low self esteem and mental ill health; and
(5) urges governments, industries, regulators and the wider community in Australia to take note of the Letting the Children be Children report and to work together to address the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood. (Notice given 21November 2011.)
Time allotted — 70 minutes
Speech time limits —
Ms Rishworth— 10 minutes.
Next 3 Members speaking — 10 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 10 mins + 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
7 MR WILKIE: To move:
That this House agrees that should the Marriage Act 1961 be amended to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples, any such amendment should ensure that the Act imposes no obligation on any church or religious minister to perform such a marriage. (Notice given 2November 2011.)
Time allotted — 10 minutes
Speech time limits —
All Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
8 MR OAKESHOTT : To move:
That this House endorse the agreements reached in March 2011 at the Fourth Bali Regional Ministerial Conference on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime, in particular the Ministers' agreement to a regional cooperation framework underpinned by the following core principles:
(1) irregular movement facilitated by people smuggling syndicates should be eliminated and States should promote and support opportunities for orderly migration;
(2) where appropriate and possible, asylum seekers should have access to consistent assessment processes, whether through a set of harmonised arrangements or through the possible establishment of regional assessment arrangements, which might include a centre or centres, taking into account any existing sub-regional arrangements;
(3) persons found to be refugees under those assessment processes should be provided with a durable solution, including voluntary repatriation, resettlement within and outside the region and, where appropriate, possible 'in country' solutions;
(4) persons found not to be in need of protection should be returned, preferably on a voluntary basis, to their countries of origin, in safety and dignity, and returns should be sustainable and States should look to maximise opportunities for greater cooperation; and
(5) people smuggling enterprises should be targeted through border security arrangements, law enforcement activities and disincentives for human trafficking and smuggling. (Notice given 7February 2012.)
Time allotted — 20 minutes
Speech time limits —
Mr Oakeshott — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
9 MS HALL: To move:
That this House:
(1) expresses concern at the impact that beauty pageants have on children;
(2) calls for an investigation into the impact of these pageants on young girls; and
(3) notes that:
(a) obsessive preoccupation with grooming, body image and superficial beauty has the potential to create major psychological disorder in adolescence and adulthood;
(b) such pageants are common in the United States and that serious concerns have been expressed in relation to the impact they are having on these young girls who strive for an unrealistic and unobtainable image; and
(c) these pageants have the potential to add significantly to Australia's health costs. (Notice given 14June 2011.)
Time allotted — Remaining private Members ' business time prior to 9pm.
Speech time limits —
Ms Hall — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
The committee recommends that the following item of private Members' business listed on the notice paper be voted on:
Order of the day –
Tax Reform (Mr Oakeshott)
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 24 of 2011-12
The SPEAKER (15:46): I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 24 of 2011-12, entitled Performance audit: administration of government advertising arrangements: March 2010 to August 2011.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
COMMITTEES
Economics Committee
Membership
The SPEAKER (15:46): I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating a member to be a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2011.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:47): by leave—I move:
That Mr A. D. H. Smith be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2011.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2010
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (15:47): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr EWEN JONES: Yes, most outrageously, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr EWEN JONES: In today's Australian in the 'Strewth' column, it was reported:
As loud as it was, it didn't compare with the force of Nationals MP George Christensen's allusion to movie lines in Anthony Albanese's speeches. When Albo stood to object to Christopher Pyne's amusingly worded question about Labor's Craig Thomson, Christensen let rip with another popular Aaron Sorkin-penned line, "You can't handle the truth!"
Mr Speaker, it is obvious that 'I am as mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore'—that is the end of the quoting. It would appear that 'what we have here is a failure to communicate'. It is obvious that the journalist in question has asked a colleague who was there, 'Who yelled out, "You can't handle the truth"?' His colleague obviously said, 'The fat guy in the corner,' and the journalist jumped to the wrong conclusion: that it was the member for Dawson. Well, I say to him, 'Tell him he's dreaming,' and, to quote Jim Carrey from the lift scene in Liar Liar, 'It was me.'
The SPEAKER: The member should bring his personal explanation to a speedy conclusion—humorous though it is.
Mr EWEN JONES: I ask the journalist concerned to (a) issue an apology to my good friend and colleague the member for Dawson and (b) get a haircut so he can see for himself.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. It is an abuse of the processes of the House to dress something up as a personal explanation when it is not. Because the honourable member for Herbert is relatively new, I will ignore it on this occasion.
BILLS
Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Reference to Main Committee
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (15:50): by leave—I move:
That the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Natural Disaster Relief
The SPEAKER (15:51): I have received letters from the honourable member for Lyne, the honourable member for North Sydney and the honourable member for Throsby proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, I have selected the matter which in my opinion is the most urgent and important—that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Lyne, namely:
That Natural Disaster Relief payments for flood damage in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland are made urgently by state and federal governments.
I therefore 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 OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (15:52): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your wisdom in choosing a very important and serious motion that reflects a disaster that is still unfolding in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. I know from private conversations with members on both sides that not every member with an electorate that is affected will be able to speak. There is a lot of concern from local members about their local constituencies and there is concern generally for impacts in constituencies outside their own. I think that is appreciated by many.
On an administrative matter, we are nearly 30 minutes behind where we probably should be. It is disappointing that events on Australia Day have seen that time go. Again I pick up on the point that this is an important topic that the parliament should be debating at length this week. For anyone who is wondering, my view on Australia Day—and there are plenty of views out there—is that no-one comes away with clean hands with regard to events on Australia Day. Many Australians whom I have spoken with were both saddened and frustrated by the events and the coverage as it unfolded, and I am pleased now that proper processes of the House are being used to get issues of importance up. If that is a debate that others want to see happen in this chamber, there are proper processes to use, and I encourage them to do so in a sensible way.
This is a disaster that is still unfolding. There are thousands of Australians who are outside their homes and evacuations are in place in many locations in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. We have hundreds of thousands of dollars in question with regard to the damages bill, both public and private, that will have to be assessed and paid for somehow over the coming days and weeks.
The other point that I want to get some reflection on from the chamber is not just the impact of this flood but the cumulative impact of this flood on the back of the flood last year. In some locations in Australia—I think the member for Maranoa will be making this point if he speaks—this is a flood on the back of a flood on the back of a flood. We have been having a rolling natural disaster over the past three years in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland, and it is that cumulative impact that the natural disaster relief payment schemes and policies will not and do not reflect and manage as we try to struggle our way through as communities dealing with these natural disasters in the best way possible.
This is an opportunity for a local member to put on record a few thanks before getting into some policy issues. From my perspective, I would very much like to thank the volunteer network of the mid-North Coast of New South Wales, who have once again kicked in and worked extraordinary hours for no gain over the last month. The SES is the most obvious organisation, but many people who have helped neighbours and friends are not part of any organisation. Thank you to all of those who helped someone other than themselves and also to those who are paid to do the job—the police, the ambos and the many services that went over and above during the past month. Thank you once again for the work that has been done. It is a rare comment these days in this place, but thank you to many of the media outlets, in particular the ABC on the mid-North Coast, who pretty well ran a 24/7 service which was very important for many people in getting up-to-date information, including evacuation orders, at various times.
There is still assessment going on in my region, and that is adding up to quite a substantial bill. That is the lead-in to the broader point that makes this an important matter of public importance discussion. In the Manning alone, there are probably still around 20 bridges out and unusable until damage assessments are done, and that will more than likely take a long time. A bridge is the point of engagement for many people who are living up valleys and off the coast. If they cannot get in and out, then their business is affected, their family is affected and basic things are affected, like getting kids to school. Yet more than likely it is going to be not weeks but months before many people will be able to get access to things that we all take for granted in modern Australia. That is just from this flood alone—really over the last week and a half. But this comes on the back of the natural disaster of last year that still has not been dealt with.
Whilst I certainly welcome new national disaster declarations by the New South Wales Premier today, and I think there are three of them—and it is all bipartisan and very welcome when they are made—the long period of time that it takes for money to come on the back of those declarations, for assessments to be done and for communities to just get back to where they were rather than getting anything extra is way too long. Also, the actual amount of money does not now meet the actual bill that is coming in.
From June last year, one council in my area, Greater Taree City Council, put in an application for damage at 400 sites—a $19 million application—yet they only found out last week, when in another flood, that the money will not come through in full. At best, between $10 million and $15 million will come through in response to the application that was put in eight months ago. So not only is there a time lag problem, and not only are we now seeing a flood on a flood and so damage on damage, but we are also getting the message through that the application that went in last year will not be fully funded. Around 50 to 75 per cent will be met. That says the system is buggered. That says natural disaster is not reflective of what it should be. Through state, federal or whatever means possible, we should get full payments back to a community affected by natural disaster, which is through no fault of their own, no matter where that natural disaster occurs in Australia.
That is one example and I am sure there are many others, not only in New South Wales but also throughout the country, where there is frustration about time lag and frustration about the lack of money coming through. That is a public sector example of road damage, in particular, from one local council. The other example is from the private sector. Some of the classifications—such as category C funding for farmers who have stock loss or fence damage—have a cumbersome and frustrating process, even for those who are eligible. It is a process that needs some policy rethink and some renewal and reflection. Hopefully, it will be much more efficient in responding to need, much more timely in getting funding through and much more generous in the way that government communicates with farmers in the private sector when there are genuine applications for damage to property, whether they be for fences or stock loss.
Last year, in the Macleay Valley, we had a category C application rejected. Due to public outrage and pressure the government reviewed the decision and category C funding was then put in. That is not the way the process should work when we are talking about natural disasters and trying to get payments through to people. Farmers should not have to stand outside local members' offices and call for a change in the way an application is made. But that is exactly what happened last year, and I am concerned that we are about to see it again, now that we are getting pretty well the third flood in three years on the mid-North Coast.
I use those examples at a very local level to try to encourage a national debate about how we can get a better structure between the Commonwealth and the states in natural disaster payments and engagement with the community in both the public and private sectors. At the moment, the evidence points to a cumbersome, burdensome and failing system, even though it is very welcome when a natural disaster declaration is made.
I also make a broader point. It is the same one made on the back of the last floods and through the flood levy debate—one that I did not support. I hope that, on the back end of this and the expected bill to come, we do not have another debate about a one-off flood levy coming through this place again because this chamber has failed—again—to recognise that natural disasters are part of life in Australia. We should therefore plan appropriately within our existing tax base, our existing budgets, for natural disasters happening relatively frequently.
I know that around the edges of this place, in policy, there is debate about a sovereign wealth fund. There is an opportunity, and it is the call that I and others made last year. My colleague the member for New England has been making this call for a long time. We need to establish a broad pot of money that is a natural disaster fund so that whether it is fire or flood—or whatever form the natural disaster comes in—we as a country are ready. We must do the preparation work so that we are not scrambling around about how to pay for something. Sure as night follows day, as much as we do not like it, there will be natural disasters, relatively frequently, into the future.
I once again put that on the record for consideration and hopefully for some debate. It is something that happens in isolation in the Commonwealth. All of this needs to be very much in partnership with the states—not so much a legislative process, not so much a House of Representatives and Senate process, but more of a COAG type process, where the Commonwealth and the states put together a partnership agreement or equivalent. Then it starts to really deal in a substantial way with what will happen in the future: another natural disaster.
I plead with the minister at the table, the Minister for Emergency Management, as well as the government generally. Please assist in applying as much pressure as possible to make sure that, firstly, this flood gets dealt with as efficiently as possible and that the needs of the community, both public and private sectors, local councils and the road network—when the assessments are complete—get dealt with as quickly as possible and that as much financing comes through as is required on the ground.
Secondly, there is the cumulative issue. We need to look at the policy question of why natural disaster payments from the last flood are not being fully funded and start to provide pressure on the states, provide assistance to the states and provide whatever is needed for councils such as the Greater Taree City Council. They might be slightly outside some guidelines but the need is real. Four hundred sites were damaged eight months ago and this is a council still in need. It is not the only one in Australia in this situation. I am sure there are many members who have similar stories. I hope this is something that the government will take as seriously as possible.
Thank you for allowing this MPI and debate on this flood emergency that is still underway. I welcome a response from the minister at the table and all assistance in the coming weeks as we go from clean-up mode to assessment mode through to recovery mode in the coming months.
Mr McCLELLAND (Barton—Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Emergency Management) (16:07): The member for Lyne does indeed raise an important matter of public importance. I commend him for it. Natural disasters are part of our natural history. They are just that: they are natural. But they have significant impact on our economy—for instance, last year in Queensland the cost to the taxpayers of the Commonwealth was about $5.7 billion. But that cost obviously pales into insignificance when we consider that there have been 35 lives lost in floods in Queensland since November 2011.
These are very significant issues indeed. The member for Lyne is essentially talking about two events: one in late January affecting South-East Queensland and north-east New South Wales—I was able to visit there on 27 January and I headed down to the member's electorate in the days following that—and the other as a consequence of the monsoonal rains that we are seeing in south-west Queensland and north-west New South Wales. Again, with the members for Maranoa and Parkes, I visited their electorates with the Minister for Human Services on Tuesday. I should also indicate that I had support from the member for Moncrieff and the member for Richmond on the previous visits.
In terms of the relief, I will explain to members—I know the member for Lyne and other members participating in this debate will be aware of this; this is for the public record—that there are two streams of benefits that are available in the event of a natural disaster. Firstly, there are the joint Commonwealth and state arrangements—the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. In respect of those arrangements 20 local government areas in Queensland have been declared and 21 in New South Wales. An additional four were added today. Those entitlements are essentially community based and individual entitlements—for instance, for the immediate response in assisting the community in the refuge centres and for the longer recovery and repair operations. That was the substantial focus of the honourable member's presentation. There are also individual payments with respect to hardship by way of assistance for business and property owners and even for non-government organisations. Depending on the status declared by the state government, the Commonwealth essentially, after a threshold, shares the cost of those.
Secondly, there is a stream of payments in respect of Australian government disaster recovery payments. They are exclusively Commonwealth. They entitle individuals who have been badly affected to a payment of $1,000 and for children, $400. Essentially, the activation of those payments is based on the consideration and expert advice provided to me regarding numbers of people affected, the uniqueness of the event and the extent of the impact on the local community, including the percentage of the local community affected—for instance, in the town of St George effectively the whole town was evacuated; obviously, that town was significantly impacted—and also whether a state has declared 'category C' under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. Essentially, the philosophy behind these grants that were initiated by the former government was that the event was a very severe event and so impacted on the local community that it really required an injection of resources, not only to ease the suffering of individuals but to inject resources into that local community to sustain it.
I should say that there is some degree of overlap between the two systems, as you would anticipate, but the point I am making in listing these benefits is a subsequent point that I will make with respect to what I believe we need to constantly refocus on—that is, preventative measures.
I can accept the honourable member's points with respect to administration although I should place on the record that the working relationship I have had with the state ministers in this respect has been absolutely outstanding. Mike Gallacher in New South Wales and Neil Roberts in Queensland are both fine ministers and decent men. We have had ongoing and constant communication regarding these events.
I appreciate the input—I will take it on—that the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements are complicated. There is no doubt about that. You could study them for three years and obtain a degree and still not know how they applied in specific circumstances. I think that is a fair estimate that has been put to me. In particular there are complications with respect to such things as eligibility criteria. These events do not always fall precisely over one line, so judging where that line exists is often a difficulty. With respect to low-interest loans that are available to businesses and primary producers, we recognise that there are complications, particularly in circumstance where those affected will not have the resources to engage an accountant or a lawyer to prepare the necessary records.
All these points are valid points and we will take them on board. I do not have the figures for New South Wales; however, in terms of getting the country back in order, in the broad—there will obviously be issues of substance, as has been raised by the member for Lyne—in Queensland there were 9,170 kilometres of roads that were damaged and 8,482 kilometres have now been repaired. There is obviously still a substantial amount to repair but nonetheless that is quite a solid piece of work that has been done. In Queensland 4,748 kilometres of rail line were damaged. That is now fully functional. Eleven of Queensland's 20 ports were damaged. They are now fully operational. In terms of schools, 411 were affected; they are now fully open. And 89 bridges and culverts which were damaged have been restored.
I commend the Queensland government for that effort. Obviously, in terms of the Commonwealth government's assistance and oversight, we have been able to work with them on that. That is not to say that there will not be individual circumstances that require attention. In respect of that, part of the problem, I suppose, is that there are often several agencies involved. Again, for members of the public who are interested or concerned, perhaps the best starting point for information regarding the relevant agency that they should apply to, for either an individual payment or a business grant that they may be entitled to, is the Commonwealth government's website, which is www.disasterassist.gov.au.
The other aspect of the culture we have in Australia which is tremendously significant is that culture of volunteers. The member for Lyne, as I am sure will other members, commended the counter-disaster effort by the professionals and also the volunteers. Volunteers certainly are not amateur these days; they are highly professional in terms of their level of skill. Representatives of the state emergency services of New South Wales and Queensland came out of the woodwork from all locations around the states to help those areas that had been affected. It was the same with the rural fire services in their assistance. The non-government organisations are absolutely outstanding in the way they get in and assist the community, not only to staff the evacuation centres but also to doorknock and provide food to those people who are cleaning up, as are the local governments. I have been so impressed with the community leadership that is shown by the local governments and, indeed, the contribution of federal members. Our military has also been outstanding once again. A special mention has been made of the communication and assistance in keeping civil society on the road through the ABC.
Having discussed the benefits that are available, I should say that we need to ensure that that is not our primary focus. Obviously the media focus and the focus of this House is, understandably, on these events after the natural disasters occur, but we really need to refocus our emphasis on prevention. To return to the example I referred to, Queensland has suffered $5.7 billion in damage, but $840 million was paid out by way of those individual payments. They were in addition to the natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements, the personal hardship payments and the joint federal and state benefits that I have referred to. There was certainly a substantial effort put in and substantial resources involved in these past-event personal payments. Obviously they are justified—these are people who had been through a tremendous amount of hardship—but we historically have not spent anywhere near enough or focused our attention anywhere near enough on prevention, and that is where I think we should shift the culture. There is no doubt that mitigation does work. I went to Charleville, for instance, and stood on one side of the levee with my feet dry, looking over at little more than head level at literally miles of swiftly moving water. The levee had saved the town. Lismore is another example and there are numerous examples elsewhere. They think that in Cunnamulla the levee will save the town—we all hope and pray—from the floodwaters which will move there.
These mitigation measures do work. When flying over the town of Murwillumbah, I saw that the old construction technique of building properties on stilts works. The township was inundated, but certainly the contents and the building structures of the properties that had been elevated remained sound—old lessons that we can apply. There is much we can do. By way of further commendation, I commend the Financial Review for the editorial stance that they took today. They again acknowledged the loss that had been sustained but pointed out that we do need to focus on prevention. Again, planning decisions are vitally important and reference was made in the article to the fact that very expensive properties were built in Brisbane along the lovely riverfront, but if you look at the photos from the 1970s you see that the area was completely flooded out. A graphic photo was shown of a power station that had been flooded. Clearly, properties should not have been bought there.
I am not sure of the view of the member for Maranoa on this matter, but, looking at Roma, the people on these properties have gone through so much for three years in a row. It was not their fault, but clearly careful attention needs to be given as to where properties are constructed if they are going to go through that sort of trauma on an annual basis, or at least for three years in a row. We need to look at that sort of thing. We are looking at states such as Victoria buying back properties vulnerable to the fires. We are looking at Queensland. Again, I commend them in the area of Grantham, where they are buying back properties and allocating others. These are the sorts of things that we need to factor into our mitigation strategies. In the area of zoning, we need to identify risk factors, and we are in fact working with the states and territories to identify, mark and note areas according to their particular risk factors so that, in turn, we can have areas zoned according to their risk and building codes applied appropriate to that risk as designated. Some areas, of course, will be designated as quite inappropriate to build on. But, by going through this systematically and methodically, we will be able to make our country far more resilient.
There will, of course, be legacy issues with these properties that have repeatedly been flooded and, again, we need to systematically work through those with the state and local government areas so that we can take preventative measures. Whether it is a levee system or other preventative steps, we need to work through these issues and we need to plan for the future. So while it is entirely appropriate that we show empathy, as we do again today, for those who have suffered in natural disasters and we are all keen to provide that assistance post-event which is so necessary, I think we need to have a debate in this House and it is a debate I intend to have. A discussion I need to have with members, particularly those who have the local experiences to feed in, is what more we should be doing and how we refocus all that we can reasonably do to protect and prevent further damage and loss of life into the future.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa—Second Deputy Speaker) (16:21): I thank the House and I thank the member for Lyne for putting forward this MPI for debate today. I also thank the House for the bipartisan support that this motion has received, noting that all those in the chamber rose when called on to support this motion.
What we are dealing with in the constituency that I represent—and Roma is my hometown—is unprecedented, in that we have had three floods in three years, devastating the town of Roma and of course downstream with further impacts in St George and Dirranbandi. It has been felt across the electorate, but I think probably the most impacted town of all—and that is not just because I live there—has been my hometown of Roma. There have been three floods there in a row.
We talk about flood mitigation, levee banks and all the known records that we have. The floods in Mitchell, for instance, went well above anything that has ever been recorded in European settlement times, and it was the same in Roma. I will give you an example in Mitchell, where some 280 homes were damaged and where 80 to 90 per cent of the people were not evacuated out of the town. There was not time and there were not the resources. Everything was cut off. It happened so quickly. They were moved to higher ground, to the sports centre.
The flood depth gauge there goes to nine metres. That is well above anything in recorded history—seven, eight and 8.5 metres. Within four to five hours of the alert going out the floodwaters were a metre over that depth gauge. It goes to nine metres, and that disappeared. It gives you some idea of the ferocity and the nature and the way that this happened. It happened so rapidly. All the warnings that we might have had and the alerts that went out just did not give us time to do much more. Luckily in Mitchell there was no loss of life, but there was certainly a lot of damage to property—and I want to deal with some of the issues to do with that.
Notwithstanding the best intentions of government, state and federal, there will still be people who fall through the cracks. We have to make sure that those people are not left behind. There are people who cannot get insurance because last year or the year before their home was flooded. What insurance company is going to take them on—there are perhaps some—knowing that this was flooded last year or the year before? I spoke to a number of people in my hometown of Roma, where 360 homes were flood damaged. Just before Christmas a lady I spoke to had just had the kitchen cupboards put back in—she had done it twice and was looking forward to having Christmas at home with this new furniture. It is a very humble house but it is her piece of Australia. Last Friday, by midday, all of that was ruined again and was under water.
So I say to the House in the context of what we are debating here that these are not known circumstances in terms of the floods that we are dealing with and, notwithstanding the best intentions of government, we have to make sure that there are not people left behind. I know that there has been a fund established in Queensland by the Premier. We need to make sure that there are funds that are available, and I hope it is cash that is available, because that is the most important commodity at these times—to be able to use cash to purchase what is needed locally. Those who do not have flood insurance, notwithstanding all of the NDRRA packages, will not get anything more than $1,000 per person. They cannot get the small business assistance or the farmer assistance of $5,000 plus, up to $25,000. They are going to rely on charities and the goodwill of the people, as we have seen happen in the last two years. We have to move quickly. We really need a fund locally in some of these communities to help the charitable organisations, the Ministers Fraternal and others, and ensure that the people who fall into that category are helped.
I would also say that it was not just the towns that were affected; the outlying areas were also affected—the properties, the loss of crops and the loss of stock. In fact, I have a report from people on the Maranoa River. They said all they could see at one stage were dogs and cattle being washed downstream, helplessly trying to survive in the water. At that stage, those people were actually on the roof of the house. The water had never been anywhere near their house before—such was the nature of this natural disaster.
Shires have been declared—Balonne, Barcaldine, Barcoo, Blackall-Tambo, Longreach, Maranoa regional, Murweh, Paroo, Quilpie and Winton. All those shires in the electorate of Maranoa were affected to various degrees—from the extreme example I have just outlined to parts of the towns and parts of those shires. There are also a number of towns and communities that are not in the national media spotlight—for example, Surat, Augathella, Eulo, Tambo and Blackall. They rate a very small mention sometimes, and the focus is on where perhaps the larger populations are. I have not forgotten about them, and I know the package that has been just announced will pick up those people. But there will still be people who will fall through the cracks, and we have to make sure that we do not leave people behind.
My hometown of Roma has been hit three years in a row. There are small businesses and people who have been there all their lives wondering whether it is time to go. They are on an emotional tight wire at the moment in many of these communities. I thank you, Minister McClelland and also Minister O'Connor for visiting us—and I thank you for the lift back to Canberra. You saw the work of the Salvation Army and how they spoke with passion about what they are doing—the 1,000 meals they had served that day—and how they feel about it. You saw that very openly displayed at the recovery centre where they were cooking those meals.
I will quickly relate my experience. I was at home that night. We live on a hill, so we were fine. If it got to our hill, we would need the Ark. It was about 3.30 in the morning and I had been up half the night reading and I said, 'This is going to be bad.' I went into town at about half past six in the morning and looked around. By that stage the alert had gone out. That underpins the importance of communications, the ability of towns to alert people and the importance of connections—either fixed-wire or mobile connections—for all of these towns in these situations. At that stage the volunteers, the SES and the emergency management people were out in force and so too were the resource companies—Halliburton, Santos and Origin. Even two days ago, as you found when we were there, Minister, Origin were sending out 40 people, 'the mud army', to Mitchell to help with the clean-up and Santos were sending out 60-odd people. They have been absolutely brilliant, along with all the volunteers—state emergency services and others.
Most of the people in my home town of Roma who had started the process of protecting their premises and their homes had to get out because the flood rose faster and higher, as you saw. Tragically, we lost a life. Jane Sheahan was out helping others. She was up early in the morning when the alert went out for people to go to the SES to get sandbags. Jane put them in the back of the Toyota Land Cruiser and was bringing them back along the shortest route, straight back down to where houses needed protecting, but the water had risen and she went straight into it. The people who rescued her son said it was tragic, and they will have to live with that. We will all live with it in the community. She said: 'Please save my boy. Please save my boy.'
There is a lot I could talk about. The Warrego Highway is a problem at the Mitchell Bridge. We are going to have to bring forward very rapidly construction of the new bridge, which has already been approved. We need to make sure we have funding, I believe in this budget, for flood mitigation, including levies. I think the town of Roma have $7 million to do theirs. They have nearly completed the study on it and Mitchell is similar. And funding for the Mitchell Bridge needs to be brought forward.
Last year the trucking industry had 68 days on which they could not operate because of floods. The previous year they had 70 days on which they could not operate. They do not know how long it will be this year, because of load limits on those roads. The banks have to play their part. They are charging 15 per cent penalty rate for nonpayment of payments which are due. I thank you for your indulgence. I thank the minister and I thank the House. (Time expired)
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (16:32): I thank the member for Lyne for bringing this matter of public importance to the attention of the House. I support everything said here today on the scope of work that needs to be done to assist people in natural disasters. I also want to thank the Prime Minister for her many visits to my electorate in particular and also to Queensland, where she has made a number of visits to flooded regions. I also thank the Treasurer for his visits, most recently when we dedicated the Pillar of Courage at Goodna, a symbol of strength in the local region and in the middle of my electorate, which was heavily hit, as were so many other places. I will not go into the detail of that—I have spoken about it many times. That symbol at Goodna, the pillar, is a flood marker. What really shocked me about the pillar was that it is at the lower end of the scale of floods compared to previous floods. Hopefully we will not see such floods again. There is no question that natural disasters are a very familiar aspect of life in all parts of Australia. It seems natural disasters occur every year in some part of the country, whether they are flood, fire, drought or some extreme condition.
In recent years Queensland and New South Wales have been hit particularly hard, very much so in the summer—my electorate of Oxley, through the western corridor, the electorates of Blair, Morton, Brisbane, Wright and Maranoa. We have just heard the member for Maranoa speak about the devastating impact of three floods through his home town. We have also seen bushfires in Western Australia and in 2009 the most devastating Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria.
The current situation in Queensland is that St George has 46 properties flood affected and approximately 25 per cent of the entire town is without sewage services. The majority of evacuees from St George are staying in Dalby or at the RNA Showgrounds in Brisbane. It is a massive disruption to their lives—for many it will be for the rest of their lives. In Charleville the Warrego River is beginning to fall, thankfully, and Charleville Hospital reopened at 5 pm yesterday. So there is some good news among the disaster.
In Dirranbandi the Balonne River is still rising. The town is expected to be isolated for at least two weeks. When you consider the impact of that, being isolated from your home, your town and all your possessions—what is left of them—it is a long time. In Mitchell 23 properties have been assessed as being severely damaged, 88 are moderately damaged and 177 have other damage. There are 90 homes which remain without power.
In Roma 26 properties have been assessed as being severely damaged, 277 are moderately damaged and another 200 are suffering as well. The scale of the damage is enormous. For some it is not just their property; as we heard just a moment ago from the member for Maranoa, for some it is also their life. As we would all expect here, nobody will leave people in these regions on their own—it is just not the Australian way. We heard that often when talking to people around the community when we were assisting through the floods. There were a lot of people from different backgrounds and different countries who have settled in Australia who were out helping their fellow Australians and saying that the strange thing for them was that in their country that would not have happened but here it did. That extends right through from ordinary people to elected representatives and local government.
Government assistance is significant and should never be undervalued or underplayed. It will never be enough. You can never quite replace everything someone has lost nor can you rebuild everything. The Queensland state government in particular has worked exceptionally hard, as has the federal government, to ensure people are best restored to a decent position. Not everyone is lucky enough to say they are no longer affected in some way. We know that is just not the case. Those who are very unfortunate are affected a second or third time. It is quite a disaster.
The Australian government and the Queensland government immediately stepped in and helped Queenslanders in a range of ways, particularly the Australian government with the very quick and timely $1,000 for adults and $400 for children just to get people immediately back on their feet, whether it is to help restock the fridge with food, buy some clothes or get petrol for the car, if they saved the car, and so forth. The clean-up and recovery work is enormous and without the volunteer efforts of so many people it would just be impossible—we cannot contemplate how we could ever pay for all the work done. We can attach some value to the money that is put through from government—$150 million was given to more than 13,700 small businesses and primary producers through special grants. They were acted on as quickly as possible. I do take note of some of the concerns of the member for Lyne, and I am sure others, that it is never quite fast enough and we need to work faster. No-one is going to argue against that. I think we just have to find better ways of dealing with these methods of payment so we can acknowledge people's pain and suffering and try to restore their circumstances as quickly as possible.
The government also recognised that rebuilding would take some time, and we are committed to that rebuilding. The government advanced some $2.2 billion as part of a $5.6 billion reconstruction commitment to see work get underway on essential infrastructure like roads and bridges. We heard earlier from the Minister for Emergency Management that there are something like 9,700 kilometres of severely damaged roads in Queensland, let alone through New South Wales. You can imagine the problem where farming communities rely on one road only and they can no longer get in or out. It is not only a social impost but an impost on their businesses and livelihoods as well. That is quite significant.
The Queensland Natural Disaster Jobs and Skills Package is also there to help a whole range of workers who are affected as well. A lot of businesses have been lost. The owner of the business loses the business but all the workers lose their jobs as well. We have seen a lot of that through Queensland and New South Wales. Queenslanders have received some form of personal assistance in those circumstances. A range of other assistance packages have been put in place. The government continues to provide immediate assistance to people affected by these most recent floods and continues to work with the states and local government authorities to manage assistance through the NDRRA. We have heard about local government areas such as the Balonne, Barcaldine, Barcoo, Blackall-Tambo, Bourke, Carpentaria, Central Highlands, Cloncurry, Doomadgee, Flinders, Isaac, Longreach, McKinlay, Maranoa, Mount Isa, Murweh, Paroo, Quilpie, Richmond and Winton. Unfortunately most of those places are in the electorate of Maranoa—it is a real tragedy that one member has to try to deal with all those. A range of grants have gone out in those areas, and the New South Wales government is doing similar things.
Currently more funding is going out in direct assistance, and we should take note of the enormous amount of goodwill that exists between local government and the state and federal governments to work these processes through. It is never easy. It is a lot of money and we want to make sure it does get to the right people at the right time and does not just get lost in the system with bureaucracy taking over. You might be putting a lot of money into the system but people are not getting the immediate benefit. A lot of work is being done to make sure it is done right, and sometimes that does cause delays. We always regret that. I know we all work hard individually and collectively to make sure the assistance gets through as soon as possible.
For some good reasons I remain a supporter of the one-off levy, and particularly of what we did last time. I accept what the member for Lyne said, that there should be some sort of a fund, but I think having a specific levy where there is specific hardship is a good way to go. It is a good way to deal with a particular issue. Otherwise the funding comes from consolidated revenue—where it comes from anyway. All the money that goes out to flood affected communities or fire affected communities comes from consolidated revenue—that is the fund, in a sense. There is the moral hazard, the potential danger, that if a specific fund is set up that will have some consequences as well in terms of private insurance, business insurance and how individuals in our very generous communities respond. I am more than willing to have the debate. I think it is a worthwhile method to look at but we also need to be cautious on the other side of that so that we get it right. I congratulate the government, the minister and the Prime Minister and thank the member for Lyne for bringing these issues forward.
Mr WINDSOR (New England) (16:42): I join with other members in thanking the member for Lyne for bringing the matter of disaster relief before the House. As the member for Maranoa said, it is good to see a bipartisan approach being taken to a particular issue. The member for Oxley discussed the concept of a sovereign fund or a natural disaster fund. I have been an advocate of that for probably 15 years—a long time before I came to this place. The member for Oxley made the point that government revenue is always there to fund this sort of assistance as the need comes along. I beg to differ with that because there have been, historically, different responses to similar circumstances depending on the economic or financial cycle of the government of the day and the politics of the electorate at the time. A whole range of variations affect responses to very similar incidents.
Over the years, through exceptional circumstances arrangements and various other arrangements that the Minister for Emergency Management spoke about earlier, we have attempted to get to some degree a level playing field. Nonetheless, there have been different responses at different times depending on economic and other circumstances, not the least of which are political circumstances. That creates an expectation that if you got it I should get it when I have a natural disaster. Like the member for Lyne, I did not support the Queensland flood levy. It is not that I do not support Queensland people getting some assistance—obviously I do. The question was why we needed a levy in that particular circumstance when it could have been taken out of consolidated revenue. Obviously, there were issues of a government heading towards a surplus and all sorts of other things that would have been exacerbated, such as the deficit et cetera. I think the member for Oxley actually proves the case that there are variations in responses that we get.
I believe that we should look seriously, and I am encouraged that some people would like to have this debate, at the concept of a national natural disaster fund of some sort that would have guidelines that would remove the complications that occur from time to time. On a number of occasions prior to the Queensland floods last year—quite an incredible event; there is no doubt about that and, obviously, parts of New South Wales and Victoria suffered under similar circumstances—I did some research into the cost to communities of natural disasters, although I am not saying the cost of the total road network and all of the infrastructure. These are communities that have been covered by insurance. I think it was the case that prior to Cyclone Larry in Queensland there had been one event that had a cost of over a billion dollars a year. That had been one such event in the previous 20 years. I can be corrected on this but some time back I had reason to engage with the Insurance Council of Australia to try to help get some numbers around that. If you look at it, you see that in most years disasters in Australia probably cost Australia somewhere between $200 million and $400 million a year. Obviously, other events since the floods last year or even taking last year's floods make that look like small cheese.
The point that I have made on a number of occasions when this debate has come up is that a dollar a week from all Australians raises a billion dollars in a year. I would have thought that in some sense or other, if a billion dollars is the number, even if that were the average disaster cost there would be a case—particularly given what has gone on in Queensland with the flood insurance arrangements as to whether the water was coming up or was coming down, which has ramifications for whether you are covered by insurance even though you thought you were—to have a serious look at some sort of national insurance scheme—and socialism comes out of the woodwork here!—that looks after these particular circumstances. If a dollar a week from every Australian raises a billion dollars in a year and if the average cost of disasters in the last 20 years has been $300 million or $400 million—30c or 40c a week—even if you double or treble that, it is fairly cheap insurance for those who are impacted by disasters. Within those numbers that I have just quoted was the Sydney hailstorm—absolute devastation—or the Wollongong mudslide. I was nowhere near Wollongong but I remember going in to bat for those people some years ago in the New South Wales parliament because a disaster had occurred, a mudslide that took away their homes, and the normal arrangements had not worked or had not applied. Take the Coffs Harbour catastrophe that occurred some years ago. All of those are brought into those numbers.
I urge the minister, if he has a spare staffer or two, to actually do a bit of research into this. While I can be corrected in terms of the numbers, I think the principle holds given that as a nation we do have natural disasters from time to time, whether they be fires in Victoria, Canberra or wherever, whereby people are impacted. Even though those people might have done the right thing in trying to protect their premises with levy banks and insurance taken out, all those sorts of things, and even though the goodwill of everybody would have been to try to address those particular issues, the magnitude of major disasters—not normal droughts or normal floods; we farm on a floodplain and we bought land on a floodplain because it floods; the floodplain is there because it floods—means that in those certain disastrous circumstances people do get severe abnormal exceptional impacts occurring to them. So I would encourage people to have a close look at that concept so that in the future we do not have to go through what we went through last year in terms of a special 'one-off maybe' levy for the people of Queensland, and the politics. The funds would always be there, triggered by certain criteria that could be developed as to fires, floods and exceptional climatic events.
Is climate change happening? I think we probably are moving into an area of extreme climatic events. We can get into arguments about whether it is getting hotter or colder, but I think one of the dangers that we really do need to look at is the extremity of these events: long dry spells and extraordinary rainfall events that we have not seen before. We cannot say that is all because of climate change, but I think the assessment of risk comes into this, and history may well prove that we may well have been able to do something about these extraordinary cyclonic and other activities, such as the drying out of the understorey and the major bushfires and other catastrophes, that are occurring.
My electorate has been impacted but I have taken most of my time talking about the member for Oxley's, given that diversionary tactic that he uses with great effect! My electorate has been impacted by floods in recent times as well. In particular, Gunnedah, a great community, has been, and the mayor sent me a photo of the racecourse only about half an hour ago. As many members have said, the emergency services' responses are always exceptional. I am not one of those members who wander around when they are working—I know some do but I do not agree with that—but I do pay great regard to the work that those people put in. I pay regard to the work that ABC Radio and the emergency response people do. Once again, in terms of budgets we should remember that in these cases we need community access to local information, and there is no doubt in my mind that ABC Radio has done that extraordinarily well in all our areas in the last few months. (Time expired)
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (16:52): I too would like to thank the honourable member for Lyne for raising this matter of public importance and so giving us the opportunity to speak on it, particularly about floods, flood damage and associated issues and to talk in a bipartisan way about some of the ways we can approach these issues. I heard the Minister for Emergency Management talk about some of the issues that he and I have discussed at various times and particularly when he has visited my electorate when it has had floods. I thank you for that, Minister. We have talked before and I have invited you to come up again.
I have five local government areas in the seat of Page and four of them have been identified by a state declaration as requiring assistance, then the NDRAA can kick in. Those areas are Kyogle, Richmond Valley, Lismore and Clarence Valley. It is always hard when we talk about floods to say some are worse than others but they clearly are. That is what happens with floods. The Clarence Valley really copped its fair share—a bit of a hiding—and very sadly one of the local residents from Coots Crossing, where Mayor Richie Williamson lives, died on 31 January. He was Robert, or Bob, Fox.
I am quite experienced in responding to floods. On Australia Day, unusually I did not attend any event because I was flooded in and could not go out. I spent Australia Day at home, which was most unusual. I am used to preparing for floods and doing all those things but I spent a few hours hurriedly trying to move things because the waters came up quite quickly. But people can get caught. Even with the best care and the best knowledge, it can happen. We always say, 'Be safe, do this, do that,' but people can get caught. I have been in the situation where I take extreme care, but at different times I have found myself in a situation in floods when it has not been as safe as it should be. When we had the catastrophic floods across Australia the year before, particularly in Queensland, there were seven floods in my area in a few weeks. I cannot quite remember but I think there were four major, two moderate and one minor flood within a period of a couple of weeks. They were going up and down, up and down.
That brings me to the issue that has been raised here today—that is, the impact. We have a flood on a flood on a flood going through my area. What that has done to the roads, the infrastructure, the cane farmers, the prawns and fishing is just a bit hard to bear. The other issue I would like to bring up is what the honourable member for New England was talking about—a dedicated, hypothecated fund for natural disasters. We have seen increasing extreme weather events. We also know that is increasing because of climate change. I favour having that sort of fund. It makes sense. I have been sitting here talking to the honourable member for Fremantle—I do not think she will mind my saying this—so I can enjoin her into it for saying, 'Yes, that made sense,' as we were listening to the honourable member speak. I have heard him talk before on that subject. When you live in areas where it does flood all the time you are very focused on these issues when you have to respond and deal with them.
The other issue that I have raised over a number of years is the eligibility of farmers to get low-interest loans. A lot of this is a state and federal responsibility and, as the Minister for Emergency Management said, trying to understand all the intricacies of it means you could almost get a degree in it and still not understand. When you derive over 50 per cent of your income from the farm, which most of the farmers in my area do, then you are not eligible. The minister knows this because we have had this conversation. The minister has been with me and various farmers at Greenridge Hall when we talked about that issue. It is administered by the Rural Assistance Authority and I have raised it with them, but it is one of those issues that should be on a ministerial council's agenda, or whatever it is when you call all the ministers together. In my area the eligibility requirement excludes a lot of people who really do need it. A lot of them are not rich farmers; they need to have income off-farm. This is one of the issues that I would ask to be taken up at both levels.
There is also the issue of flood insurance. I do not know if this is still with Minister Shorten, now the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, but he did a lot of good work in that area to get some commonalities into the definition of what is a flood and all of those issues. I told the local media that I feared that premiums would be so high that they would end up being out of reach for the people who needed it. Because I live in a flood area I know premiums are going up by a few thousand dollars in some areas and this is going to be difficult for people to grapple with. There is also a parliamentary committee that is looking at that issue as well, so I hope we can get some sense out of that. I cannot talk about the floods without talking about the volunteers, as all honourable members have—all of our local people who muck in and help when we have floods. I put on record my appreciation of all of those people who do the things that need to be done and also of the SES, the RFS, the charitable organisations such as the Red Cross and also the military. The Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service goes over my place. I always hear it and I can tell which helicopter it is. I can identify it by sound. I heard the Black Hawks arrive this time. They have a particular sound. They were based in Lismore so they could go out across the region. I think the minister would have seen when he went to Tweed Heads as well that they were flying around the region and helping. It was really good to have the military there.
Also, the media and the ABC were mentioned. They do a wonderful job in these times, and also commercial radio does as well. I would like to note that. The ABC comes to the fore but our commercial local radios do too. They provide a really good community service to the locals.
I had an email the other day from a friend of mine, Reverend Bob Rutherford. He has a chaplaincy with emergency services. He was going to be deployed to Queensland in about a month or so, but they asked him to deploy a lot sooner because of what is happening in Queensland. He has been talking to the locals and he says some of them are quite shell-shocked and stunned because of what happened last year and the events before it and the major events that are happening now. He said that one of the best things we can do at government level is support the locals in their needs and what they want, so community led recovery but with us being there holding out a helping hand and making sure that people do not get left behind. He was going to Roma and places in your area, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. He will be a valuable resource in the community.
In closing, I want to say that we do a lot of good things. We as a community respond well in times of crisis and as governments we do the best we can as well. Every time we have a flood or a major event it is an opportunity to learn lessons. I know that happens with Emergency Management Australia and the states do that. I would just ask the minister to look at the issue of eligibility.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (17:02): I rise to speak on this matter of public importance, brought to the House by the member for Lyne. I would like to note that it is somewhat comforting as a member in this place that sometimes thrives on adversity that at times like this we all tend to pull together. I acknowledge the minister for his visit to my electorate on Monday and the prompt action that came from that visit. I also see the former parliamentary secretary for agriculture—I am not quite sure what he is these days!—and acknowledge that he came and studied the losses we had in the Dubbo area last year.
This is a big flood in northern New South Wales. The benchmark floods in Moree in my lifetime have been those of 1974 and 1976. These floods exceeded those and were comparable to the flood of 1955. A lot of the focus has been on the larger centres and the river systems—the Namoi River and the towns of Boggabri, Narrabri, Wee Waa and, on the Gwydir, principally around Moree. But some of the more tragic stories that I am getting through my office now are about battles we are having coming from unknown streams and cross-country flows mainly between Moree and Narrabri, now focusing on the Rowena community. There have been large losses of stock and grain. I understand machinery has gone underwater. They are battling that at the moment. Quite a few of the levees around the homesteads there—I am not sure of the numbers—have not been sufficient. We are seeing inundation of homesteads and the farm infrastructure around that, which is a massive financial loss.
This flood event is affecting my different constituents in different ways in Moree, Yarraman and smaller villages down the river. There has been a wonderful response from the SES, the Rural Fire Service and local volunteers, and the local community have been helping each other out. It has been quite heartwarming to see that level of support and how people are helping each other out. I was in Moree on Monday as the water was receding and everyone was just rolling up their sleeves and cleaning up the mess and getting rid of the mud as the water went down. It was surprising how quickly they did that.
The announcement of a category C from the Australian government disaster relief fund was greatly welcomed by many of those people. I am just disappointed that some people have tended to see this as an opportunity to make a bit of easy money. There have been reports of people phoning Centrelink and misrepresenting the severity they have experienced personally because of the availability of the $1,000 payment. I would discourage people from doing that. I understand that the government is trying to retrieve funds from people who received funds illegitimately in the Brisbane floods last year, and I understand that that will be the case in these floods. This assistance is designed to help people who really need it and, believe you me, there are plenty of people who really need assistance. For people who are thinking about rorting the system, I would caution against that because ultimately it will catch up with you. Also, I welcome the $15,000 grants that were announced today for small business for flood damage. That will be appreciated, but it is a drop in the ocean compared with what is going to be required. I have heard a report of one farmer who has had over $1 million in damage to his irrigation infrastructure. That is one farm alone. I have heard of a drover who has not had a job since the end of October. He cannot get out onto the route because it is impassable because of the water and stock are not moving. Someone like that is experiencing real financial hardship. This grant does not cover loss of income so there will still be a lot of hardship. I was speaking to a small business man who has an irrigation company and he said he has not worked since the beginning of November. He employs six people. He has been paying those six people so he does not lose them because qualified staff are such a valuable commodity. But his debts are adding up because this has been going on for some time. So there is going to be a need to ensure that we do not lose people through financial hardship as this goes on.
I also want to speak about the impact on public infrastructure and the cost to local government. On the black soil plains of the Gwydir, Moree and Narrabri shires, the great irony is that the most highly productive land generally has the worst roads. The most highly productive land is on the black soil, which is notoriously difficult and expensive to build roads on. There is generally a shortage of suitable gravel and road-building materials, and they are very susceptible to deterioration in wet weather.
Councils across my electorate have losses in the tens of millions of dollars. The obvious one in the Gwydir shire is the Gwydir River bridge at Gravesend, which I think will take months to repair. A lot of causeways have been washed away. A lot of gravel has been washed off roads. At Christmas-time after the first flood went through, I was in discussion with the state Minister for Roads and Ports, the Hon. Duncan Gay, and the Mayor of Moree Plains Shire Council, Katrina Humphries, and we felt that rather than flood payments to councils after disasters to repair infrastructure to pre-flood levels there is a good argument to be made to engineer the repairs so that they will cover the next flood. We are now seeing roads that have been repaired being washed away with the next flood. It would better value for the Australian taxpayer to put more money in now to repair them and not have to come back and do it again after the next flood.
The other issue is the difficulty that producers are having getting their produce off their farms. We had a fairly large harvest, though some of it was downgraded due to the November rain. At the moment, we have huge tonnages of grain on farm. Many of these farmers have contractual agreements with flour millers, feedlots and users on the coast to deliver this grain in a timely manner, and it cannot be shifted because the road is impassable. They are in a real financial bind. Some of them are having trouble with contracts. Some of them have payments to make to finance companies. They were expecting to have money come in and they cannot ship the grain. That is causing real hardship.
In closing, I will give a plug for the work that is being done by the Australian Rural Roads Group, who are identifying the importance of the first few miles for a product. Every item on supermarket shelves starts its life on a country road. If it cannot do the first 10 kilometres, it cannot do the last 100 or 1,000 kilometres. In this country, we need to seriously look at bringing these roads up to a condition that will handle a flood situation like this.
I have welcomed the opportunity to talk about the severity of the floods in the Parkes electorate. I would like to close by acknowledging the great work being done by my communities and by the volunteers who have come from all over New South Wales to help. I want to let those people know that this parliament is still thinking about them and to acknowledge that their hardship will be going on for some time yet.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (17:12): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance today. Since the commencement of this year, we have once again seen Mother Nature challenge communities across the eastern states, with northern New South Wales and southern Queensland bearing the brunt of mountains of rain and, as a result, flooding. Whilst a lot of media attention has been focused on the devastating floods in north-west New South Wales and south-west Queensland, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the mid-North Coast and far North Coast have also experienced significant floods in recent weeks. I understand that Taree and Port Macquarie are currently experiencing heavy rainfall as this debate is going on.
All five local government areas in the electorate of Cowper have been affected: Clarence Valley, Coffs Harbour, Bellingen, Nambucca and Kempsey shires have all experienced flooding to various degrees. Since the beginning of the year, the Bureau of Meteorology has recorded the following rainfall in my electorate since 1 January: Bellbrook, 570 millimetres; Coffs Harbour, 389; Dorrigo, almost a metre, at 988 millimetres; Kempsey, 370; Nambucca Heads, 415; and Grafton, 356 millimetres.
Across the region, there has been substantial damage to roads, bridges and farms, and many families have been isolated and some houses flooded. In the Bellingen shire, we have seen the Waterfall Way between Bellingen and Dorrigo close as a result of landslips. More than 500 residents were isolated along Darkwood Road with food drops necessary to provide families with basic necessities. In Nambucca, we have seen the shire council lodge an initial claim for $500,000 just so that the clean-up can continue and transport routes can be reopened. Some of the bridges which have been damaged or closed in the Nambucca Valley include Thumb Creek bridge, Burrapine bridge and Laverty's bridge, which are all on the Taylors Arm Road. But there are many others, including Factory bridge on Greenhills Road, Grays Crossing bridge and Boat Harbour bridge. In the Coffs Harbour City Council area, residents in low-lying areas of the Orara Valley, including Karangi, Nana Glen and Glenreagh, were affected. I have been contacted by a number of people from the Orara Valley who are seeking additional government assistance, and residents at Corindi experienced flooding on their properties after what they called a 'mini tsunami'. As 68-year-old Brian Taylor told the local paper, the Coffs Coast Advocate, 'This was certainly the biggest one I've seen here and I've lived in the area all my life.'
Sadly, in the Clarence Valley Council area we saw a Coutts Crossing man, Robert Fox, tragically drown after his car broke down in a gully. It is reported that he was swept under a roadside culvert. Although the circumstances of this tragedy are still being investigated, it is believed the flooding was a contributing factor.
In Kempsey the State Emergency Service had the communities of Gladstone, Smithtown, Kinchela and Belmore on stand-by for flooding after more than 350 millimetres of rain.
Natural disaster declarations have been made by the New South Wales government in all five local government areas in the Cowper electorate. This has meant assistance is available through the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, or NDRRA. These arrangements provide a range of assistance, including grants to councils to repair infrastructure and restore services; personal hardship and distress assistance; concessional interest rate loans for small businesses and primary producers; transport freight subsidies for primary producers; restoration or replacement of essential public assets; and loans and grants to churches, voluntary non-profit organisations and sporting clubs.
Whilst this assistance is welcome, there are certainly residents in my electorate who would benefit from Australian government disaster recovery payments of $1,000 per adult and $400 per child. There are also many primary producers in the Cowper electorate who have suffered substantial damage to their properties and would benefit from the grants to primary producers of up to $15,000 which have been extended in previous floods and have been offered to those currently affected in north-west New South Wales.
As I said previously, my office has been contacted by a number of people seeking additional assistance. Many of these people are from the Orara Valley, west of Coffs Harbour, but certainly those impacted are not limited to this area. I would like to draw to the House's attention to one of the emails I have received so that members understand how these recent floods have impacted on some people in the Cowper electorate. This is how one constituent described what he had experienced:
I am contacting you on behalf of myself and other families who reside in the Karangi district who were adversely affected by the recent flood disaster. The seven families in this immediate area were isolated for 10 days and were not able to attend work, complete other activities etc and the children were unable to attend school.
The isolation began on Monday 23rd January and we were only able to safely cross the Orara River on Friday morning 3rd February 2012.
On Saturday 4th February I visited another area further up stream and I was informed that approximately 15 other families were also adversely affected by the flood event. The families that reside along Watkins Rd in Karangi were isolated for 4 days. It is also my belief that there were families that reside in the north Coramba / Bucca area that were isolated for an extended period of time.
We find it rather difficult to believe the 30 or so families adversely affected by the Coffs Harbour January 2012 flood crisis are not being provided access to the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment.
I think you will agree that the families of this area meet the criteria for the Disaster Recovery Payment and therefore should be allowed access to this service.
In recent days I have been making enquiries with Centrelink. I was astounded to discover that the Coffs Harbour flood that affected so many people was not categorised as being a level 'C' disaster event.
The families in this immediate area are affected by flooding many times a year, however it is not normal to be isolated for a 10 day period.
In 2009/10 the Coffs Harbour region was declared a level 'C' disaster area and people who were adversely affected were provided disaster payments from Federal funds. The people of this area were provided Federal Diaster payments in 2009/10 due to being isolated for approximately 4 days and suffering property damage.
The recent 2012 flood was as extreme as the flood of 2009/10 however particular families have been dramatically disadvantaged to date as they have not been provided financial assistance via the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Program.
The people of this area's affected need the State and Federal Government to provide an exception regarding our ability to access the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment.
That is how one of my constituents explained the impact of these recent floods. So, while most urban areas in my electorate escaped substantial damage, the reality is that many residents in rural areas have been affected. I should note that many primary producers have suffered extensive damage to fences and roads on their property.
Since being contacted by these constituents, I have taken the opportunity to write to the Minister for Emergency Management, communicating how these constituents have been affected. I have asked the minister to consider extending the Australian government disaster recovery payments to those affected by the floods on the mid-North Coast and the far North Coast. I have also raised the issue of the $15,000 payments which have been offered to primary producers and small businesses in the north-west of New South Wales but have yet to be extended to coastal areas.
I would like to take the opportunity, on this matter of public importance, to register my personal thanks and the gratitude of all Australians to the SES volunteers and emergency service personnel who have provided such terrific support during these flood events. As a nation, we cannot place a price on the true value of the services provided by our emergency services workers.
In conclusion, I believe it is incumbent on all levels of government to ensure that flood relief payments are not delayed unnecessarily and that individuals and communities are supported as they recover from these flood events.The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott): Order! The discussion has concluded.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Defence Security Authority Vetting
Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House) (17:20): by leave—On 16 May 2011, three contractors formerly employed at the Defence Security Authority's vetting centre in Brisbane made allegations on the ABC Lateline program concerning inappropriate security vetting practices. The vetting centre is part of the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency, which has provided security vetting for the majority of Commonwealth agencies since 2010. The former contractors alleged that while working at the vetting centre they were encouraged to insert false information into security clearance applications to enable those applications to be successfully uploaded for further security checking by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).
The government has taken this matter very seriously since the allegations were brought to its attention on 16 May 2011. On 17 May 2011, I asked the Inspector-General of Defence to undertake an initial assessment to determine whether the matter should be referred for external review. Based on this initial assessment, on 27 May 2011, I recommended to the Prime Minister that she refer the allegations to the independent Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security for thorough investigation. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security commenced her investigation in June 2011.
On 21 September 2011, I issued a statement outlining the findings of a review undertaken by the Department of Defence's chief security officer into the management practices used in the vetting centre. The chief security officer's review was undertaken in response to requests from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security for information to support her inquiry. The chief security officer's review found:
inappropriate work practices were in place at the vetting centre. This related to the use of 'workarounds' to manage difficulties uploading data onto a new electronic link between Defence and ASIO. These 'workarounds' involved vetting staff entering into electronic vetting forms phrases or words to identify unclear or missing information when a security clearance applicant had not provided all of the required information;
documentation and management arrangements in place at the centre were inadequate and did not effectively record the 'workarounds'; and
almost none of the 'workarounds' had been discussed between Defence and ASIO.
The chief security officer's findings raised serious concerns around the management of security vetting within the Defence Security Authority. I made these concerns public at the time.
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security finalised her report late in December 2011 and I am taking my first available opportunity to table it in the House today. Evidence provided to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security's inquiry confirmed that the substance of the allegations by the former contractors was true: incorrect data had been inserted into the vetting process. Difficulties in uploading data led to the use by vetting staff of workarounds to address both database incompatibilities and situations where an applicant had not provided all the data required. This corrupted data was provided to ASIO and was used for security assessments.
The practice of workarounds was not confined to the three complainants; most if not all staff used workarounds to some extent. There was a wide variation in the use of incorrect data and little by way of documentation. Further, except in limited circumstances, the use of the modified data had not been agreed by ASIO. There was also no support for the suggestion that this data was used as a place marker to be corrected at a later stage.
In the course of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security's inquiry, other practices and incidents, unrelated to data entry, were also identified which were not consistent with good administrative practice. While there was no evidence that there had been any attempt to subvert or mislead the security clearance process, the report identifies a number of contributing factors that led to these practices, including:
inadequate management oversight, contributing to inadequate and inconsistent documentation, poor record keeping, poor management and inadequate quality assurance;
inadequate training for contractors and staff, poor maintenance of training records, and the use of staff in roles for which they had not completed their formal qualification;
delayed and inadequate systems upgrades, and poor IT systems user controls; and
sustained pressure for output.
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security found that the integrity of data in both the Defence Security Authority and ASIO had been undermined if not compromised. Incorrect data entered the databases and some persists today.
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security noted that the ASIO security assessment is but one part of a broader assessment of a person's suitability to hold such a clearance. For high-level clearances the process involves a personal interview, multiple referee checks, police record checks and often a psychological interview. This thorough assessment process is designed to pick up issues of security concern.
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security noted that it was not possible for her inquiry to determine whether any particular ASIO security assessment had been compromised by the provision of incorrect data. The extensive review and validation of clearances already underway will identify whether any such cases exist. So far, approximately 3,100 high-level security clearances have been reviewed and validated of around 5,300 applications made during the period. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security made 13 recommendations and the government has accepted them all.
In accepting all of the 13 recommendations, Defence has taken immediate action to rectify the problems identified by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. These remediation efforts are focused in two areas: remediation of vetting processes, improvement of documentation and updates to information technology systems, and validation of data affected by the inappropriate work practices. Firstly, Defence has stopped all inappropriate data entry practices and is finalising agreed data entry protocols with ASIO for instances where vettees genuinely do not know, or cannot provide some information or evidence. Defence has already taken steps to strengthen the management and oversight of the Defence Security Authority and the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency. Steps have also been taken to:
centralise the control and management of vetting documentation;
ensure all managers involved in the vetting process are formally qualified;
develop a comprehensive training program to ensure vetting staff have the necessary professional skills and development;
introduce an updated electronic vetting program with a thorough program of training support; and
update the online vetting pack to reduce the need for data entry protocols to support the transmission of data to ASIO.
Secondly, Defence has commenced the careful process of checking and validating each and every one of the security assessments that were subject to the inappropriate practices.
If this validation process identifies that information has been changed without justification then the correct information will be obtained from the clearance holder and provided to ASIO under an agreed remediation strategy. This is a significant task. Care also needs to be taken not to unduly divert resources from ongoing security assessments and clearance processes.
Finally, the Secretary of Defence has written to the three former staff members who raised the allegations to acknowledge their allegations in respect of data-entry were true and to provide them with a copy of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security's report. The report of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security identified management practices and process deficiencies that do not reflect well on Defence. The report's findings provide a sound framework for addressing the shortcomings that have been identified. It has been very important not to wait for the inquiry of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to be finalised before getting on with the job of addressing these problems. The review and validation process for clearances commenced in September last year.
The government will ensure that the Department of Defence fully addresses the issues identified by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and that all recommendations are implemented in a comprehensive manner. Assurance of Defence's security-vetting efforts will be provided by annual audits of compliance with security-vetting policy conducted by the Defence chief audit executive for at least the next three years. The first audit will be completed by 30 June this year and its results will be published in the Defence annual report. This will provide ongoing public reporting and assurance of Defence's security-vetting practices.
The government takes its national security responsibilities very seriously. The allegations about inappropriate security-vetting practices were first brought to the government's attention on 16 May last year and by the end of May last year had been referred to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. She commenced her inquiry in June. Preliminary findings of a Defence review conducted in support of the inquiry of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security were released publicly by me in September last year. Defence's review and validation of security clearances commenced that month ahead of the final report, which, as I have indicated, I received in late December last year. The report of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security presented today sets out the work Defence has already undertaken and will need to undertake to remediate the shortcomings identified by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security in Defence's security-vetting practices and processes.
I present Inquiry into allegations of inappropriate vetting practices in the Defence Security Authority and related matters by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. I also present a letter to me by the Secretary of Defence, dated today, detailing the implementation of the recommendations of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Paterson to speak for 10 minutes on behalf of the member for Fadden.
Leave granted.
Mr STEPHEN SMITH: I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Baldwin speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 10 minutes.
Question agreed to.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (17:32): I am responding to the report of the inquiry into allegations of inappropriate vetting practices in the Defence Security Authority and related matters by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security on behalf of the shadow minister, the member for Fadden, as he has had to take leave to attend a regal function on behalf of the opposition.
I would first like to thank the Minister for Defence for providing this House with an update on what was and remains a very serious lapse in Defence's security-vetting practices and for providing the opposition with a chance to respond. I also thank the Minister for Defence for presenting the report of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into this matter, although I profess a certain level of curiosity as to why the Minister for Defence is responding and presenting this report when it was the Prime Minister who referred the original allegations to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security for investigation.
Naturally, the opposition will require time to fully avail itself of the details of this important report before making any statement as to the recommendations contained therein. However, I am heartened by Defence's assurances that it will readily adopt all 13 recommendations laid out in the inspector-general's report. Having said that, I remain concerned that the report, at least at face value, appears to acknowledge that there is a problem but that it is unable to identify specifically which Defence or ASIO personnel have been incorrectly vetted. I certainly appreciate the sensitivity of this issue and can only ask the minister to ensure that the private briefing the opposition will receive on this matter in the near future fully explores this specific issue.
The minister has briefly canvassed the events that led up to this wholly unsatisfactory situation. However, it is certainly instructive to recap some of the issues in a little more detail in an attempt to fully tease out the circumstances that gave rise to this sorry saga whereby thousands of security clearances were not conducted in line with existent policy.
As many will recall, this issue was made public in May last year when the ABC's Lateline program interviewed three former Defence Security Authority contractors who said, and I quote from the Lateline program:
… security at Australian military bases and embassies has been significantly compromised by a deliberate fabrication of information to fast-track security clearances.
The three former Defence workers say they were given direct instructions by senior Defence staff to fabricate security checks on civilian and military personnel.
As it turns out, the inspector-general's report confirms what the Defence contractors told the Lateline program. In fact, as the minister has pointed out, it confirms that the use of workarounds and other such malpractices was indeed widespread within DSA. Worryingly, the report also found that problems within DSA went beyond the initial scope of the problem raised by the former Defence contractors on Lateline. It concluded that both DSA and ASIO data had been compromised and that, more worryingly, problems persist today, some nine months after the problem was first made public.
The problems identified in the report include poor personnel management, poor record keeping, a lack of quality assurance, inadequate training for staff, poor IT systems and, most critically and tellingly, sustained pressure on staff for output. To put this critical point another way, there were not enough staff to do what was asked of them. There were not enough staff to do what the government asked of them when in 2010 Labor transformed DSA, which at that stage looked after Defence personnel security rating, into the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency, which is now responsible for whole-of-government personnel security vetting. To put this into context, the number of clearances the agency is required to process a year has more than doubled from 23,000 to approximately 48,000. This represents a substantial increase in the workload of the AGSVA. It is a workload that at the original staffing level was unmanageable, something that was only compounded by the move to a whole-of-government vetting model.
What strikes me as particularly unusual, or perhaps unusual in the context of this Labor government, is that those opposite concluded that they could substantially increase the workload of an organisation without increasing the human capital required to complete the set tasks. It is symptomatic of this Labor government to be so short-sighted. Again, we find ourselves in a very difficult situation—this time affecting the very core of government: national security. Of course we find this report recommending, amongst other things, that more people are required in order to manage an increased workload and associated output pressures. My question to the minister is a simple one: why has it taken yet another report to tell the government what any sensible department or corporate human resources manager would tell you in a heartbeat—that more work requires more staff?
While I again thank the minister for his statement, I nonetheless take exception to the minister's comments that the issues surrounding this matter were first brought to the government's attention on 16 May 2011, on the evening of the Lateline review. I would like to remind the minister that, as my colleague Senator Johnston made quite clear during the October 2011 foreign affairs, defence and trade estimates hearings, members of the Labor government had been alerted to the problems in the DSA some months before the Lateline program in question aired. Senator Johnston said:
I have seen some of the correspondence that they have raised and some of the reports they made to some people who were employed to report on their complaints back in May, June and July 2010. I will come back to those reports in a minute, but the four parliamentarians were the former member for Forde, Mr Raguse; Minister Snowdon; Minister Griffin; and Minister Emerson. They were all given firsthand information about these problems back in 2010.
One would think that such serious allegations would be immediately passed from these Labor MPs, one of them a cabinet minister, to the defence minister. But, no, they failed to pass on this information to the minister or even to the defence department. Instead, the problem festered until the story became public some 12 months after Labor MPs were told of the serious problems in DSA. I am aware that the minister may like to argue that the concerns communicated to the four Labor MPs related to bullying, harassment and maladministration within the DSA. I simply say in response that a responsible government would surely examine these issues in detail. A responsible government would not blindfold itself to the possibility of systemic issues affecting the administration and functionality of the DSA, particularly as work pressures within the organisation were well known at the time. Furthermore, the Trent Brennan report of 2010 highlighted such issues as well. Nothing seems to compel this Labor government to take action unless it first appears on our TV screens.
I am sure the Inspector-General's report will make for sober reading. Indeed, from a cursory examination of the findings we are now aware of the general extent of the problem, although I reiterate that we do not know the precise details of which personnel were not subject to the proper vetting practice. This has led to a situation, as the minister has stated, whereby at least 5,500 applications will need to be re-vetted, of which only 3,100 have so far been completed. I currently appreciate Defence's commitment to allocate additional resources to this problem, both presently and during the period preceding the release of the Inspector-General's report.
In conclusion, I would simply urge the minister to take stock of the report's findings and to ensure that the matters of national security do not fall prey to the increasingly indiscriminate Defence Strategic Reform Program budget cuts. Australia's national security is too important to not be adequately funded. A lack of funding and personnel seems to lie at the very core of this serious lapse in national security administration.
BILLS
Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011
Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr RANDALL (Canning) (17:41): I am pleased to speak on the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 and cognate bills because it gives me an opportunity to talk about some of the service obligations of the telecommunications industry on behalf of the government and to point out where this is not the case, particularly in my electorate. The universal service obligation is a vital aspect of Australian telecommunications because every Australian needs and deserves access to basic telephone services at a reasonable price. The USO guarantees these services should always be available. People in the bush as well as people in cities and people in outer metropolitan areas deserve access to basic telephony and, increasingly, internet access.
This legislation comes in three parts and will create a new statutory agency called the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency, or TUSMA. This agency will be responsible for entering into contracts on behalf of the Commonwealth. Most people have spoken about the detail of this bill, so I do not intend to. But I will say that the legislation provides for a review of the USO arrangement before 1 January 2018 to basically see how it is going and to talk about the way it has been funded. Some of the issues are that the government has agreed to pay Telstra $230 million a year to provide standard telephone services and $40 million a year for payphones, and Telstra will be paid $20 million a year for emergency call services. And then there are administration costs et cetera. The final bill before the House is the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011, which is a procedural mechanism that will essentially demonstrate how TUSMA will be paid for.
The universal service obligation is something that both sides of this House have agreed to. In my time here as a member of the Howard government, telecommunications was something that we certainly made sure the bush had access to, particularly in the case of remote areas of Australia. It was largely done in an expensive fashion by satellite. The coalition continues to be committed to ensuring that Australians in regional areas will continue to have reliable access to standard telephone services. And, speaking of rural Australia, dare I say at this point that I was so surprised to hear in question time the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon. Simon Crean, banging on about this, when in Perth he promised to commit to funding for the RDAs in a regional area and the money still has not come. Here we are in the new year, the RDAs are still trying to survive and the minister has not coughed up the funding, so how can we believe him on an issue like this?
TUSMA, as I said, is going to be the delivery mechanism. It will be interesting, because it will involve a change from recovering the costs from the industry to being substantially funded by the government, with the balance funded by industry. One suspects that the amount of funding the government will provide either will be reduced or will not be increased in line with inflation or need. Increasingly, the industry will have to come up with the money through levies—and of course the industry will retrieve that money by passing the cost on to the customers. My electorate of Canning is very interesting because it is part of the Perth metropolitan area, it is outer metropolitan, it is rural and it goes deep into beachside areas in the south, before Bunbury. So we have a whole range of telephone needs. Again today the government came out with a promise, like it did before the last election, about delivery. Before the 2007 election, the then Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, and shadow minister Conroy said that they would deliver this telephony to everyone in Australia. Then they said it would only be delivered to 94 per cent of Australians, and then it would only go to towns with over 1,000 people. I have a heap of towns in my electorate that do not have 1,000 people—for example, Jarrahdale, Mundijong and Serpentine miss out on this. I am writing to them to tell them that they are going to miss out on any future NBN rollout, because that is what has already been put out there. They deserve better.
We have to understand why we are in this position with the NBN and how this obligation is going to be served. In the current stand-off between Telstra, which has been the universal provider, and the NBN rollout, there are people who cannot get any access to telephony or any internet at all in parts of my electorate. Dare I say that there are people just behind my electorate office in Kelmscott who are still on dial-up. That is meant to be a metropolitan area. Can you believe that they are still on dial-up in this so-called modern age?
Do you remember the then opposition leader, Kevin Rudd, standing there with his computer saying: 'This is the new toolbox of the future. This is what you are all going to be using in the future'? He was going to give all these laptops to schools, but they needed to be connected. Dare I say, the deal was not even done. They said they would do it in the first 12 months of government. In the first 12 months of government they did not get anywhere near delivering any such deal. It took towards the end of the Rudd-Gillard first term to even come up with a contract for the rollout of any broader service to the electorate. Why did they then decide to produce a mechanism called the NBN, which is largely a nationalised telecommunications product?
Unbelievably, my state of Western Australia is being threatened by Prime Minister Gillard for not following through with competition policy and not providing enough competition in a whole range of areas, yet here we are with the Commonwealth government re-nationalising telecommunications in this country. We are going back to the old days of the PMG, where the PMG was the sole provider and there was no competition. In fact, we know that recently the NBN Co. tried to stop Telstra from competing with them in wireless and this had to be adjudicated. It was adjudicated in favour of Telstra to say that they could compete with the wireless technology. Why wouldn't they? It is a very successful technology. It is a technology that the Americans decided they would use rather than put all their eggs in one basket, which the NBN is doing.
Can you seriously believe that this government would put what most commentators suggest will end up at $50 billion of borrowed money into one technology of fibre to the home—not fibre to the node, where it can be taken out and reticulated into the suburbs, into the businesses and the schools in the area. Fibre to the home is the most expensive one-shot-in-the-locker option of providing telecommunications. Before the 2007 election, we had in place a very good wireless technology which had been quite well appreciated by many in the industry called OPEL, which was a wireless opportunity for outer metropolitan areas where sending it up and down the streets in cavities was not an option due to topography, due to the sort of land they were crossing et cetera. But, no, we ended up with the expensive NBN option. One of the first places it is supposed to be rolling out in in Western Australia is Halls Head. There is no sign of it yet. The people had a public meeting not so long ago and asked me to come along. They said, 'Is it true that I have telephone cables running past my house now and that they are going to become redundant and that I will have to sign on to what is taken past by the NBN and pay more money?' That is the fact of the matter.
Unbelievably, the NBN, on behalf of the government, is buying the copper wire network from Telstra. Copper wire is not the technology of the future. We know that. It delivered into Australia and it has done a reasonably good job in some areas. But why would you trash it before you have a replacement? That is my point. Parts of my electorate—for example, Piara Waters and Harrisdale—cannot get enough ports out of their exchange now. I have emails here from people in my electorate begging me about this. Mr Grant Hill from Harrisdale says that they deserve better. He is trying to run a business from his home and he cannot get enough ports in the area. Thank goodness, at least I can still ring David Thodey from Telstra and say, 'Can you help us here?' and generally he does. Generally he does put more ports in the area. But now there is a huge waiting list. Telstra are saying, quite rightly, 'Why would we go and invest in infrastructure in an area when NBN are going to come and make us redundant some time later?' By the way, Grant Hill is putting out a petition in the area seeking support from all those in this new suburb saying, 'We need help because we cannot connect.' As you know, much of it is through wireless towers, telephone towers et cetera. Now you can get BlackBerrys and do business on those. So we have got a petition going
Today I had an email from Martin Reddan and Laurie Doncon saying that it is that slow there that when they try and connect they have to wait until late at night or until certain hours on the weekend before they can do any business.
I want to now put something on the record, because I believe that some time in the future this prediction will come back to haunt those in this House. Telstra are waiting on a very fascinating end game. They are going to be paid $11 billion by the federal government through the NBN for their redundant copper wire network. They are going to build all this extra infrastructure. Then—because they can, because the ACCC stopped them being knocked off by the NBN—they are going to provide wireless technology with very good upload and download capacity to people right across Australia at less than the NBN are going to charge them. They are going to blow this technology out of the water. They will usurp the NBN sometime in the future and it will take a future coalition government to bail out the NBN because nobody wants to sign on to it.
We have seen this in Tasmania. The NBN has been rolled out in areas of Tasmania. I asked the member for Gilmore and she said that not that many people have taken it up in her electorate since it was rolled out. Where has it been rolled out first? In areas like Lyne and New England. Why? So that they are going to vote for it and get it over the line. That is the 30 pieces of silver to help get this over the line. Yet people are voting with their feet, not paying for it and not taking it up.
I say to the House tonight that the universal service obligation means rolling it out and giving people access when they need it. Parts of my electorate do not look like getting any of this technology any time soon. So what are they doing? They cannot afford satellite, because they are in the so-called metropolitan area. Wireless is not available to them unless Telstra provides it to them. And the NBN could be 10 years or more away. What are they going to do in these new homes and these new estates?
We have a better way. We are going to do something to stop the mess, whether given the opportunity in three months or 18 months. We are going to put some sanity back into telecommunications in Australia, rather than have a big, expensive, borrowed money deal that will do nothing for many of the people in our electorates at the moment. I say to the government that this has been a nose in the trough exercise, with the money simply being shovelled out. There has been no cost-benefit analysis. There has been no research into whether it will be of any use to people in certain areas. As I said, this one technology puts all the eggs in one basket. That is something that this government will come to rue at a later time, because as a result they are going to be usurped by modern technologies that we know continue to be made available on an annual basis. This will be something that we will look back in shame on. Our kids will say to us, 'How did you ever let 'em get this expensive option that does not deliver for all of Australia through the place?' I will say that I did my best and that I exposed them in the parliament as being profligate with taxpayers' money.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (17:56): This debate has been on a package of three bills, the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011 and the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011. This package will provide a flexible, accountable and transparent model for delivering and funding public policy objectives in the telecommunications sector. The reforms contained in the bills being considered are aimed at ensuring continuity of key consumer safeguards through the transition to the National Broadband Network and into the future. These include ensuring reasonable access to standard telephone services and payphones, the National Relay Service and the emergency call service. The bills address important unfinished business dating back to the privatisation of Telstra. They provide for increased transparency and rigour in the delivery of basic consumer safeguards. Under this approach, the realistic costs of delivering these important services will be appropriately recognised.
The Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 will establish a new entity to support continuity of key telecommunications safeguards in the transition to the National Broadband Network. TUSMA will be a small statutory agency with responsibility for the delivery of the universal service obligation and other public interest telecommunications services. Members opposite have suggested that TUSMA will employ an army of bureaucrats. This is clearly absurd, given that TUSMA's administrative costs are expected to be around $5 million per annum.
TUSMA will enter into and administer contracts and grants for these services in accordance with the policy objectives set out in the TUSMA Bill. The creation of TUSMA is necessary because the rollout of the wholesale-only National Broadband Network will fundamentally change the structure of the Australian telecommunications market. These changes will see Telstra's near ubiquitous national copper fixed-line network progressively decommissioned as NBN Co. rolls out its next generation fibre network. The current USO regulatory arrangements that are imposed on Telstra were designed for a market in which there was a vertically integrated operator of a national telecommunications network. The new NBN environment will enable all retail service providers to offer high-quality broadband services nationally. Therefore, in this environment, it is appropriate to introduce a more competitive and open model for delivering universal service and other public policy telecommunications outcomes. These new arrangements will benefit both consumers and industry by promoting more innovative, effective and efficient service delivery arrangements.
TUSMA will be subject to rigorous transparency and accountability requirements. This will help ensure that the costs to industry do not increase unnecessarily. The agreement with Telstra includes a range of incentives to promote cost savings. Further, a structured program of reviews provides opportunities for voice and payphone services to be provided more efficiently. In relation to concerns that TUSMA's scope should not increase unnecessarily, the legislation provides some flexibility so that the services that it delivers can be modified as circumstances change. However, any proposed changes would be subject to clear parliamentary oversight and scrutiny.
The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011 amends the universal service regime in the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999. The amendments mean that within two years of the commencement of TUSMA operations the minister must consider whether it is appropriate to remove the current regulated USO on Telstra to make the standard telephone service and payphones reasonably accessible. Subject to Telstra's record of compliance with its contractual and regulatory obligations, the minister may then make declarations that will commence the process for lifting regulation and shifting to a contractual model for the provision of universal service outcomes. This process will be overseen by TUSMA.
The Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011 provides for the imposition of a new levy. This levy will replace two separate existing industry levies and will contribute to meeting TUSMA's costs for delivery of the USO and other public policy telecommunications outcomes. For the first time government will also be making a substantial contribution towards TUSMA's costs and the delivery of key communications public interest safeguards.
The government's budget contribution will be at least $50 million in 2012-13 and 2013-14 and then $100 million each financial year thereafter. The government has also committed to increase its base funding in the first two financial years so the contributors to the industry levy, with the exception of Telstra, will not face an increase to their aggregate funding contribution. Furthermore, the government has also committed to review the levy arrangements and the need for any additional budget funding above its committed base funding during the course of the first two years of TUSMA's operation.
The TUSMA Bill creates a rigorous oversight and accountability framework. The new legislation will provide for TUSMA to have a board structure and require the minister to ensure that TUSMA includes members who have substantial experience in or knowledge of and significant standing in the operation of the telecommunications industry and business or financial management. These members will be expected to take a strong role in managing the costs of TUSMA activities. TUSMA will also maintain publicly available registers of the contracts and grants it administers and report annually to the minister on all significant matters relating to the performance of contractors and grant recipients; prepare a corporate plan every three years, as well as a comprehensive annual report; provide reports or information to the minister on specified matters relating to the performance of TUSMA's functions and undergo a comprehensive review before 1 July 2018. This accountability framework, together with the existing reporting requirements for statutory agencies under the FMA Act, will help give stakeholders the confidence that TUSMA will use its funding to fulfil its functions and policy objectives in an efficient, effective and appropriate manner.
Those opposite argue that the government did not follow due process in addressing its contract with Telstra for the delivery of the USO and other public interest services. However, Telstra is the primary universal service provider under legislation and is the only telecommunications provider with a national, ubiquitous, fixed line network which can be used to ensure the continuity of key telecommunications services during the transition to the National Broadband Network. I would also note that there have been contestability arrangements under the USO since 2001 but no alternative providers have sought to supply services under these arrangements to date—more than a decade ago.
People who are currently receiving key services need certainty that their services will not be disrupted, possibly for a long time, while a new USO provider rolls out a network or finalises negotiation for access to infrastructure. TUSMA's 20-year arrangement with Telstra to deliver key services such as standard phone services and public payphones will ensure continuity of basic safeguards for Australians and will strengthen the safety net for rural and regional Australia. The agreement with Telstra does not preclude contestability for other key services that TUSMA will deliver under contract. Existing National Relay Service contracts are due to expire shortly and a competitive process will need to be run by TUSMA before 1 July 2013. The government is also committed to TUSMA undertaking a competitive process for the emergency call service within five years.
The member for Cowper has suggested two amendments to the bills. The government opposes these proposed amendments. The suggestion that TUSMA's administrative costs should be offset by reductions in the administrative costs of the ACMA ignores the fact that the two will be doing different things. It yet again shows that those opposite simply do not get this area of policy. In any case, decisions about the administrative costs of government agencies are made in the budget context and it is not appropriate to specify them in legislation. The proposal for an independent STS review into the quality of standard telephone services delivered over the National Broadband Network ignores the very real improvements in quality that will be delivered by the NBN and the existing reporting measures that can provide information on this issue. Furthermore, the amendment is poorly drafted and the matters to be considered by the independent reviewer are complex, vague and not easily measurable in an objective manner.
We hear a lot from those opposite about the importance of telecommunications, sometimes talking about the importance of telecommunications in regional communities, but they voted against the National Broadband Network and they voted against piece of legislation after piece of legislation which I have brought before this chamber. I note the last speaker for the opposition on this bill, the member for Canning, was on 2 February 2012 quoted in the Examiner, his local paper, complaining about the existing service and like many others demanding access to the National Broadband Network. They cannot have it both ways.
You cannot argue consistently against infrastructure and then complain that it is not being delivered quickly enough to your area when you voted against the very legislation which has provided the funding. Consistently we see that from those opposite. I must say that among all the pieces of legislation opposed by those opposite relating to the National Broadband Network, voting against a universal service obligation, as they will be doing when they vote against this piece of legislation, is extraordinary and is against the interests of the electorates they represent, particularly against the interests of those who live in regional communities around Australia. By introducing a more contestable and flexible model for providing the USO, these bills will promote greater efficiency, transparency and competition in the delivery of the telecommunications services Australians rely on, while preserving key consumer safeguards. I commend the bills to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (18:07): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3):
(1) Clause 86, page 50 (line 29), before "The purposes", insert "(1)".
(2) Clause 86, page 51 (line 2), at the end of paragraph (c), add ", so far as those costs are offset by reductions in the administration costs of ACMA".
(3) Clause 86, page 51 (after line 6), at the end of clause, add:
(2) The Minister must direct ACMA to reduce its administrative costs in proportion with the extent to which its operations are taken over by TUSMA.
(3) ACMA must comply with the direction.
These amendments aim to ensure that taxpayers do not fund a duplication of services between ACMA and TUSMA. The amendments will require the minister to direct ACMA to reduce its administrative expenses in proportion to the extent to which its operations are taken over by TUSMA. As TUSMA takes over the management of the USO from ACMA, these amendments will ensure that ACMA reduces its expenses in line with its reduced responsibilities.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (18:09): I am keen to outline just how hopeless and pathetic these amendments are and why the government will be rejecting them. The government certainly does not support these amendments. The proposed amendments would prevent payment of TUSMA administrative costs unless those costs are offset by reductions in the administrative costs to ACMA. The proposed amendments will not work in practice.
TUSMA's functions will not be the same as ACMA's current functions and the government has established TUSMA to do different things. Clause 11 of the bill sets out the policy objectives for TUSMA, and TUSMA's role is to administer contracts or grants relating to those objectives. Contracts or grants will cover the provision of the standard telephone service and payphones under the universal service obligation, emergency call services, the National Relay Service and programs to support continuity of carriage services during the transition to the National Broadband Network. The only current function of ACMA that will be transferred to TUSMA will be responsibility for administering the contracts for the National Relay Service.
ACMA is responsible for collecting industry levies and assessing the levy amount and for enforcing compliance with the USO. Under the proposed new arrangements it will keep this responsibility. Furthermore, TUSMA's functions may change or increase over time. For example, the current review of the National Relay Service may propose that TUSMA provide new services to assist people with disabilities. Under the proposed amendments this would mean TUSMA could not be funded to administer these functions without cuts being made to ACMA's funding. Linking TUSMA's administrative costs to the administrative costs of ACMA is inappropriate and it fails to acknowledge the important differences between the two agencies. Decisions about the administrative costs of government agencies are made in the budget context and it is simply not appropriate to specify them in legislation.
The member for Cowper also proposes amendments that will require an independent STS review into the quality of standard telephone services delivered over the National Broadband Network. The amendments require the review to be conducted before the minister can make a determination for the removal of USO regulation in relation to standard telephone services under proposed section 8J of the consumer protection act. The government does not support these amendments.
First, NBN Co. has been established to provide access to a ubiquitous, high-speed and affordable broadband network. It will offer a substantial improvement on the broadband services currently available across Australia. NBN Co.'s network will support high-quality voice services. NBN Co. is making available a dedicated phone port that will enable service providers to offer equal or better quality over the NBN fibre network to that offered over copper. In those areas where NBN Co.'s fibre network is not available, Telstra will be required under an agreement with TUSMA to continue to provide voice services over the copper network.
Second, the bill already includes processes so the minister can get advice on the quality and reliability of voice services. Before making a decision to remove USO regulation from the standard telephone service the minister must consider Telstra's record of regulatory compliance in relation to the USO and the customer service guarantee requirements. These requirements already deal with quality and reliability of voice services. The minister will need to seek advice from ACMA and TUSMA and consider any other relevant matters before making the decision to remove USO regulation from Telstra.
Third, the NBN is already subject to extensive scrutiny, transparency and parliamentary oversight. In particular, the terms of reference of the Joint Committee on the NBN already include the ability for the committee to consider 'network rollout performance including service levels and faults'. This easily accommodates the possibility that the committee might inquire into the quality of voice services on the NBN.
Fourthly, there are other existing arrangements that operate as consumer safeguards in relation to voice services such as the customer service guarantee and ACMA's reporting obligations under the Telecommunications Act in relation to all significant matters relating to the performance of carriers and carriage service providers with particular reference to consumer satisfaction, consumer benefits and quality of service.
Lastly, the drafting of the amendments is deficient and they do not even do what they purport to do. In particular, the matters to be considered by the independent reviewer in certifying the quality of voice services are complex, vague and not easily measurable in an objective manner. Accordingly, the amendments should be rejected by the House. I am surprised that the member for Cowper is pursuing them.
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (18:15): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (18:17): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3):
(1) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 5), after item 58, insert:
58A Subsection 5(2)
Insert:
Independent STS Review means a review under section 8JA.
58B Subsection 5(2)
Insert:
national broadband network has the same meaning as in the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011.
(2) Schedule 1, item 71, page 22 (line 18), at the end of subsection 8J(6), add:
; and (g) an Independent STS Review has certified the quality of standard telephone services delivered over the national broadband network.
(3) Schedule 1, item 71, page 22 (after line 26), after section 8J, insert:
8JA Independent STS Review
(1) An Independent STS Review must be conducted by a person (the Independent STS Reviewer) who:
(a) is appointed by the Minister; and
(b) has knowledge and experience of the delivery of telecommunications services in rural areas.
(2) An Independent STS Review must not be conducted before 10,000 voice-only telephone services are being delivered over the national broadband network.
(3) The Independent STS Reviewer must not certify the quality of standard telephone services delivered over the nation broadband network unless the Independent STS Reviewer is satisfied that the quality of those services is at least equivalent to the quality of voice-only telephone services provided by Telstra over Telstra's copper network on 1 November 2011.
(4) In deciding whether or not to certify the quality of standard telephone services delivered over the nation broadband network, the Independent STS Reviewer must have regard to the following in relation to the services:
(a) prices paid by consumers;
(b) quality of voice reproduction;
(c) reliability, including down-time;
(d) repair-time;
(e) customer convenience.
(5) Subsection (4) does not limit the matters to which the Independent STS Reviewer may have regard.
(6) The Independent STS Reviewer must give the Minister a written report of the Independent STS Review. The Minister must cause the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.
The overall amendment introduces a new requirement after proposed section 8J of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999. The amendment would require the minister to obtain a favourable independent review of the quality of voice-only services provided over the NBN before being permitted to make a declaration under section 8J. Proposed subsection (1) explains how the independent review is to be appointed. Proposed subsection (2) is in place to ensure that sufficient voice-only customers are connected to the NBN to allow an accurate assessment of the voice services over the NBN. Proposed subsection (3) establishes 1 November 2011 as the baseline against which NBN services will be compared by the independent reviewer. Proposed subsections (4) and (5) detail the matters the independent reviewer should consider in conducting his review. Proposed subsection (6) requires that the minister must table the independent reviewer's report in both houses of parliament.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (18:19): I indicate to the House that I have earlier outlined at once the reasons why we are opposing all of the opposition's amendments on this package of bills before the House. I outlined in great detail the five reasons why. I will not repeat those reasons, for the purpose of the efficiency of the House, but I will say that the government rejects these amendments and calls upon the House to support the government's existing legislation and therefore support the universal obligations that are so important for regional Australia.
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (18:20): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (18:21): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (18:22): I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill 2011. The Commonwealth allocates considerable taxpayer funds for community pharmacy to provide timely access to medicines. The most recent pharmacy agreement will provide $15.4 billion over a five-year period to fulfil this important role in our health system. There are 5,000 community pharmacies across the country dispensing around one-quarter of a billion scripts a year. The coalition in government provided policy certainty and stability for community pharmacy. We support in principle the fifth agreement but will continue to consider carefully all legislative changes presented to this parliament.
The bill before us enacts the Continued Dispensing Initiative and the Medication Chart Initiative as included in the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement between the Commonwealth and the Pharmacy Guild. It also makes amendments to conditions for authority-required medications. The continued dispensing provision will allow pharmacists to supply pharmaceuticals without a prescription, however the eligible pharmaceutical items and the conditions of supply are not specified in this bill. Proposed section 89A subsection 3 states that the minister will determine the details by legislative instrument.
The then Health Minister, Hon. Nicola Roxon, said in her second reading speech that the measure will apply to oral hormonal contraceptives and lipid modifying agents. These two groups were chosen apparently because they are well tolerated and have a good safety profile. This is also reflected in the government's consultation paper issued in 2011. Importantly, the consultation paper does provide some more specific parameters and context for this particular initiative. It states:
The Continued Dispensing initiative will apply where a patient has run out, or is about to run out, of their essential continuous therapy medicine/s and does not have a valid prescription available.
The patient must be able to demonstrate they have been prescribed the medicine for at least a six month period and have been taking the medicine immediately prior to the request for continued dispensing.
The supply of increased maximum quantities based on an 'Authority Approval' will not be permitted.
… supply under this initiative cannot be utilised on consecutive occasions.
There will be no switching of medicines within the same class.
The department's briefing notes further clarify that patients must not have received the medicine by continued dispensing within the last 12 months. The department also states that the pharmacist must provide within 24 hours written communication to the most recent prescriber advising of the supply of the medicine to the consumer. It is important that the medical practitioner remains the principal care provider and is kept fully informed of patient treatment, especially when pharmaceuticals have been supplied under section 89A subsection 1 without a prescription.
The Australian health workforce, particularly the medical profession, continues to face shortages and maldistribution. Any change in scope of practice for a particular health profession must reflect the skills of those practitioners and not be a rash attempt to provide a second-best option for Australians otherwise unable to access treatment.
On the available information, the targeting of this provision to two common, well-tolerated medications, in combination with clear conditions and protocols, assists in addressing any issues regarding patient safety. However, the coalition's concern is that this detail was not contained within the legislation. It is a common practice of this government to defer considerable detail to delegated legislation, with the risk being the final instrument does not reflect an earlier intent. In this instance, we could not be sure that the legislative instruments would reflect the conditions stipulated in Minister Roxon's second reading speech—and Minister Roxon was notorious for this practice.
Whilst it would be preferable to have a copy of the draft legislative instrument, I do welcome the information that the current minister's office has provided on the proposed legislative instruments in response to the coalition's concerns. Nevertheless, there remains some unease that eligible pharmaceuticals and conditions may be changed into the future. However, such changes would have to be by legislative instrument and therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance.
The coalition will carefully consider any future changes in close consultation with all stakeholders, including the medical profession. The proposed continued dispensing initiative is intended to complement existing emergency supply provisions. The existing and proposed provisions assist patients to continue their treatment when presenting to pharmacies without a valid script.
The outcome of a Pharmacy Guild survey is contained in the government's consultation paper. Conducted in January 2009 and involving 2,000 guild member pharmacies, it found: firstly, approximately 67 per cent of pharmacies are presented more than five times a week with a situation where supply of a medicine is requested to be dispensed in the absence of a prescription in order to ensure continuity of therapy; secondly, that 43 per cent of respondents indicated the main reason given for such a request was difficulty with obtaining an immediate appointment with the prescriber; and, finally, approximately 64 per cent of the respondents considered that five or more patients attending their pharmacy per week may not be compliant because of difficulties with current emergency supply arrangements.
'Owing prescription' protocols already allow a pharmacist to supply a PBS medicine after contacting the patient's doctor by telephone. The doctor is required to provide the pharmacy with a prescription within seven days. The pharmacist will be able to continue to supply under the owing prescription protocols pharmaceuticals not covered by section 89A. It is argued that for well-tolerated medicines with a good safety profile and high volume supply, the continued dispensing provision will reduce the administrative burden associated with owing prescription procedures.
In addition, pharmacists can supply under emergency provisions without a script. Under state and territory regulations, this allows a three-day emergency supply of an essential medication. The medication is dispensed as a private item and the patient has to pay the full cost as opposed to just the PBS co-payment. It is argued that 'breaking' full packs to provide just three days' supply can lead to wastage for pharmacists and risks incorrect dosage. Also, it leaves patients out of pocket as they are not eligible for subsidies under the PBS and it only provides for a very limited supply. Despite these difficulties, it will also continue to be available in addition to the proposed continued dispensing regime. I also note that Minister Roxon gave an undertaking for a review after two years. The PBS statistics that are published annually should also contain information on the continued dispensing provisions. This is not reflected in the legislation. It is something the coalition would like to ensure does occur, and I will be addressing this further during consideration in detail. The coalition's proposal is consistent with the government's stated intent and should be facilitated by recording requirements contained in guidelines for pharmacists.
Guidelines for the continued dispensing of eligible prescription medicines by pharmacists have been developed by the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. The purpose of the guidelines is to assist pharmacists to meet their professional responsibilities, exercise professional judgment in individual circumstances and manage risks associated with the continued dispensing of eligible prescribed medicines. The guidelines require an appropriate recording mechanism. They stipulate that information recorded by pharmacists should include: the date of the request for medicine supply without a valid prescription; consumer details such as name and address; the medicine requested, including strength, form and directions for use; the reason for the request; most recent prescriber and practice details; dispensing history; consumer history and clinical notes obtained during consultation; and details of any communication with other health professionals or providers and the prescriber. Therefore, according to the guidelines, sufficient data should be recorded and available to facilitate the publication of detailed statistics and an appropriate review of the measure's implementation and use.
More broadly, it is important in the context of this bill to understand the process by which medicines are subsidised and made available through the PBS. Minister Roxon said that continued dispensing would help prevent the interruption of treatment for patients prescribed eligible medicines and ensure they do not bear the financial burden of the full cost of those medicines. This was a reasonable position for the then minister to advocate. Unfortunately, though, Labor's actions, particularly over the last 12 months, have seriously jeopardised timely access to subsidised medicines for Australian patients. In fact, Labor's actions fell well short of their rhetoric.
There has been longstanding bipartisan support for an independent process of assessing which medicines should be subsidised by government. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee rigorously assesses medicines according to set criteria. A recommendation is then provided to the health minister. Until recently, the minister could list medicines costing less than $10 million in a given year. Cabinet considered medicines over $10 million. Almost without exception, previous governments listed medicines according to the advice of the PBAC. In February 2011, the government indefinitely deferred the listing of seven new medicines and a vaccine recommended by the PBAC due to the Commonwealth's 'fiscal circumstances'. This occurred just months after Minister Roxon signed a memorandum of understanding with Medicines Australia to provide policy stability in return for $1.9 billion in savings to the PBS. Minister Roxon promised that the MoU would provide:
… policy predictability to the industry for the next four years, cut red tape and speed up the addition of new medicines to the PBS.
But the ink was not even dry on the paper—in fact, it was only a matter of months—when Labor dishonoured this signed agreement, sent the sector into policy chaos and denied patient access to important medicines.
The government's decision to subject all PBAC recommendations to cabinet and refuse to list medicines based on the government's fiscal situation set a very dangerous precedent. For the first time, it subjected the listing of medicines to a political decision. After a Senate inquiry and considerable public pressure, the government eventually agreed in September last year to list medicines deferred in February. However, the government's announcement did not provide any greater certainty for the PBS listing process. The Gillard government announced on 30 September last year there would be further 'deferrals into the future' for new medicines being subsidised on the PBS. The government only committed to not deferring 'drugs that cost under $10 million a year for the coming year'. At this stage, we do not know which patients are going to be denied access in the future to their medicines and on what grounds. While we are considering an initiative today that is supposed to improve continuity of access to medicines, the government's broader pharmaceutical policy is causing uncertainty that may lead companies to reconsider the costly process of listing new medicines in Australia.
The pharmaceutical sector is also important for the health and wellbeing of our economy. Medicines Australia recently highlighted that the pharmaceutical sector in Australia had exports to the value of $3.7 billion in 2011. This is compared to $2.5 billion for the car industry and $2 billion in the wine industry. The Australian medicines industry is reported to have grown 1,200 per cent since 1990 and employs over 14,000 people. Constant changes to the listing process risk patient access to medicines and jeopardise a very important sector in our economy. The coalition renew our call for the Gillard government to rule out further deferrals and to subsidise new medicines according to the independent advice of the PBAC.
The second initiative in this bill will allow for the supply and claiming of pharmaceuticals based on a standardised medical chart in residential aged-care facilities. This measure has broad support, with the claim it will reduce the administrative burden in aged-care facilities and improve patient safety. The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care has commenced development of a standardised chart, and further consultation is due to occur during 2012. According to the commission, the National Residential Medication Chart Project will develop standardised information fields and layouts. It will enable pharmaceutical supply and PBS claiming directly from the chart. It follows the development and implementation of the National Inpatient Medication Chart by health ministers in 2004 for use in public hospitals. This is also a standardised medical chart designed to improve patient safety and specifically intended for hospital use.
It is common for residential aged-care facilities to use the inpatient chart at present, but the commission has identified a number of potential problems. Aged-care facilities have differing medication management needs to hospitals, including but not restricted to the following: they have long-stay residents with chronic conditions and comorbidities rather than short-stay, unstable, acute-care patients; they have general practitioner rather than frequent specialist prescribing; medicine administration is not always conducted by registered nurses; PBS medicines require duplicate documentation unlike in public hospitals; and many ongoing and regular prescription medicines are delivered in prepackaged dose administration aids, which are prepared off-site rather than dispensed by a co-located pharmacy.
Whilst a separate standardised medication chart for aged care may still be a way off, it is appropriate that pharmaceuticals can be supplied and claimed for from the chart. Removing the need for a separate prescription is a simple and sensible way to reduce red tape for providers, staff, pharmacists and medical practitioners.
The third schedule of the bill addresses the minister's power in relation to conditions that must be satisfied for prescribing in certain circumstances. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, this includes specifying different conditions, including maximum quantity and repeats for medicines with different uses. The schedule clarifies that determinations made under section 85A are a legislative instrument.
In conclusion, the coalition do not oppose this bill but we intend to ensure the government's assurances are honoured. Unfortunately, we know this government does not have a good recent history on keeping to its word. The Coalition will propose amendments to ensure that a review is conducted of continued dispensing and is publicly available after two years. We will also act to ensure annual statistics are published on pharmaceutical items supplied under this initiative. I do appreciate that the continued dispensing provision may be contentious. However, on the available information the current proposal in a number of ways is more limited than existing provisions and the coalition's amendments will allow genuine scrutiny of the implementation and operation of the measure.
The proposed conditions are appropriately restrictive and will be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny as disallowable instruments. An important condition is that there will be timely feedback to the prescribing medical practitioner within 24 hours to help maintain continuity of care for the patient. Whilst we do not oppose the initiatives in this bill, we will hold the government to its word through our amendments and we will examine in detail future legislative instruments.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (18:40): I speak in support of the National Health and Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill 2011. I had the privilege of being a delegate to the national conference of the ALP in December 2011 and there I heard one of the best speeches at that national conference by a minister in relation to the national platform. In an earlier address in November 2011, the then Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon. Nicola Roxon, made this point:
As Australians there are many things about our society that define us.
She talked about four pillars of our society that Australians expect to be universal and available for all: health care, education, retirement benefits and social security. The shadow minister would be well advised to read that speech because it should form the basis of the coalition's policy at the next election. We should note that the shadow minister was very critical of the national health reforms, particularly in the areas of pharmaceuticals. Health and Hospital reform has been mentioned many times, and even today in his wide-ranging speech he was very critical of what we are doing.
Health care is of particular importance to the Australian community. Health expenditure increased to 9.4 per cent of Australia's GDP in 2009, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report Health expenditure Australia 2009-10. It highlighted the fact that this federal Labor government has contributed a record $52.9 billion to Australia's healthcare sector in 2009-10, representing an increase of $13 billion or over 32 per cent compared with the previous coalition government's contribution.
We have a record as a reforming government, and the legislation before the House today is in that particular vein—a reforming piece of legislation. In her second reading speech on 23 November 2011 about this bill, the then Minister for Health and Ageing said:
These initiatives represent another important step in improving services for Australian health consumers, and will bring pharmacists even closer to the centre of the Gillard Labor government's health reform agenda.
She talked about four pillars in her speech, as I said. She also talked about the healthcare pillar in her second reading speech on 23 November 2011. She said:
A pillar of these reforms is the $15.4 billion, five-year Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement, particularly the clear role within it for pharmacists to improve professional practice and patient care.
We heard the shadow minister talk about this and he was quite critical of our position. But I am interested in what third parties have to say about the healthcare reforms of this federal Labor government, which have poured so much money into health care to make sure we have more doctors, nurses and less bureaucracy, less waste and shorter waiting times. That has been our agenda and that is why we have come to an agreement with the states through the COAG process.
On 24 November 2011, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia issued a press release supporting the legislation without amendment—and I note the shadow minister wants to make amendments to this legislation. The Pharmacy Guild urged parliament to pass this legislation as is and said:
The move towards continued dispensing medicines by pharmacists in defined circumstances will deliver better health outcomes for Australian consumers and should be supported by Federal Parliament.
... ... ...
The Pharmacy Guild of Australia fully supports the measure because it is in the best interests of health consumers.
Do not listen to the shadow minister, listen to the independent party, the Pharmacy Guild. And listen to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare when it comes to what this government has invested in health funding for hospitals, which were sorely neglected when the now Leader of the Opposition ripped a billion dollars out of the healthcare sector when he was the minister. The Pharmacy Guild make this point in the press release:
Continued dispensing will provide an additional mechanism for patients to gain access to certain Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) medicines where a valid prescription is unavailable. This could apply, for example, in cases where a prescription has been lost and a doctor consultation is not readily available. Professional protocols will apply, so that quality and patient safety will not be compromised.
As the guild mentions, the measure applies to two particular items: oral hormonal contraceptives and lipid modifying agents used in the treatment of high cholesterol. The Pharmacy Guild—lest it be said that they want to take over the role of doctors—make this point in the press release:
Pharmacists value their close working relationships with general practitioners and specialists, and the Guild is confident that this limited measure will ensure optimal outcomes for patients without jeopardising relationships between pharmacists and doctors.
There will be a review in two years time. The shadow minister is accurate when he says that. In point of fact, there has been some criticism by the AMA in relation to this, as I understand it, but the truth is that this is an important measure.
Consumers will certainly benefit from these initiatives. They will benefit from the medication charts initiative. Doctors will have more time to spend on clinical care. There will be improved patient safety through a reduced risk of transcription errors, and there are a number of other benefits as well. We think this is important legislation. Particularly there are two initiatives funded through the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement, an agreement that the government came to with the pharmacists in this country. The two initiatives in this legislation are the 'supply and PBS claiming from a medication chart in residential aged-care facilities' and 'continued dispensing of PBS medicines in defined circumstances'. The initiatives boil down to one important principle: ensuring good health outcomes for all Australians. This bill is good for our country and it is good for the communities that I represent in Blair and South-east Queensland.
In particular, this bill addresses the needs of patients in regional and rural Australia, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those living in residential aged-care facilities. About 170,000 Australians live in residential aged-care facilities. We spend a lot of money on residential aged-care facilities. They take up about two-thirds of the aged-care funding in this country. We need to make sure that those facilities are safe and secure, well funded and well resourced, so that people can live good-quality lives with clear choices and dignity and respect in their older years.
I applaud the Department of Health and Ageing for its broad community consultation in relation to the two initiatives in this bill, because these initiatives focus on patients and they target areas of genuine need in the community. The continued dispensing of PBS medicines in defined circumstances would allow pharmacists to provide an urgent supply of a limited number of medicines, as I described earlier, for long-term therapy where a valid prescription is unavailable despite the best efforts of both patient and pharmacist. As I say, it is limited to oral contraceptives and some cholesterol reduction medications. This initiative promotes compliance with ongoing treatment of chronic conditions as well. The other initiative would introduce supply and claiming of PBS medicines from a medication chart in residential aged-care facilities. These initiatives are sensible, they are beneficial to patients and they strengthen the community pharmacies program. Community pharmacies are critical components of health care in our nation.
Reform does cost, but reform can be undertaken in a practical way that helps people. I have always had a keen interest in aged care. I was a lawyer for many aged-care facilities in Queensland and, for about 14 years before I was elected, I served on the board of an organisation that ran aged-care facilities throughout Queensland. Indeed, my family has, for three generations, been involved in aged care in the Ipswich area.
We need to make significant changes to not just manage but reform aged care, and I am looking forward to our response to the Productivity Commission report. In my electorate, the West Moreton-Oxley Medicare Local has identified out-of-hours care for older Australians—who will benefit so much by the legislation here, particularly those living in aged-care facilities—as a major area of concern. I want to draw to the attention of the House the work of this Medicare local and particularly its CEO, Vicki Poxon, who has overseen the implementation of programs which will help people in residential aged-care facilities.
It is a very challenging time in aged care across the country. Today I met with representatives from the HSU and United Voice to talk about the challenges for low-paid workers in the aged-care sector—carers, nurses and ENs. We want to make sure locally that the residential aged-care sector and these homes and facilities are dealt with—funding them appropriately and properly and making sure patient care is done. I think the legislation here will help do that, improving the health and welfare of our community and improving health outcomes for the people in my electorate.
We have seen a lot of changes in my electorate in health care from this reforming government—everything from GP superclinics to funding for the Ipswich General Hospital, to telehealth, to e-health. Our area is one of the sites that has been allocated for that, and work is being undertaken at the moment in that regard. We have seen two new Medicare locals. We have seen also a tremendous amount of resources being put into primary care, with doctors' surgeries getting all of this.
Sadly, those opposite have whinged, moaned, carped, griped and opposed initiative after initiative. It does not surprise me today to hear the moaning, whining and whinging of the shadow minister as they reluctantly support this bill with some amendments. But yet again they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the great initiatives of this government. This legislation stands fully inside the matrix, the fabric, the framework, of this particular government, which is very committed to making sure of good health outcomes across the country and in the communities that I represent in Blair.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (18:52): I rise to support the National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill 2011 and I welcome the proposed changes to the act. Let me assure the member for Blair that it is not a matter of carping or complaining. Rather, it gives us the opportunity to review and reconsider those elements that are extremely strong within this proposed amendment and the changes that will be implemented, and it gives us the opportunity to make adjustments so that we better service the community. Allowing the supply of pharmaceuticals without a prescription by a pharmacist is, under certain conditions, a constructive initiative and extends point of access for primary health care for those who have a need of those services. Every one of us has pockets in the electorate in which the levels of disadvantage or age or income are factors in the way in which people access or do not access medical services, in particular GPs.
When you talk to people it is apparent that they certainly trust their pharmacists. They are seen as a crucial point to which you can go and seek sound advice on a medical condition which, while without the opportunity that you would have with a medical practitioner, is nevertheless still valued. This is particularly relevant to families and individuals who struggle with the increasing cost of living and limited access to a doctor. I want to remind members that this change is desired by and highly beneficial to Australians living in regional, rural and remote areas of this country, and is certainly beneficial to the residents of my electorate in Hasluck. Sometimes we overlook and take for granted that there are avenues of access that are not always consistent across any region. The geographic diversity of this country is challenging for the way that we keep that continual supply of medicines, particularly prescribed medicines, to those with chronic conditions.
The enablement of the supply of pharmaceuticals by a pharmacist is welcomed and ensures compliance with regimes of prescribed treatment. There are some medications that if you stop them suddenly they have a detrimental effect. I am pleased that the government has put forward this amendment because it enables the continuity of compliance and the continuity of prevention of the onset of an illness beyond the point of damage which is consistent with a regime of treatment that holds the condition at bay and gives an individual quality of life. It also means that the constituents within my seat will now have better access to important medications that they require to improve or maintain their health service as opposed to breaking the cycle of continuity of their medication.
Eligible pharmaceuticals and the conditions for supply will be determined by the legislative instrument and allow for the supply of and PBS claiming of pharmaceuticals in residential aged-care facilities based on a standardised medical chart rather than requiring a doctor to write a separate prescription. This is particularly important given the shortage of general practitioners and doctors in rural and regional Australia and in some capital cities where the ratio of patients to practitioners is unacceptably high. This is particularly relevant to those residents in the Gosnells area of the seat of Hasluck. The result is there are patients who require medication for a chronic, ongoing health condition running out of prescribed medications and having to wait to see their local medical practitioner. In some areas of my electorate it can be several days before you can get to see your local doctor, and in this instance the 'jeopardisation' of the continuity of prescribed medication becomes problematic.
The bill enacts initiatives agreed between the Pharmacy Guild and the government in 2010 under the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement, which includes the continued dispensing initiative—which I again commend the government for—the medical chart initiative and the technical amendments regarding prescriptions for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. The strength of the benefits is beneficial ultimately for some of the chronic therapy medicines and allows continual dispensing. Even though the intent of the bill is evident and the coalition is concerned that the specificity of detail is not in the legislation but conveyed through ministerial statements or upon advice from the department, having worked as a senior bureaucrat I know that the detail is often left to the regulatory framework that can follow this or, alternatively, to the guidelines that are established under which the administering pharmacist would provide medications. Nevertheless, it would have been good to know the details of the process that will enable the distribution of those pharmaceuticals and certainly to know what some of the restrictions may be, if there are any at all.
The Australian Medical Association is strongly opposed to continued dispensing. It has said that:
… the Bill in its current form would permit a significant change in the professional role of pharmacists that the AMA believes is not in the best interests of patients or the professional relationship between doctors and pharmacists.
I concur with their sentiment. Nevertheless, the intent is that we enable multiple points of access to the ongoing supply of prescription medications required for the medical treatment of any individual. Again, I go back to the point that the trust that exists for pharmacists is extremely high. For me, it is a good practical way of ensuring that the relationship with both the pharmacist and the medical practitioner is critical to the ongoing treatment and case management plans for patients.
Currently, there are mechanisms in place for continued dispensing to occur—the owing prescription protocols where a pharmacist can supply a PBS medicine after contacting the patient's doctor by phone and the script is provided within seven days. The issues for pharmacists include the administrative difficulty for pharmacists and the financial risks as PBS claims cannot be made if the script is not provided. Whilst it is a good stopgap measure, these new amendments now alleviate that and allow people to better access the ongoing care that they need without having to worry that the seven-day requirement will not be met because they have been unable to get in to see their local doctor. I know that within my own seat are people who have to wait up to 14 days to see their local GP. If they go, they go and get their script but are charged for a full consultation. Emergency supply provision under state and territory regulations allows a three-day emergency supply of essential medication, where it is not possible for the patient—
Debate interrupted.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (19:00): On behalf of the Speaker I present a correction to the Selection Committee's report No. 40 relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 13 February 2012. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the committee's determination will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business.
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 7 February 2012.
2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 13 February 2012, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform
Interactive and online gambling and gambling advertising Interactive Gambling and Broadcasting Amendment (Online Transactions and Other Measures) Bill 2011—Second report
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10:20 a.m.
Speech time limits —
Mr Wilkie— 5 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
2 Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
Inquiry into the funding of political parties and election campaigns— Report
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10:30 a.m.
Speech time limits —
Mr Melham— 5 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
3 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services
Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011 — Inquiry
The Committee determined that statements on the inquiry may be made — all statements to conclude by 10:40 a.m.
Speech time limits —
Mr Ripoll— 5 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
4 Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
Inquiry into Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder — Statements
The Committee determined that statements on the inquiry may be made — all statements to conclude by 10:50 a.m.
Speech time limits —
Mr Perrett— 5 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR BANDT : To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to create the opportunity for marriage equality for people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, and for related purposes (Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012). (Notice given 7February 2012.)
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41.
2 MR S. P. JONES: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to establish marriage equality for same-sex couples, and for related purposes (Marriage Amendment Bill 2012). (Notice given 7February 2012.)
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41.
3 MR KATTER: To present a Bill for an Act to provide for Parliament to approve the ratification of treaties, and for related purposes (Treaties Ratification Bill 2011). (Notice given 3November 2011.)
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41.
4 MR OAKESHOTT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to migration, and for other purposes (Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Assessment and Other Measures) Bill 2012). (Notice given 7February 2012.)
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41.
5 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes (Fair Work Amendment (Better Work/Life Balance) Bill 2012). (Notice given 7February 2012.)
Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41.
6 MR WILKIE: to move:
That this House agrees that should the Marriage Act 1961 be amended to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples, any such amendment should ensure that the Act imposes no obligation on any church or religious minister to perform such a marriage. (Notice given 2November 2011.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits —
Mr Wilkie— 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue at a later hour.
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (8 to 9.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
7 MS SAFFIN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that as National Asbestos Awareness Week is formally recognised, it makes earnest representation to the Government to continue to call on Canada to ratify the listing of chrysotile asbestos in the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent;
(2) recognises the proactive actions of the Australian Government in mitigating the possible spread of asbestos-related diseases through continuing bans on the production and use of asbestos as well as strict controls on the removal and disposal of existing material;
(3) commends the Australian Government on a number of measures that have been put into place to manage and compensate the victims of asbestos related diseases which include:
(a) the recent ratification of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Asbestos Convention, as one of the first ILO Conventions to be ratified by the Commonwealth Government since 2006;
(b) Australian leadership on a strong closing declaration by 66 countries at the 2011 Conference of the Rotterdam Convention, which expressed deep concern that the listing of chrysotile asbestos had been prevented by a small number of parties and resolved to move forward to list chrysotile asbestos in Annex III;
(c) the $5 million grant made to support the Asbestos Disease Research Institute Bernie Banton Centre;
(d) funding for the new Australian Mesothelioma Registry, which was launched in 2010 to gather more detailed and accurate information on mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases;
(e) support for the harmonisation of health and safety legislation which will provide, for the first time, a uniform framework for the minimisation of exposure, the removal of asbestos, and the management asbestos materials in the workplace;
(f) the establishment of the Asbestos Management Review in late 2010 to recommend strategies for the development of a national strategic plan to improve asbestos awareness, management and removal;
(g) the loan agreement with the NSW Government to ensure asbestos victims and their families continue to receive payments through the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund; and
(h) the $1.5 million Comcare Asbestos Innovation Fund which sponsors programs and research to prevent and better manage asbestos exposure, as well as improve treatment for asbestos-disease sufferers;
(4) notes the unwelcome inheritance that asbestos has left on the Australian community, which sees Australian citizens suffering one of the highest rates of asbestos-related diseases in the world, with the effects of asbestos mining still being suffered by many, mostly Indigenous and past employees of James Hardie's operation at Baryulgil in the electoral division of Page, and the poor health and mortality they and their families suffer;
(5) extends its profound sympathies to all individuals suffering asbestos-related diseases as well as their friends and families and the friends and families of those who have passed away as a result of asbestos-related diseases;
(6) notes the current and potential damage that imported asbestos is creating to the people in the Asia Pacific region where, despite these well documented health risks, it remains an attractive commodity due to its low cost compared to other comparable building material;
(7) calls upon the Canadian Government to recognise the potentially catastrophic health and social implications of Canada's production and sale of asbestos and products containing asbestos to these lower socio-economic markets; and
(8) supports the Australian Government in using strong diplomatic efforts to convince the Canadian Government to cease both production and trade in asbestos. (Notice given 21November 2011.)
Time allotted — 50 minutes
Speech time limits —
Ms Saffin— 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 10 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
8 MS PARKE: To move:
That this House:
(1) expresses deep concern to our inter-parliamentary colleagues in the Iranian Parliament regarding serious and systematic human rights violations occurring in the Islamic Republic of Iran;
(2) notes the following from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's report on The situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran released in September 2011, that:
(a) Iran has stepped up its crackdown on human rights workers, women's rights activists, journalists and government opponents;
(b) since the beginning of 2011, Iran has seen a notable increase in the use of capital punishment for political and juvenile prisoners;
(c) Iran has increased discrimination, in some cases amounting to persecution, against a number of religious and ethnic minority groups;
(d) the United Nations continues to hold long-standing concerns in respect of the treatment of the Baha'i community and the trial and sentencing of seven Baha'i community leaders, which did not meet due process and fair trial requirements;
(e) there is limited enjoyment of political, economic, social and cultural rights by, inter alia, Arabs, Azeri, Baloch and Kurdish communities, and some communities of non-citizens; and
(f) since May 2011, security forces conducted raids on the home of individuals involved in the activities of the Baha'i Institute for Higher Education and arrested 15 of its members in various cities;
(3) notes that in recent months there have been:
(a) further reports of the denial of access to Iranian universities for young people on the basis of their political or religious beliefs; and
(b) prison terms of between four and five years imposed on seven Iranian Baha'is in relation to their association with the Baha'i Institute for Higher Education; and
(4) calls on the National Consultative Assembly of Iran as fellow members of the inter-parliamentary union and as the parliamentary body of a member state of the United Nations, to:
(a) promote and protect fundamental human rights irrespective of origin, ethnicity, sex, religion, opinion, or other status;
(b) investigate the denial of access to universities for student activists, Baha'is, and others barred from universities for reasons other than academic capability; and
(c) seeks a judicial review of the trials of prisoners of conscience, including the seven former Baha'i leaders, lawyer Ms Nasrin Sotoudeh, and other human rights defenders and lawyers. (Notice given 21November 2011.)
Time allotted — 40 minutes
Speech time limits —
Ms Parke— 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 10 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration
of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for Main Committee (approx 11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR OAKESHOTT: To move:
That this House request the Prime Minister and Treasurer to:
(1) direct the Commonwealth Grants Commission to allocate an annual fixed percentage of Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenue directly to the 654 local councils throughout Australia;
(2) include this annual allocation as part of the GST Review currently underway and for implementation through any required legislative or executive government processes; and
(3) consider constitutional recognition of local government only in the event of any successful legal challenge to the direct annual allocation of GST revenue to local councils within Australia. (Notice given 7February 2012.)
Time allotted — 30 minutes
Speech time limits —
Mr Oakeshott— 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
2 MR HAYES: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises:
(a) the extensive historical connection and contribution of the Mandaean religion and that of other indigenous people, to the country of Iraq and humanity overall;
(b) the ongoing plight since 2003 associated with a systematic loss of culture, heritage and language of the Sabian Mandaean and various Christian minorities in Iraq; and
(c) that Australia was part of the 'coalition of the willing' that prosecuted the war on Iraq in 2003, and due to this involvement, Australia, along with its coalition partners, has a moral responsibility to compassionately support and protect the indigenous minorities of Iraq from ongoing persecution;
(2) condemns the horrendous acts of violence and persecution against the Sabian Mandaeans and other religious minorities in Iraq; and
(3) encourages the preservation and continued prosperity of the heritage, culture and language of the Sabian Mandaean and other indigenous people of Iraq. (Notice given 24August 2011.)
Time allotted — 50 minutes
Speech time limits —
Mr Hayes — 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 10 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 10 mins + 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
3 MR BANDT: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) HRL Limited was awarded a $100 million grant in 2007 by the Coalition Government under the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund;
(b) to date, HRL Limited has been unable to meet the pre-conditions of the grant, and no money has been dispersed;
(c) the grant would facilitate the building of a new coal fired power plant, contradicting the current Prime Minister's statement that no new dirty coal fired power plants will be built in Australia;
(d) there are a number of low emission renewable technologies that deserve government support; and
(e) the Australian community strongly supports public funds being used to support the development of renewable technologies; and
(2) calls on the Government to immediately withdraw the grant offer to HRL Limited and allocate the $100 million to the Australian Renewable Energy Authority. (Notice given 15September 2011.)
Time allotted — 30 minutes
Speech time limits —
Mr Bandt— 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
4 MR MELHAM: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes with regret the death on 19 November 2011 of Basil Lewis D'Oliveira;
(2) recognises his contribution to world cricket, especially in South Africa and England;
(3) notes that his quiet dignity in the face of rejection by South Africa for reasons other than cricket helped to transform public opinion in England and beyond;
(4) particularly recognises his long battle against apartheid in South Africa, his actions in bringing to the world's notice the disenfranchisement of non-white cricketers in South Africa, and that he became a leader of a worthy cause without ever seeking a leadership role; and
(5) notes that, as a result of the life of Basil D'Oliveira, non-white cricketers are able to represent South Africa with pride and distinction. (Notice given 21November 2011.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits —
Mr Melham— 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking — 10 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for Main Committee (6.30 to 9 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
5 MR OAKESHOTT: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) microbreweries are important niche businesses in Australia, providing valuable job opportunities and economic growth, particularly in rural and regional areas;
(b) microbreweries need recognition within the tax system through the Microbrewery Refund, given that they are competing in a domestic market heavily dominated by large multinational companies, following the sale of both Fosters and Lion Nathan to overseas interests;
(c) the Microbrewery Refund was introduced in 2000 and that the definition of a microbrewery has not been reviewed and is now markedly out of step with industry reality; and
(d) the maximum excise refund has remained capped at $10,000, while the beer excise has been raised twice a year for the past 11 years with the consumer price index; and
(2) calls on the Government to amend:
(a) the definition of a microbrewery under the Excise Regulations 1925, regulation 2AB, to significantly increase the current maximum volume of 30,000 litres; and
(b) Excise Regulations 1925, regulation 50(l)(zzd), to remove or significantly increase the maximum of $10,000 excise refund that can be claimed in a financial year. (Notice given 2November 2011.)
Time allotted — 20 minutes
Speech time limits —
Mr Oakeshott — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
6 Ms Rishworth: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the findings of the Letting the Children be Children review into the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood commissioned by the Government of the United Kingdom including that:
(a) children are growing and developing against the backdrop of a culture of increasing commercialisation and sexualisation;
(b) parents are concerned about clothing, services and products for children which reinforce gender stereotypes and portray children as being more sexually mature than their chronological age would indicate;
(c) children are under considerable pressures to be consumers; and
(d) parents often feel their concerns are not being listened to despite the fact that they are often in the best position to decide what is appropriate for their children;
(2) welcomes the Ministerial Statement in respect of this review by the Government of the United Kingdom which acknowledges the need to protect children from excessive commercialisation and premature sexualisation, and accepts the recommendation that efforts to address this are focused on industry and regulators with government monitoring progress and legislating to protect children if necessary;
(3) notes with concern that the sexualisation of children is a growing issue not just in the United Kingdom but also in Australia;
(4) recognises that the sexualisation of children, and in particular girls, has been associated with a range of negative consequences including body image issues, eating disorders, low self esteem and mental ill health; and
(5) urges governments, industries, regulators and the wider community in Australia to take note of the Letting the Children be Children report and to work together to address the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood. (Notice given 21November 2011.)
Time allotted — 70 minutes
Speech time limits —
Ms Rishworth— 10 minutes.
Next 3 Members speaking — 10 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 10 mins + 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
7 MR WILKIE: To move:
That this House agrees that should the Marriage Act 1961 be amended to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples, any such amendment should ensure that the Act imposes no obligation on any church or religious minister to perform such a marriage. (Notice given 2November 2011.)
Time allotted — 10 minutes
Speech time limits —
All Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
8 MR OAKESHOTT : To move:
That this House calls on the Council of Australian Governments to implement a National Partnership Agreement on gambling reform, that agrees to:
(1) implement a:
(a) national cap on electronic gaming machines; and
(b) long term national reduction strategy on electronic gaming machines underneath a national cap;
(2) refer the issue of revenue loss from a national reduction strategy to the State Tax Working Group, set up by the Tax Forum, so that any losses incurred are spread across State and Commonwealth revenues; and
(3) include online gaming reform, sports betting reform and horse, harness and greyhound race coverage reform to address links between problem gambling and national health outcomes, as well as any links to the proceeds of crime, money laundering and community safety. (Notice given 7 February 2012.)
Time allotted — 20 minutes
Speech time limits —
Mr Oakeshott — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
9 MS HALL: To move:
That this House:
(1) expresses concern at the impact that beauty pageants have on children;
(2) calls for an investigation into the impact of these pageants on young girls; and
(3) notes that:
(a) obsessive preoccupation with grooming, body image and superficial beauty has the potential to create major psychological disorder in adolescence and adulthood;
(b) such pageants are common in the United States and that serious concerns have been expressed in relation to the impact they are having on these young girls who strive for an unrealistic and unobtainable image; and
(c) these pageants have the potential to add significantly to Australia's health costs. (Notice given 14June 2011.)
Time allotted — Remaining private Members ' business time prior to 9pm.
Speech time limits —
Ms Hall — 5 minutes.
Other Members — 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
The committee recommends that the following item of private Members' business listed on the notice paper be voted on:
Order of the day –
Tax Reform (Mr Oakeshott)
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (19:00): Order! It being 7.00 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Queensland Floods
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (19:00): I rise to support the comments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, in question time today when they spoke about the floods that have affected most of Queensland recently, and in particular their comments about the memorials and the 12-month ceremonies that have happened in my electorate of Wright. Twelve months on, one of the challenges we face in the electorate is ensuring that, as Australians and Queenslanders, we do not forget the tremendous suffering, the loss of life and the heartache—the scars still remaining in communities will take years to heal. My role as a local member is to make sure that no-one forgets those days last year.
Recently, a ceremony was conducted that was attended by the Prime Minister, the Queensland Premier, the Governor-General, the Queensland Governor and Senator Ludwig. It was chaired by the local mayor and attended by all the councillors. I want to mention particularly one of the unsung heroes in this. He was a relatively new bloke to the district, Ian Flynn, the new CEO of the council. Here is a bloke who had taken on a new role at a bigger council. He had come to the Lockyer Valley from another part of my electorate, Boonah, where he had been CEO of the shire. Before he could get his feet under the desk he was faced with what was possibly one of the greatest natural disasters that the south-east corner of Queensland has seen. Ian's tenacity and commitment in rebuilding that area has made him one of the unsung heroes. Some say that what does not kill you makes you stronger. I can assure you that Ian Flynn, when he visits Canberra this week, will be seen to be a stronger person from having experienced those floods and having been thrust into the community.
There were a number of ceremonies throughout the electorate that commemorated the memories of those who died and celebrated those people who made it through the floods. One in particular was an early morning service at Grantham at which they let go a heap of little butterflies to represent moving on. Another ceremony later that evening was run with Councillor Ian Friend as the MC. It was not flash and it was not choreographed but, jingoes, it was a good ceremony. It was just one of those ones that come from the heart. It was part of the healing process. Everyone deals with grief in their own way, but the community is stronger for having those 12 months. Some of them say that they do not want to revisit it again in 12 months time. They have done a 12-month gig and they just want to roll on and get on with life. There were a number of other ceremonies around the area, obviously, but because the area affected was so large I could not get to all of them. Some of them were celebrated in local pubs, where people just sat around, had a beer and remembered the locals who are no longer in their midst. Each community chose to celebrate or grieve in its own special way.
What do we learn from it as leaders? One of the most devastating things that could happen to a family, having been evacuated from their home, would be to return to their home to find it inundated with four to six feet of water. Then, knowing in their heart that they have paid insurance premiums for the last 20 years, they get a hydrology report covered by an inspection from an appraisal agent who tells them that the flood that has inundated their house is riverine flooding and they are no longer insured. Today we on the Standing Committee on Economics took evidence from the Insurance Council and a number of other peak bodies in a round forum. I will be working closely with government to try to find some standard definitions for floods that will, hopefully, benefit all Australians.
In closing, I pass on my thoughts and prayers to the rest of Queensland, in particular the western parts: Roma, Mitchell, St George. They are communities that I am very familiar with and which are currently inundated with water. I understand the devastation that goes with flooding but, at the other end of the spectrum, I understand the generosity of Australians in trying to assist these communities.
Holt Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (19:05): I commend the member for Wright for his comments. Obviously, they are sincerely heartfelt. Madam Deputy Speaker, it may come as a surprise to you, but many Australians feel we live in a divided country. They feel that we are divided between the rich and the poor, the employed and the unemployed, the haves and have-nots, the so-called elite Australians and ordinary Australians, and those who promote diversity and those who promote fear. In this divided society, in their view, the community feels in many ways more divorced and separated from political life than ever before. They feel that they have no voice. Perilously watching events occurring overseas, waiting for the potential storm of the next global financial crisis and watching the combat in this place, they yearn for a nation united and a sense of national purpose—a national vision. Many are tired of the deep political division, in this place in particular—intense, necessary but enervative to the national good. They want unity, they want vision, they want purpose, they want hope and they want to believe. As I reflect on these sentiments, I think that in many ways the answer is coming from the grass roots and going to the top. It is a quintessential facet of the Australian character to rally together for the common good. Be it flood or fire, driving rains or ferocious winds, Australians continuously demonstrate what makes this country great. We always rally together for the common good.
But this national characteristic is not confined to how we face emergencies. I see so much evidence of it in my own community, my own seat and my own neighbourhood. I see it in the efforts of those who selflessly volunteer their time to make our community a better place. These volunteers make an immense contribution to our local community on an ongoing basis. Through activities such as conducting magnificent Christmas carols to literally lighting up people's lives in the lead-up to Christmas to making toys for families with no money to coaching special soccer schools, this spirit shines so brightly and deserves to be recognized and acknowledged by the community at large.
These quiet heroes are the glue that binds our community together. Without their voluntary work, many of our community service and sporting groups would not exist. In my mind there is no better way to recognise these individuals for their effort than on Australia Day. Tonight I pay tribute to the 29 outstanding individuals and one organisation who received a 2012 Holt Australia Day Award for their contribution to the local community in my electorate. The 2012 Holt Australia Day Awards were presented at the Day of Nations celebrations in Hampton Park and at the Actively Diverse Day celebrations in Doveton, with a large crowd of families and friends turning out to support the recipients.
I will read their names into the record: Elizabeth Anning, Kathy Ashdown, David Bladier, Jayden Boyde, Bruce Dusting, Pam and Elvis D'sa, Cecelia Garlick, Peter Kreun, Mladen Krsman, John Francis Laughton, Wendy Murphy, George Nicol, James and Heather O'Keefe, Larry Sebastian, Tony O'Hara, Mary Aldag, Stanley Birkett, Chris Drysdale, Val Motta, Johnson Mun, Pathirage Wijitha Perera, Wendy Leigh Phillips, Hector De Santos, Paulinus Ronald Smith, Bob Tyler, Jeffrey Ware, Rob Wilson, and members of the Afghan Australia Philanthropic Association.
We heard their stories when we presented them with a framed certificate and a plant—an Australian native plant, which I thought was appropriate given that these people sink their roots into the soil of the community. After listening to these stories it was apparent again that, as a country, we are at our best when we come together. In my view, in Holt we do that better than just about anywhere else. I congratulate all those who received an Australia Day award for their exemplary community spirit and endless hours of volunteer work to make our community a better and safer place to live. These individuals are an example to us in this place and to our country at large.
In finishing, there is no doubt that there is a sickness in community spirit. There is disenchantment with the political process. There is a feeling among our community that their voices are not being heard, and that is to the detriment of our national good. I would just like to say to those here present and to our community at large that these heroes show us the way. Let us honour them by trying to be more like them in this place and elsewhere.
Foreign Investment
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (19:10): There has always been a place for foreign investment in Australia, including in Australian agriculture. Indeed, there are areas of this great nation that have been developed because of such foreign investment. An example of this is the Esperance region of Western Australia, which has flourished as a result of American investment in the 1960s and is today one of our prime cropping areas. There is much to be gained by having other people and nations invest in Australian agriculture. However, foreign investment in Australian food production must be done to support our national interest and not to undermine it.
Foreign investment in housing is already managed in the best interests of our nation. Foreign investment in all residential housing is assessed, with the underlying principle that it must not drive up prices for Australians. That is good policy. So why is the government abandoning Australian farmers by refusing to apply the same principle to them? If foreign investment in agriculture can build relationships with other nations that open new trade opportunities and break down trade barriers, then we welcome it. Such investment should provide new markets and new opportunities. We welcome foreign investment that is open, honest and transparent. We are not afraid of such investment, because we are neither foolish nor xenophobic. However, as good shepherds we must also constantly watch for foreign investment that fails to meet these ideals or the national interest.
The recent ABARES report on foreign investment was used by the Labor government to mask very real concerns held by millions of Australians that nobody is on watch—that the shepherd, and that is the government, is in fact asleep. This report identified that approximately nine per cent of Australian farmland has some degree of foreign ownership. The government has used this figure to deride those who are concerned about Australia's sovereignty over its farm and food-producing assets, and many of those are in my electorate. However, the report deserves far closer scrutiny. In spite of the superficial nature of the process that was used, the report actually identifies that over three million hectares of Western Australian agricultural land is over half foreign owned—that is, foreign controlled. When you think about that in practical terms, it equates to half of the area of mainland Tasmania or to a country the size of Belgium. It is over twice the size of the Forrest electorate, and it is more than all the land west of the line from Bunbury to Albany.
In total, over seven million hectares of Western Australian agricultural land has some level of foreign ownership. That equates to the entire area of mainland Tasmania. This is not an insignificant area at all, but I do not hear the government telling Australians this very real and pertinent truth. Unfortunately, it suits the eyes-closed agenda to say that it is nine per cent, because it sounds so much smaller than three million hectares. Yet three million hectares might be considered a positive if it meets the key criteria of transparency and openness as well as the national interest test. These criteria are surely imperative, which is why I was really concerned to learn that recent farm sales to foreign buyers in Western Australia have been subject to secrecy clauses. Several dairy farms have sold in recent months, but the Australian people are not to be told any of the detail. Is it any wonder that everyday Australians are concerned? When secrecy replaces transparency, trust is the first casualty. Without transparency, how can we know how much is enough? Currently it is supposed to be nine per cent, according to the government. That might be acceptable, but is 19 per cent okay? Is 29 per cent fine? How much foreign ownership is the limit? More importantly: how will we know when we reach it?
The government has raised the Foreign Investment Review Board benchmark from $231 million to $244 million. This means that there are almost no Australian farm purchases that would trigger a review. That means that we might get to that 19 per cent or 29 per cent of foreign ownership and we just would not know about it. We would not know if that were in the nation's best interests. Unfortunately, this is the eyes-closed approach of the Labor government. We have no idea what foreign investment is occurring and no idea what level is in the national interest in relation to the nation's agricultural land. I would ask: are they the shepherds of Australian agriculture or are they simply the sheep?
This is the year of the farmer— (Time expired)
Lyons Electorate: Cricket
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (19:15): I would like to follow up on what my colleague the member for Bass, Geoff Lyons, was talking about just before question time today. He was remarking on the amazing feats of Tasmanian cricketers. We have a state of only 500,000 people, yet we have managed to supply the Australian cricket team with so many top players over the years. Ricky Ponting is of course one of those who stand out. Punta, the boy from Mowbray, was a marvellous captain. When he took over the reins he guided the team to many victories. In later times he has had a quieter time. He gave up the captaincy to Michael Clark, who is doing a great job. There was a lot of pressure on Punta from the New South Wales cricket mafia and from some commentators, I thought. Punta was great in his captaincy and ever since.
We have Hilfy, Ben Hilfenhaus, a terrific bowler who has come back and bowled extremely well this summer. He is from the north-west coast. He is a brickie. He has reorganised his technique and has really cut through. We have Doherty. There is Tim Paine, who has unfortunately been out with injury for some time. He is a great wicketkeeper and opening batsman and he would fit in very well in the Australian cricket team. I wish him the best.
There is Jason Krejza; George Bailey, who is now the captain of Tasmania and captain of the Australian one-day cricket team; Ed Cowan; James Faulkner; and of course the one-day-cricket Tasmanian Tigers, who recently thrashed New South Wales by three wickets. I think they are still on top of the one-day ladder. They are Mark Cosgrove, Jonathan Wells, Ed Cowan, George Bailey, James Faulkner, Ashton May, Luke Butterworth, Jason Krejza, Brady Jones, who is wicketkeeper, Jackson Bird, Ben Laughlin and Matt Johnston. They did a great job on 4 February when they thrashed New South Wales.
Cricket is a great game, and in Tasmania there are many country clubs and many kids playing cricket. You see kids everywhere. There are many opportunities for young people to be involved in cricket. There are many organised young people's games but there are also kids playing cricket in the backyard, on the beach, in the paddock or in the streets. Of course now a lot of women are playing cricket. It is great to see that growing in Tasmania. It is great to see that game televised between the New Zealand White Ferns and Australia recently.
I gave my six-year-old granddaughter a small bat when she was about four, in case she wanted to take up the game as her grandfather did years ago. My family has been involved in the Cressy Cricket Club for many years. That club goes back to the 1800s. Cricket is an institution in Tasmania. We have played a lot of cricket. I remember my uncle Ray teaching me how to bat in the cowshed; how to keep the front foot forward and the elbow up. Although defensive cricket has changed a bit in recent years, it was a good way to learn.
I remember on Australia Day at Avoca we opened the old schoolhouse and turned it into a tourist centre. The mayor announced some of the awards for the local municipality. The youngsters were flat out on the grass behind the centre playing their hearts out in a backyard game. It looked pretty serious, and the wicket looked pretty bouncy. The balls came through at a whole different level.
Cricket is a great pastime for Tasmanians. I believe Bellerive Oval must be one of the best and most picturesque grounds in the world. It is a great advertisement for Tasmania. Whenever the opportunity comes to play a test match or other international games there when we get a focus on it— (Time expired)
Member for Bass
Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (19:21): In November last year I had the pleasure of visiting the beautiful state of Tasmania, particularly the beautiful city of Launceston where I spoke with several businesses and residents and I was absolutely overwhelmed by the sentiment against the current member for Bass. It was so intense that it would be remiss of me to let it slide and not inform my colleagues in this place about what I discovered. I have never experienced anything like it in my 10 years in parliament. Almost every single person I met spoke with absolute bewilderment about the lack of action by their local member. They have not seen him; they have not heard from him. They do not even know what he does.
I am advised that, despite being in town, the member for Bass failed to attend a major gathering of his constituents last year who were rallying against the impact of healthcare cuts in northern Tasmania. It is quite extraordinary, because the member actually worked at Launceston General Hospital as an administrator for years and claims a close association with healthcare delivery. Yet he did not even attend the march. He was missing in action and avoided the opportunity to address thousands of constituents on this vital issue. Facebook is no substitute for real face time. Despite a significant number of healthcare-related pleas on his Facebook page, the member for Bass has failed to respond to his constituents—despite advertising Facebook as a means of keeping in touch.
It goes on, and it gets worse. In October last year, the member for Bass trivialised the heavy effects of state Labor's budget cuts and was quoted in the Examiner on 14 October as saying, 'The sky doesn't fall in. Hospitals still receive patients and they still treat them.' The member for Bass appears to be the only person in Tasmania who does not believe that there is a healthcare crisis in the state. Instead of following the lead of the highly-respected and energetic Liberal candidate for Bass, Andrew Nikolic, and advocating for the hospital in the home program that was recently cut by the Tasmanian state government, the Labor member for Bass encouraged community fundraising to restore this vital program. As if this was not a big enough gaffe, he again trivialised the program last month when he said, 'If you have plenty of money, hospital in the home is nice.'
I went to Tasmania several times last year, and it does not take a genius to recognise that the forestry industry is incredibly important to the local economy. The member for Bass has again been conspicuous in his absence as Labor-Green governments in Hobart and in Canberra preside over the destruction of a proud and sustainable forestry industry. Jobs and lives are being destroyed in timber communities, and yet he is missing in action. The so-called 'forestry peace deal' imposed on Tasmania in August 2011 by the Prime Minister and the Tasmanian Premier has not delivered peace or security. It is a dud deal. We have got extreme environmental groups continuing to disrupt timber companies and campaigning actively overseas to destroy the reputation and markets of forestry-related businesses. The Labor Premier of Tasmania has referred to the actions of these groups as 'absolutely shameful', yet the member for Bass remains silent about the plight of thousands of constituents whose lives are being wrecked by this dud deal. What has the member for Bass done to address the lies and mistruths being peddled by the Greens overseas? Why hasn't he called for legislative action in Tasmania to increase penalties for those who engage in deceptive and misleading conduct that harms legitimate businesses? He has not done any of these things, but the excellent Liberal candidate for Bass has done these things and more. He publicly advocates for the people of Bass and fills the void created by the current member, who is always missing in action.
We saw in the Examiner on 30 June this year that the member for Bass was missing in action when he told his constituents he would not lobby Canberra to address silt issues in the Tamar River—once again putting him at odds with the local community. The excellent Liberal candidate for Bass, Andrew Nikolic, has actively advocated on this issue and has recently confirmed that an elected coalition government would provide $2½ million for emergency dredging of the Tamar River. (Time expired)
Manufacturing
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (19:26): I was pleased to welcome the Prime Minister and the Minister for Manufacturing to my electorate recently on a visit to the Ford factory in Broadmeadows. This visit marked the announcement of a $101 million investment package for Ford Broadmeadows, $34 million of which is the federal government's co-investment in the government's long-term commitment to the car industry, to the viability of Ford Broadmeadows and to the protection of viability of employment in my electorate.
The story of Broadmeadows and our local community is very much the story of modern Australia and the industries that built our economy and continue to provide Australia with its productive and innovative capacity. At the heart of these industries is the automotive industry, with Ford Broadmeadows an iconic employer of generations of migrants who settled in the region. Communities such as ours have been a bedrock for a dynamic, competitive and innovative manufacturing sector which the government, I am pleased to say, is committed to continuing to support.
According to the latest census data, 11,016 people—18 per cent of my constituents—are employed in the manufacturing industry and it will come as no surprise that they have very much welcomed the government's co-contribution of $34 million as a co-investment in the future of industry in our local area. They welcomed this as they welcomed the government's support for manufacturing through the $300 million Steel Transformation Plan and the $5.4 billion New Car Plan for a Greener Future and also the Clean Technology Program and the new R&D tax incentive.
The clear difference between the Labor federal government and an Abbott-led opposition is that we in the government are genuinely committed to maintaining and preserving Australian manufacturing jobs. We want to keep Australian jobs, we want to remain a country that makes things, and we do this by forging a real and genuine partnership with industries and workers. We are very much about a viable future for manufacturing in this country.
In contrast, the opposition leader, although he is happy to walk factory floors shaking hands and giving impressions, has no qualms about running back to the shadow cabinet table to endorse a $500 million cut to funding for 2015 and then another cut of $1 billion that is legislated to run until 2020 for direct support to our automotive industry. I am certain that the many workers who shook Tony Abbott's hand on those factory floors will be deeply disappointed that he is not fair dinkum enough to withstand the neo-Liberal ideology that continues to drive opposition policies. The majority of Australians want their government to support the car industry. The majority of Australians have said that time and time again. This is very much the will of the Australian people, and Mr Abbott ignores that will. In fact, Mr Abbott cannot continue to refer to the will of the Australian people when it suits his agenda only and to ignore that will when it does not suit him.
Let us put the cost of Australian investment in the manufacturing sector into perspective. The price of government assistance to the auto industry in Australia is not only amongst the lowest in the world, at approximately $17.80 per person, which is less than the price of footy ticket, but also stands in stark contrast with the United States, which invests, per head, a staggering $264.82. The US government provides nearly 15 times the rate of our own modest contribution to an industry which gives back to this country so much and gives back to the economy so much.
Recently, the Indonesian trade minister estimated that Indonesia required some $400 billion in infrastructure and manufacturing investment by about 2025. In highlighting the potential for Australia and our contribution to advance manufacturing around the world, he said: 'Another point to note is the investment in smart capital. More of that is coming into the non-mining space for the purposes of the development of infrastructure and also manufacturing.'
It reaffirms what the Gillard government has been saying and acting on all along. We cannot simply squander our productive and manufacturing capacity and our ability to innovate and rely on a resources boom, only to be left with an industrial graveyard—(Time expired)
Murray-Darling Basin
Mr SECKER (Barker—Opposition Whip) (19:31): I rise to speak tonight about the importance of reform for the Murray-Darling Basin. The mighty Murray flows through the Riverland and Murraylands and into the Lower Lakes in South Australia, which are all areas of my electorate of Barker.
As a farmer myself, I acknowledge the importance of food security and the role a sustainable water system plays in that security and sustainability. Without the mighty Murray in Barker, the citrus growers and grape growers in the Riverland and the Barossa, the dairy farmers in the Murraylands and the fishermen in the Lower Lakes would no longer exist—together with the many vegetable growers. More than this, the people who have made a life in river communities would no longer have a home, as the river is the centrepiece and oxygen.
Last year I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia for the length of the inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin. I note that the honourable member for Braddon was on that committee as well. In fact, we worked on a similar but not quite as extensive an inquiry in 2003-04. So we have both put in a lot of work.
This committee worked extremely hard. We spent many months visiting basin communities, including in December and January—which is almost unheard of in standing committees—and we visited the basin communities up and down the system. There was no bias. We sought out the stories and knowledge of those who live and breathe the river, from the top, the bottom and the middle. I do not believe I have blinkers just for the state in which my electorate lies. I believe the key to lasting reform is to approach the basin as a whole. This was the plan Prime Minister Howard initiated and the plan the coalition is still committed to. We from this side of the House understand that all states must work together; otherwise, it is not reform at all.
The alternative to reform is to sit on our hands and do nothing. I would like to think that no-one who has the best interests of the basin and its communities in mind would think that doing nothing is a good idea or even an option. I have been to meetings with local communities and I agree that South Australia has been efficient for a long time. We have had to be efficient to survive. However, the interstate disputes over the basin water are ruining this country's chance for lasting reform.
In South Australia, Labor Premier Jay Weatherill's threatened High Court challenge to any final basin plan is most unhelpful. Dragging the process out further only delays reform and action to ensure the health of the basin. The federal Labor government has already dragged its feet on infrastructure spending, money that the Howard government left, yet Labor is still struggling to get the job done. It has only spent about five per cent of that $6 billion figure for infrastructure.
What I find puzzling about the situation with the South Australian Labor government is that Mr Weatherill is fighting directly with the federal Labor government. I note that even Senator Penny Wong has told the South Australian Labor government to get on with it. Speaking at the Press Club today, Minister Wong said, 'I do think South Australia and the nation will be best served if it can be resolved. I think the fighting between states has not served the river well or the basin well. That was always the view I put when I held the portfolio.'
It is not about accepting a raw deal for South Australia for the sake of reform. I was right there, fighting for a better deal, when the first draft plan was released. I have met with basin communities in my electorate, in the wake of the latest draft plan, and the authority and its chairman, Craig Knowles, have worked hard to get the balance right. I do not believe we should be playing politics with this issue—it is too important. I am happy to support the draft plan. Everyone can find fault with a plan but I think the balance is pretty right when you have one group saying there is not enough water and an opposing group saying there is too much water—generally, you have to think that things are not too far off the measure.
I would like to see some other little changes but in the interest of reform I believe that we have to support a plan and get on with the job. I certainly do not want to see the reform fly out the window due to interstate fighting. Let us make a start on reform, at least.
Fremantle Electorate: Community Events
Gender Equity
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (19:36): We live at a time when new communication and media technologies have delivered a cornucopia of genuinely fantastic opportunities for elected representatives and for governments to communicate and engage with their constituents. But just as there is something special and distinctive about hearing live music or seeing live theatre, so there is something unique present in the exchange of ideas and viewpoints that occurs face to face; that occurs in a town hall or community meeting room or local park, which will always be more substantial and more real than a thousand tweets or bulk emails, or chats via Facebook or Skype. At the start of a new year I want to take the opportunity to reflect on some highlights over the last 12 months in terms of the high-energy and thoughtful community engagement that I have been fortunate to participate in. And before I do that, I want to cast forward to an annual event that I have been incredibly proud to support over the last five years, namely the Gimme Shelter concert, which is held at the Fremantle Arts Centre in February every year, and which raises funds for the work that St Patrick's Community Support Centre undertakes in providing crisis accommodation and support for the homeless. This year's concert on 25 February will again feature an amazing line-up of local musicians and performers, and I am confident it will draw strong support from the wider Freemantle community.
It is almost 12 months ago, in March 2011, that the Prime Minister and cabinet came to WA and held a community cabinet at South Fremantle Senior High School in my electorate. It was an event with a characteristic Freo flavour, and the moment of engagement that spoke loudest for me was the point at which the members of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition presented the Prime Minister with a thankyou card for taking action on climate change.
Making policy and making decisions for the future is never easy, especially when that future is defined within a policy time frame that steps out to the year 2100 and beyond—a time when the decision makers, and 99 per cent of people alive today, will not be around to benefit or suffer from the consequences of action or inaction. I am not sure that our democracy takes sufficient account of the views of young people, and yet climate change is almost the perfect example of an issue on which young people must be heard. I want to thank the AYCC for their work in expressing a clear message on climate change, and for supporting the government in its delivery of the Clean Energy Future package.
Also in March last year, I was honoured to participate in a number of events to mark the centenary of International Women's Day—a hugely significant occasion. As I noted on the day, it is essential that we reflect with pride on the progress that has been made when it comes to the equality of women; but it is equally important that we mark those areas in which there is still a long way to go. Last week's Fair Work Australia decision on pay equity for 150,000 social and community sector workers, 120,000 of whom are women, is an example of both change that needed to occur and change that has been achieved. By drawing strength from what we have achieved we replenish our resolve to go further and achieve more. I also wish to see workers in the aged care and childcare sectors—again, most of whom are women—appropriately recognised for their important caring work through significantly improved pay and conditions.
Finally, I want to mention the community forum on the proposed national disability insurance scheme that I had the privilege of co-hosting in November last year with Peter Tinley, the state MLA for Willagee, and Geraldine Mellet from the Every Australian Counts campaign. The forum was held in the Fremantle Town Hall and I want to express my gratitude to City of Fremantle for the provision of the venue, and to the Fremantle Herald for their promotion of the event. The meeting was a chance for people to learn about the basic concept and benefits of moving to an NDIS, and an opportunity for those living with disability to have their say on a range of service and funding issues.
In support of the forum I sent a letter of invitation to my constituents, enclosing a survey on the subject of disability policy—and the responses have been quite amazing. Some bring you to the verge of tears; some are angry; many are imbued with incredible stoicism and weariness and suffering. And the responses from carers, which can have all the qualities I have just mentioned, also contain the most remarkable, invincible, fire-tempered strains of love—long-suffering, inexhaustible, unconditional love. It just blows you away. We have to do more to support these people, and I am proud to be part of a Labor government that is intent on that task.
Through all the events I have mentioned—and those have been only a few of the dozens and dozens that I attended—the strong value of coming together to make a contribution to Australian civic life has been reinforced for me, and I look forward to more and greater community engagement in Fremantle in the year to come.
Cowen, Sir Zelman, AK, GCMG, GCVO, QC
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (19:41): As I did not have the opportunity to speak on the Sir Zelman Cowen condolence motion in the Federation Chamber, I thought that I would reflect briefly on it tonight. I am a devotee of Sir Thomas More. I think Robert Bolt got it right when he called him the man for all seasons. So it is not an accolade I throw around easily but if there were an Australian who met that qualification it would mostly likely be Sir Zelman Cowen.
He had very modest beginnings. Early in life he attended St Kilda Park state school, Scotch College and the University of Melbourne. He went into the Royal Australian Navy as an intelligence officer during the war and, on coming out of that, took up his Rhodes scholarship. So he must have been a very distinguished student as well as being loyal in the service of his country. As a Rhodes scholar he attended New College and later he was a fellow of Oriel College at Oxford. Interestingly he went back to Oriel College from 1982 to 1990 as its provost.
He had a similarly distinguished career at Melbourne University as a student, dean of law and, later in life, emeritus professor. I think the Australian university community was well served by him as vice-chancellor of New England University in Armidale and also seven years as vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland in Brisbane. That was at a very tumultuous time in Queensland history, I might add.
He was distinguished around the world. He advised the British government on German wartime law. He advised Indian states and Hong Kong. He was accredited to many distinguished universities including in Washington, Illinois, Calcutta and numerous Australian cities. He had an extraordinary academic career.
But Sir Zelman Cowen's greatest contribution—we all know it—was in the healing he provided in the wake of the Whitlam dismissal. I do not intend to canvass the rights and wrongs of the dismissal but it would be true to say that it left Australia a very wounded and fractious place. With people on both sides of the argument in heavily entrenched positions you would have said that this was going to last in Australia for decades. But fortunately for all our sakes it did not. Largely the healing influence was Zelman Cowen because in that distinguished career he never played partisan politics, so he was the ideal person. In 4½ short years he knitted the country back together, so to speak, in a very humble and sensitive way. We will be always grateful to him, I am sure, for that.
It is interesting that in the dying days of the old imperial honours system he was probably our most distinguished awardee. He was a Knight of the Order of Australia; he received the Grand Cross of St Michael and St George and the Royal Victorian Order; he was a Queen's Counsel; he was a Privy Counsellor. On top of all his university accolades, you could not get a more distinguished Australian. He loved football. He was an author. He was, literally, a man for all seasons.
As a boy, when I started to get interested in politics, I can remember him. He used to broadcast on the ABC just before the midday news and at night on what was called Notes on the News. Zelman Cowen was always one of the greatest exponents of explaining the news.
On behalf of my electorate, Hinkler, I extend condolences to his wife and his four children. He was a great and very distinguished Australian.
The SPEAKER: The member for Hinkler is right: Sir Zelman was a truly wonderful person.
Dental Health
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (19:46): Over recent months, my office has received calls from constituents inquiring about the future of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. Sadly, several of these calls have been from constituents ringing at the behest of their dentists. Some dentists have been advising their patients that the scheme is ceasing and those constituents will no longer be able to be treated.
I think it is important that the facts are placed on the record. No closure date is currently set for the CDDS. Yes, it is the government's intention to close down this scheme, which is not well targeted and does not provide access to dental services for those most in need. The Senate has twice prevented the closure of the CDDS. The community is aware that the government has long intended to replace the CDDS with a new Commonwealth Dental Health Program. The CDDS is complex to administer as it requires that only those with a chronic condition be referred by their GP to a dentist. We have recently seen that some dentists inappropriately make claims on Medicare. The system is obviously open to abuse.
The government's proposed Commonwealth Dental Health Program, when implemented, will be better targeted and provide additional dental services for pensioners and concession card holders. The government is committed to dental health reform. The National Advisory Council on Dental Health has been established to advise on the best way forward for the future of dental health in this country. On 5 September the minister announced the membership of this council, which will be headed by Ms Mary Murnane, a former senior public servant. The government is already delivering significant improvements in dental care, including subsidised dental check-ups for teenagers, which provides up to $159.85 per person. This program since its inception has provided over one million services for eligible teenagers. This reform is in addition to the investment of $11 million in Indigenous dental services in rural and regional areas and $52.6 million over four years in the 2011-12 budget to establish a voluntary dental internship program to help boost the dental health workforce. This reform in part addresses the recommendation of the National Health And Hospitals Reform Commission in 2009, which advised on investment in internships with a particular emphasis on regional and rural areas.
Given the shortages in the public dental workforce, this development goes some way to redressing the balance. I understand that the dental health workforce welcomes this reform. The introduction of the Commonwealth Dental Health Scheme remains government policy as promised at the last election. It does remain of concern to me, though, that some dentists are preying on the fears of vulnerable people by claiming that the CDDS is about to be closed down without explaining that the government intends to introduce a broader scheme.
It is worth putting on record that the Commonwealth's power in relation to dental services was obtained through the success of the social services referendum on 28 September 1946. That referendum is one of only eight amendments to the Constitution that have been successfully passed. In this case, there was a majority in all states of the Commonwealth, and overall the vote in favour of the Commonwealth having this power was 54.39 per cent of the voting population. So the parliament has a mandate in relation to dental services arising out of the successful passage of that referendum. Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution gives us that mandate and it should be used wisely.
Dickson Community Awards
Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (19:51): I rise today, Mr Speaker, to acknowledge some very special members of our local Dickson community. Next Sunday at the Samford Historical Museum I will present the Dickson Community Awards and today I would like to mention some of the nominees—'local heroes' who never call for any attention or recognition but who command respect for their contributions above and beyond their normal activities.
Sharon Weber works tirelessly as a fundraiser, in particular for the annual Picnic in the Park raising funds for our local chaplains so that they can continue their vital work in our community. Shannon Yeardley, a former psychologist, has set up 'the flower project' on Brisbane's north side. In the last year, mostly at her expense, she has delivered surprise flower bouquets to over 300 elderly or isolated women, those recovering from illness and devoted carers. Shannon believes: 'The more that you give to other people, the better you feel in yourself.' May Willis has made a lifetime of contributions supporting her community, volunteering endless hours sewing and knitting for fundraisers, for babies in hospital nurseries and for charities like the Rainbow Connection. For the last decade she has been President of the Strathpine and District Senior Citizens Club.
Reverend Dr Paul Inglis is well known for his decade of service as Minister of the Dayboro Uniting Church. He has worked to bring all community churches together to support Dayboro and surrounding regions. During the January 2011 Dayboro Flood, he not only provided support but also organised a fundraising concert with others that help to raise $32,000. As Queensland's first breast care nurse, Patricia Creed OAM identified the need for specialised care for breast cancer patients, to follow their progress prior to and post surgery. This support enabled so many women a smoother journey through their illness. She was rightly recognised in the 2011 Queen's Birthday Honours List.
Sergeant Ken Robinson and Senior Constable Troy Nowitzki are two of many men and women who deserve to be recognised for the role they play in their jobs in our community. To undertake a policing career takes courage, integrity and a genuine concern for the wellbeing of others and, like so many in the emergency services, they go beyond the call of duty. They worked tirelessly in extreme conditions during the 2011 floods to ensure the safety of residents and of course this support and concern continued on after the danger had subsided. I want to congratulate Troy, who has just been promoted to sergeant, and is moving—to all places—St George next week. It is certainly a loss to our community. He will certainly have his work cut out for him in what are very difficult circumstances, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of St George and others affected by terrible floods in western Queensland this very day.
Long before the floods, Juliette Wright set about helping people in the community facing hardship. She developed the Givit direct giving network website, and charities and organisations can now request any item, goods or service they are currently unable to provide and this request is matched with those who can meet the request.
Getting kids active and involved in sport is very important. Thankfully, we have Stephen Koster or 'Coach Steve', who has given his time and energy to build the confidence of over 600 children and is a well-loved icon amongst many local young sports men and women. Lisa Davis, similarly, in her role as president of the Pine Rivers Swans AFL Club had to witness the devastation of her clubhouse during the 2011 floods and led the way to oversee its clean-up and resurrection
It is wonderful that we have so many young achievers in Dickson. Danielle McCarthy is the first and only student to receive a grade point average of seven in the Bachelor of Law degree at Queensland University of Technology. This was achieved while doing a double degree with perfect results in the Bachelor of Business (Accountancy) degree.
Sarah Harvey is a member of the BMX National Athlete Development Squad. She has been invited to train with the High Performance Australian BMX Team who are currently training for the 2012 Olympics. This year she has World Championships in England and the Australian Championships in April.
Erin Gold can be described as nothing less than an inspiration. Her efforts ensure that research into juvenile diabetes will continue to improve the lives of young people. A type 1 diabetic, she is a youth ambassador for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, raising awareness in the media and with politicians and promoting sponsorship from business. In 2010, she travelled to this place to raise awareness of type 1 diabetes and the importance of research to find a cure.
Four members of the 1st Samford Girls Brigade, led by Heather Adam, Simone Adam, Catherine Hughes, Shari Canagasurium and Laura Mitchell were recently presented with the annual Government House Girls' Brigade Queen's Award and are working towards their Duke of Edinburgh Award. They have committed the past three years to community service and between them have supported Lifeline, the Asthma foundation, Big Sister and aged care friendship groups.
Australian Year of the Farmer
Mr CROOK (O'Connor) (19:56): This year, 2012, is the Australian Year of the Farmer. This year recognises and celebrates Australian farmers for the work they do in feeding our nation—and many others. It celebrates the role of the Australian farmer as a man of the land, an innovator and a world leader.
There is no denying the importance of the agricultural sector to the Australian economy. The agriculture sector generates $41.8 billion to the economy each year, with $31.2 billion of this in the export market. Agriculture supports 1.6 million jobs in Australia in farming and related industries, accounting for 17.2 per cent of the national workforce. Agriculture plays a major role in safeguarding our food security, with Australian farmers producing almost 93 per cent of Australia's daily domestic food supply, while exporting a massive 60 per cent of our total agricultural production to other countries.
Agriculture also plays an important role in keeping our regional communities vibrant and sustainable. One only needs to look at the devastating impact of the 2010 drought in Western Australia or last year's live export ban to see this very clear fact: when Australian agriculture suffers, regional Australia suffers. It is vitally important that this federal government recognises the significant role that the agricultural sector plays in our economy, in our food security, and in our regional sustainability.
As it is the Year of the Farmer, I would like to raise in this House a number of issues that are currently impacting on the agricultural sector. The issue of live export continues to be a concern for many livestock producers. With the federal government now focussing on sheep exports to the Middle East, many producers in my electorate of O'Connor are understandably concerned. As an export market, the Middle East consumes 99 per cent of Western Australia's total sheep exports, with the majority of these exports coming from O'Connor. The federal Minister for Agriculture, Senator Joe Ludwig, recently travelled with a delegation to the Middle East to look at the progress of reforms which require Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey to slaughter Australian animals by international welfare standards by the end of this month. While I understand that the industry, both in Australia and overseas, is supportive of these reforms, I share my electorate's concerns around the implementation of these reforms in such a short time frame—1 March is simply too short a time frame for these reforms to be properly implemented.
Drought is another issue which is continuing to impact on my electorate. Although WA has had a record harvest, there are still areas of the state heavily affected by drought. Just this morning, I met with a young man from Salmon Gums, Tim Starcevich. Tim is a regional winner of the ABC HeyWire competition, and his family have been pioneer farmers in the Salmon Gums area. I quote to the House from Tim's HeyWire report:
One of the main reasons why everyone is leaving Salmon Gums is the rainfall.
The town's water supply has just about run out, with most of the farmers carting water for their livestock, and the people who live in town trying to save every drop of rain that falls.
Dad is a second-generation farmer and he remembers the town full of people, shops, and brand new houses. He told me how you could drive in and get fresh bread and vegies. Now all you can get is a meat pie or a Chiko roll from the roadhouse on the outskirts of town.
Since Tim's HeyWire report, I note that thunderstorms have alleviated the water crisis to some extent; however, the ongoing drought has some families considering moving off the land. While many farmers appreciate the assistance from state and federal governments through drought assistance programs, areas like Salmon Gums and Southern Cross in my electorate have had the poor fortune to suffer drought for consecutive years.
Biosecurity risks for Australian fruit, the skills shortage and supermarket pricing are other significant issues that many Australian farmers face day in and day out. In 2012, the Australian Year of the Farmer, it is not enough for this federal government to recognise and congratulate the Australian farmer; we must do more. We must help our farmers so they can continue to remain on the land, driving our economy, protecting our food security and sustaining our regional communities. In 2012, the Australian Year of the Farmer, I call on this federal government to lend their support to the agricultural sector by addressing these issues. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
House adjourned at 20:01
NOTICES
The following notice(s) were given:
Mr Gray: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the Life Gold Pass scheme and Parliamentary superannuation, and for other purposes.
Mr Shorten: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security and Indigenous education, and for related purposes.
Mr Oakeshott: To move:
That the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Regulations 2011 (No. 5), as contained in the Select Legislative Instrument 2011 No. 222, and made under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, be disallowed.
Mr Oakeshott: To move:
That this House:
(1) supports the unanimous recommendations contained in the report of January 2012, titled 'Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution: Report of the Expert Panel' and
(2) calls on the Prime Minister to hold a referendum on Saturday 24 November 2012 that will:
(a) repeal section 25 of the Constitution;
(b) repeal section 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution; and
(c) contain a new section, 'section 51A' along the following lines:
Section 51A Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
Recognising that the continent and its islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
Acknowledging the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters;
Respecting the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and
Acknowledging the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
(3) proposes together, the repeal of section 51 (xxvi) and insertion of section 51A;
(4) inserts a new section, 'section 116A', along the following lines:
Section 116A Prohibition of racial discrimination
(1) The Commonwealth, a State or a Territory shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic or national origin.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude the making of laws or measures for the purpose of overcoming disadvantage, ameliorating the effects of past discrimination, or protecting the cultures, languages or heritage of any group.
(5) inserts a new section, 'section 127A', along the following lines:
Section 127A Recognition of languages
(1) The national language of the Commonwealth of Australia is English.
(2) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages are the original Australian languages, a part of our national heritage.
Mr Zappia: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the General Motors Holden plant in Elizabeth is an iconic South Australian industry directly employing around 2,500 people;
(2) acknowledges the important contribution the General Motors Holden Elizabeth plant makes to the South Australian economy and to the broader Australian manufacturing industry;
(3) recognises the importance of the visit to Detroit in January 2012 by the Minister for Manufacturing, Senator the Hon. Kim Carr, and South Australian Premier, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, in securing the long term future of the General Motors Holden Elizabeth plant, and commends both of them for their efforts in support of the jobs of thousands of South Australians; and
(4) condemns the Coalition for the uncertainty being created by its policy to cut $500 million from the auto industry.
Mr Ruddock: To move:
That this House
(1) express its deep regret at the death on 28 January 2012 of the late Most Venerable Thich Phuoc Hue OAM, the Spiritual Leader of the Phuoc Hue Buddhist Monastery and leader of the Vietnamese Buddhist community in Australia;
(2) places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service; and
(3) tenders its profound sympathy to the Vietnamese Buddhist community in its bereavement.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) took the chair at 9:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Regional Development Australia
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (09:30): Regional Development Australia's funding round 2 was announced last month but it was very apparent that, unless it concerned a big city with a big project, it was not going to get a look in. I absolutely welcome large funding projects for Orange and Bathurst. I do not suggest for one second that I do not. They include the Mount Panorama regional infrastructure upgrade, the Orange Aboriginal Medical Service, the 'Change, the next step is ours' project, the Orange Airport extension—all very necessary and very good things. But when I looked around the electorate of Calare I saw that projects for smaller towns such as Lithgow, Cabonne, Blayney, Forbes and Parkes did not progress to the next round.
Small projects are not receiving help—for example, redevelopment of the Blayney Shire Community Centre, which is certainly not in the same category as the Mount Panorama upgrade, but it is a very necessary project; the Cabonne council project to enhance Mount Canobolas through providing infrastructure, investment and accessibility; the Jemalong Regional Education Centre refurbishment in Forbes; the Lithgow Aquatic Centre Stage 2, which the locals have been fighting for and fighting for funding for a long time; the Oberon Stormwater Harvesting project, which explains itself; the Parkes Regional Airport upgrade, which is very necessary for one of the bigger regional airports; and the Zig Zag Railway Co-op furnace fire and forge connections, which is a very popular tourist attraction and a part of local history about the way in which railways went up steep hills in the early days.
When in government the coalition's Regional Partnerships Program allowed very small towns and communities to actually apply for and obtain seed funding that they desired—not necessarily what the council thought was good, not necessarily what the biggest city in the region wanted but something that small towns could get which, under the current RDA funding situation, they simply cannot obtain.
As I said, the government seems to be focused on pleasing the people with the most money. One could almost wonder whether this was not a political ploy rather than doing the right thing for the community generally. Community organisations have to have a minimal income of $1½ million before they are even eligible to apply. So quite obviously most towns— (Time expired)
East Ringwood Clinic
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (09:33): Late last year, on 18 November, I visited the East Ringwood Clinic, in my electorate of Deakin, to deliver an announcement of primary care infrastructure funding of $150,000 to help expand local GP services, something which the suburb particularly needs. It is the only clinic in the suburb. Even though it is very close to major hospital facilities, such as Maroondah Public Hospital and Ringwood Private Hospital, along with many other community healthcare facilities, there is quite simply no access to run-of-the-mill GP services.
When I was there I met with Dr Dilip Hoole, a director and a GP at the clinic, who showed me around the existing facilities, which are housed in a two-storey building on Railway Avenue. The building itself is very old. The clinic has actually been there for 60 years and the building preceded that by some years. It is obviously an old house that was converted many years ago. The problem of course with that is access. Many of the clinic's patients are old or infirm or have various needs to be able to get in and out of the clinic. At the moment, there are only steps, whether you go in through the front or back. In fact, the access is down a laneway. With this grant, there will not only be new rooms built to expand services but there will also be much better access for people who currently have great difficulty getting in or out of the building. Even inside the building, the clinic is spread over two floors and there are some functions that are upstairs that simply cannot be accessed by those who are not able to climb the stairs.
There is almost 100 per cent use of the consulting rooms currently at the clinic. That is good for the clinic but it obviously shows that there is a demand there. Not only will there be more room for GPs; there will also be room for a psychologist, increased mental health nurse hours and increased practice nurse hours. There will also be room for a nurse specialist for diabetes education and lifestyle coaching.
As one of 35 clinics in Victoria that are benefiting from this round of Primary Care Infrastructure Grants, East Ringwood Clinic will commence building and upgrading this year and it will be in operation in the first half of next year. That is a very good thing for an area which has an increasingly ageing population, with high health needs. It is quite often forgotten in the mainstream media that the outer suburbs do have big pockets of populations like that and do need ongoing and improved services. It is important that everyone gets access to this. There is another clinic in my electorate, that I will speak about at another time, that is also expanding to provide better local services. So it is a great outcome for the residents of East Ringwood and a good local example of the Gillard government's commitment to health in our community.
Latrobe Regional Hospital
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (09:36): Continuing on the theme of health: the board of Latrobe Regional Hospital has applied for $65 million to expand and enhance facilities under round 4 of the federal government's Health and Hospitals Fund. The hospital is a designated regional health service and major provider of acute, subacute, mental health and specialist aged care services to the six local government areas in the Gippsland region.
The plan the hospital has put forward to the government is to build a new and improved emergency department and additional endoscopy facilities and to offer more beds for acute care. The community health outcomes will certainly improve and there will be savings to the government if this funding application is successful, with a reduced need to transfer patients to Melbourne because it will allow for more patients to be treated at Latrobe Regional Hospital in the future. The existing problems we are facing in the Latrobe Valley region will only get worse in the future, with an ageing population and a predicted growth in demand for services of 13 per cent over the next 10 years.
Just last week I had the opportunity to inspect the facilities at Latrobe Regional Hospital with my state colleague Mr Russell Northe and the chair of the board, Ms Kellie O'Callaghan. As we walked through the facility, there were many examples of cramped and inadequate facilities which were making it difficult for staff to do their job. That is quite disappointing given the fact this is quite a recently built hospital. It is disappointing that in many cases the facility was never up to the standard that was required for the demands of the Latrobe Valley community. I hasten to add that, in my experience, the staff and the board at Latrobe Regional Hospital have been doing a terrific job under quite difficult circumstances. The growth in demand has simply outpaced the existing facilities, and a major upgrade is required as a matter of urgency.
In raising this issue, and in fairness to the government, I want to give credit where it is due. The government has funded some significant health service improvements in the Latrobe Valley in recent years. There was a commitment of more than $20 million to the Gippsland Cancer Care Centre and $1.5 million for the second stage of the Gippsland Rotary Centenary House, a project which has enjoyed bipartisan support over many years. Both of those projects are important and they have both been well received by the local community, but it is clearly apparent that more needs to be done to meet the future demands of the Latrobe Valley community and the broader Gippsland region.
I must say that I was heartened by the comments of the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government when he visited my electorate to talk about government assistance to manage the impacts of the carbon tax. Rather than debate the merits of the carbon tax today, I will focus on the health issues. The minister recognised in his comments in the Latrobe Valley that there was a need for investment in the social infrastructure of the Latrobe Valley. He talked about the importance of taking a holistic approach to regional development, taking into consideration the region's health and education needs.
I believe this proposed upgrade of Latrobe Regional Hospital ticks a lot of the boxes in terms of regional development and the future health and prosperity of our region. I am very keen to work with both the state and federal governments to secure the funding we need for this upgrade which will improve the health outcomes of the Latrobe Valley and the broader Gippsland region. If the federal government is serious about helping the Latrobe Valley to adjust to the impacts of the carbon tax, investing in new facilities and giving the local community the confidence to plan for the future is a good start.
Kingston Electorate: Local Sporting Champions Program
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (09:39): I am pleased to rise today to talk about some of the great young sporting people in my electorate. I believe it is really important that we support our young people in their sporting ambitions and celebrate their wonderful achievements. I was very pleased that the federal government has continued to commit and increase money towards the Local Sporting Champions program. In the most recent round I was able to award 10 sports men and women from my local community with grants of $500. I was also able to provide two teams with a grant of $3,000. We all know that participating in national sporting competitions can be very costly. Whether it is rugby, netball, wrestling or gymnastics, teams and individuals can often face considerable ongoing costs for things like uniforms, equipment and travel. So it was very heartening to see what these talented young people do. They often work and also try to balance school and their sporting achievements. I think it is very important that in a small way the federal government can assist these young people to actually go and follow their dreams.
For the most recent Local Sporting Champions round, I held a ceremony to acknowledge the achievements of these local sporting champions. The enthusiasm, excitement, commitment and ability of these young people was on display, as it was from their parents. We heard stories about parents driving perhaps three hours a night after school to take their son or daughter to sport. I would just like to congratulate all of the recipients in this most recent round. Brittany Law received a grant for competing in rhythmic gymnastics. Cara Allen received a grant for junior indoor cricket. Kizzy Grice received a grant for her role in football. Ella Quinn received a grant in connection with her achievements in netball. Alyce Skeates and Katrina Norwood both got grants to assist them with the Australian Figure Skating Championships. Brandon Whiley received a grant for participating in the under-18 national championship in bowls. Some of his team members, who are considerably older than him, came to celebrate that achievement, which was really lovely. Madison Murray received a grant for individual figure skating. Brayden Davidson received a grant in connection with the national championship in athletics. Sam Chalmers received a grant for participating in the Australian All School Championships in athletics. Codey Ellison received a grant for competing in basketball. The Visual Energy and Southern Tigers basketball team both received one as well. (Time expired)
Fiscal Policy
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (09:42): This government's claims to wearing a fiscal straitjacket are a dangerous myth. The record shows nonstop profligacy, record debt and deficit and an unprecedented level of waste. Let us for a minute look at the last budget of the Howard and Costello government in 2007-08, a government that set a gold standard. We see the estimates for what a prudent government should be spending between that year and through to 2010-11. These forecasts were completed by the Treasury. These figures are a symbol of the reckless fiscal policy we have seen under the Rudd-Gillard government, notwithstanding the need for some stimulus in 2008-09.
A table of these forecasts from 2007-08 to 2010-11 shows that each year of the four years to 2010-11 the government exceeded forecast payments by between $40 billion and $80 billion. In fact, in the last three years, this government has a black hole in excess of $70 billion each year funded inevitably by debt and higher taxes. To put that into context, the table shows these payments average nearly four per cent of GDP each year. Looking two to three years ahead with this government is totally problematic. It never fails to grossly overspend. The budget for 2007-08 involved payments totalling $271 billion, yet last November the government said in 2011-12 it would make payments of $370 billion, an increase of virtually $100 billion or 36 per cent in just four years. That is why we have a structural budget deficit double that of Germany, on a percentage of GDP basis, and 30 per cent worse than that of Italy. It is why no new net jobs were created in the last year—for the first time in 20 years—and it is why we have a real vulnerability if commodity prices fall. That is why there is a crisis of confidence pervading our community.
This government totally lacks direction. People feel no sense of where this country is going and the government totally lacks confidence in the execution of programs, particularly staying within a budget. I seek leave to table a document which shows this forecast.
Leave not granted.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The member for Chifley will not test my patience beyond the limits he has already tried.
Melbourne Electorate: Education
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (09:45): Nothing is more important to the future of our society and our economy than the state of our schools and our education system. I am a passionate supporter of every child's right to access a high-quality public education and I want to see our country do better at providing parents a real choice.
My electorate of Melbourne has 56 schools, attended by 16,000 students. Two-thirds of the students in Melbourne attend one of the 31 government schools in the electorate and 6,200 of these students attend one of 24 government primary schools. Hundreds of parents, teachers and friends of these students have sent postcards to my office in support of a fairer funding system for schools. Along with the Australian Education Union, residents have told me that they believe it is important to invest more in public schools. Hundreds more have written to me by email, asking me to ensure that every child in Melbourne gets a high-quality education.
Throughout 2011, I visited many of the schools in my electorate. At every school I was impressed by the innovative teaching methods being used. At one of the most disadvantaged schools in my electorate, servicing the large number of housing commission flats, I sat with Issan, whose family had come here from Africa, while he developed a storyboard on his iPad that had been purchased by the school. At another school I fielded questions from year 10 students, who demonstrated remarkable insights into the Australian political system.
There is no doubt that government schools in Melbourne and elsewhere perform remarkably, developing engaging and creative learning programs for students. However, budget constraints under which our government schools operate mean that primary schools have to make choices between employing additional staff to support students with learning difficulties and employing a specialist science or language teacher to give primary school students early expertise in these areas. Secondary schools have to choose between offering physics and providing extra computers or iPads for disadvantaged students. At a time when we face a collapse in science and maths participation at every level of education, we need to see more support, not less, for science and maths. Schools should not be forced to make these sorts of choices.
Many Melbourne schools operate in a context of disadvantage. Over half of the government primary schools in my electorate of Melbourne are in suburbs with a SEIFA index indicating disadvantage. At the same time, the population of Melbourne is expanding and schools that were closed during the Kennett era are now sorely missed, particularly in north and west Melbourne and in Richmond. The primary function of any government should be to adequately fund government schools as a priority. I look forward to the release of the Gonski review so that we can further debate schools funding and arrive at a fairer funding model.
I am the proud product of the government school system and, as I visit the 10 government secondary colleges in my electorate, I am aware of the way in which the decisions I will be making about schools funding in the federal parliament will affect the educational opportunities of high school students today. I, along with the AEU and the schools in Melbourne, will be working towards a fairer funding system for schools.
Hasluck Electorate: Roads
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (09:48): I rise today to highlight the need for action to be taken to improve a critical piece of transport infrastructure in my electorate. The Berkshire Road and Roe Highway intersection handles tens of thousands of vehicles every day. A large proportion of these are road trains and heavy haulage vehicles. It is common to see huge pieces of mining equipment and special buildings being transported through this intersection to the mines in the north. Truck drivers have expressed their frustration at having to take unnecessary risks through the disjointed intersection. The need for an upgrade to this intersection was recently highlighted when a truck rolled over and spilled its load, stopping traffic in one direction for hours. Mercifully, no-one was seriously injured, but many similar cases such as this one have taken place in the past. For my constituents one incident of this nature is one too many, and when I have been out in the community many have approached me to express their concerns.
I believe that this issue is of critical importance not only to the people of Hasluck but also to those in the electorates to the south and south-east of mine. To this end I organised the first joint meeting of local governments in Hasluck to thrash out a unified approach to the problem. Work is being done by all parties to find a solution. I have also written to several ministers in the Western Australian government to highlight this issue and bring it towards the front of the queue for funding. These conversations have been constructive. The Minister for Transport, Mr Buswell, understands the need for the upgrade but, unlike the Gillard government, Western Australian ministers are financially responsible, so I will have to fight hard to keep the spotlight on the intersection.
At this point I would like to call on the federal government to inject funds into an urgent upgrade for this intersection. Western Australia provides a disproportionate amount of wealth into the national treasury and it is our roads that bear the brunt of this activity. WA receives a grossly small amount of GST revenue in return, which impacts on the state's capacity to address infrastructure needs such as this intersection. I firmly believe that a significant amount of federal funds should therefore be directed into WA infrastructure to support this growth and so the Berkshire Road-Roe Highway intersection can take its place alongside other pieces of infrastructure upgrades such as the Great Northern Highway bypass. The number of trucks heading north is significant.
There are too many transportation upgrades to mention in Western Australia so I will focus on the ones in my electorate, the most important being the Berkshire Road-Roe Highway intersection. I call on the federal government to inject funds into this area as soon as possible. In the realities of governance and finances, more money will always be needed somewhere. This has been the case since Federation. I invite Minister Albanese to come to Hasluck and explain why this intersection and other upgrades cannot take place because of Labor's financial mismanagement.
Fowler Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (09:52): Australia Day is a special occasion on our nation's calendar. Apart from celebrating nationhood, it also symbolises our coming together and celebrating what we have in common. The events that marked Australia Day throughout my diverse electorate put on display the benefits and success of multiculturalism. They also provided an opportunity to recognise and thank some of the outstanding members of our local community.
It is clear that multiculturalism's success in south-west Sydney did not happen by chance; it happened through the commitment of places such as the Cabramatta Community Centre and people like its CEO, Jan Collie, who have worked hard to achieve tolerance, respect and inclusion. In recognition of her dedication and commitment to the centre since 1985, Jan was awarded the Fairfield Citizen of the Year award. I was also proud of a young Chinese-Australian lad who was recognised as Young Citizen of the Year for Fairfield, Adrian Wong. He is a part of my team and works for me, and as a young Chinese-Australian he has demonstrated huge talents in working in a multicultural community. Undoubtedly Adrian is one of our future leaders. Another young role model, Hayden Mathews, was recognised for his exceptional achievements in sport.
Liverpool City Council also recognised a number of individuals who made exceptional contributions to their community. Bob Grimson was named the Citizen of the Year for his selfless contribution to the Liverpool community through his long association with the Lions and Leo clubs as well as the Liverpool Girl Guides and the Liverpool Bicentenary Committee. Two exceptional young individuals were awarded the Liverpool Young Citizen of the Year awards—Wade Fitton for his dedicated work on a number of youth committees and as a prominent boxing coach, and Nina Zawity for her hard work on the Liverpool Youth Council—particularly in the area of empowering young people from diverse backgrounds. The Young Adults Disabled Association was recognised for its ongoing commitment to the environment.
I congratulate all those recipients of citizen of the year awards who have been recognised for their long and significant contributions to our local community, as well as all those new Australians who took out citizenship at the ceremonies I attended in Fairfield and Liverpool. I am proud to represent a community which is so strong and cohesive and understands the real value of mutual respect, tolerance and inclusion. I congratulate all those involved. (Time expired)
Cowan Electorate: Vietnamese Community
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (09:54): On 28 January the Vietnamese community of Western Australia celebrated Tet, the Vietnamese New Year, at the Wanneroo showgrounds. With more than 3,000 Vietnamese people in the Cowan electorate I was honoured to join Premier Colin Barnett in addressing the attendees. This year, 2012, is the year of the dragon in the lunar calendar and those born in the year of the dragon have certain characteristics: hard work and a belief in themselves. In Australia, Vietnamese people are known for their hard work and their commitment to their families and to our nation. That is why so many have been very successful.
I am proud to work with the Vietnamese community association of WA and a number of Vietnamese people who very strongly support the cause of a democratic Vietnam. In my visits to Vietnam I have met many people who suffer under the brutality and autocratic controls of the Communist Party. As the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do told me, there is one policeman for every 10 people in Vietnam. Everyone is being watched and reported upon, and yet in that oppressive environment there are still those who resist and join protests. They protest the betrayal of the national interests of Vietnamese people by the Communist Party, the environmental damage done in the highlands by the Chinese bauxite mines, the sell-out on sovereignty of the Spratly and Paracel Islands, and the seizure of property of churches and individuals who will not bow down to the strict controls that the state imposes upon them.
There are many dragons among these protesters; they are fearless and show great courage that even the greatest dragon would be proud of. I believe that it is in this year, particularly because dragons are known as being democratic in their beliefs, that we should maintain and strongly support the democracy advocates, the land rights supporters and all those who believe in free speech and freedom of religion and a free Vietnam. I know that Vietnamese Australians believe in a better democratic future for their homeland and for their friends and relatives that remain in Vietnam.
The reality is that there are many who have given their freedom for a better Vietnam. And it is not just them, because when they are jailed or unable to work their families are subjected to poverty. As I have said on many occasions we live in a great country. We have a great democracy, which has enabled Vietnamese Australians to enjoy the success of their hard work. If the people of Vietnam could enjoy the same freedoms that we have, their homeland would be an economic power in South-East Asia and the people would thrive. In this, the year of the dragon, let us pray for and strongly support those brave men and women and their families in Vietnam who oppose tyranny and believe in the greatness of the Vietnamese people, in the way of the dragon, and in the value of democracy and prosperity.
I congratulate the new president of the Vietnamese community Dr Anh Nguyen, and I wish him, the committee and the Vietnamese community all the best for the year of the dragon.
Fraser Electorate: Australian Public Service
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (09:57): I rise today to speak about the importance of a strong Australian Public Service and the threats to Canberra public servants. On Q&A on Monday night, the member for North Sydney said:
They've increased the public service in Canberra by 20,000 since they were elected and we've said, and I know it gets me in trouble with my colleagues in Canberra, but I've said that 12,000 will be made redundant within the first two years as a starting point and that's hard but we've got, for example, six and a half thousand people in the department of health that has no patients, no doctors, and no nurses and, I'm sorry, you can't live outside of your means.
Three minutes is barely enough to do justice to the many wrongheaded statements contained within that quote, but let me do my best.
Firstly, the member for North Sydney has for the fifth time misrepresented Public Service numbers. As the Special Minister for State has noted, official figures show that the Public Service has increased from June 2007 to June 2011 by 11,072. In terms of number and percentage increases, that is the smallest increase since 2003-04. I am informed by the Special Minister of State that the member for North Sydney has been offered a briefing by the Australian Public Service Commission, but has declined that briefing and continues to cite incorrect Public Service numbers.
Secondly, the member for North Sydney seems unaware that public servants are people too. Ironically, later in the Q&A program the member for North Sydney said:
What we've got to do is make sure there are more jobs in the community …
He has an odd way of showing it, given that in the ACT he intends to get rid of 12,000 public servants. The member for North Sydney has in the past said that he will put the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency on the chopping block. Now the Department of Health and Ageing is on the chopping block, and surely the remainder of the Public Service is not far behind. What do those people in the Department of Health and Ageing do? For starters, the member for North Sydney might try asking the Leader of the Opposition, who was, after all, the minister for health when the Howard government left office. In fact, the size of the Department of Health and Ageing is basically the same as it was when the Leader of the Opposition was minister for health: 5,164 as of 31 January this year; 4,818 when Mr Abbott was the minister. Those people work on preventive health, health research and pharmaceutical benefits. The Liberal Party's plan for the Public Service is damaging not only to Canberra but also to all of Australia. Public servants do tremendously hard work. Three-fifths of them are female. They work on issues like managing our response to disasters, helping Australians who are in trouble overseas and implementing the fiscal stimulus that helped all Australians in the global financial crisis.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.
CONDOLENCES
Cowen, Sir Zelman, AK, GCMG, GCVO, QC
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House express its deep regret at the death on 8 December 2011 of the Right Honourable Sir Zelman Cowen AK, GCMG, GCVO, QC, a former Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia from 1977 to 1982, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (10:01): It is a great honour to address the life of Sir Zelman Cowen. Whilst much has been said of his public life, I want to briefly discuss his community life. His public life of course is well known—the career from academia at Melbourne University to Rhodes scholar, Vinerian scholar, fellow of Oriel College at Oxford University, visiting professor at the University of Chicago and visiting professor at the Harvard Law School and the University of Utah, and his early role as Dean of the Melbourne Law School. His was an extraordinary academic career, which led to vice-chancellorships and ultimately to the Governor-Generalship as well as the critical role at Oriel College at Oxford University.
It is at the human level where perhaps his most important impacts have been felt. His Governor-General's role was a reflection of that. The notion of healing and of unity, and the sense of generosity of spirit at a difficult time was able to transcend many of the conflicts of those days. That is all well known. I really want to reflect more on his contribution at the personal and community level rather than at the public level. Along the way, I was fortunate to meet Sir Zelman, but I do not want to overstate that. It was a passing encounter. It has been through three other people that I have come to know of him and know of his impact on them.
At college, I was a friend of Ben Cowen, who is Sir Zelman and Anna's youngest son. Ben is an extraordinarily alive human being. There is a sense of energy, intellect and effervescence about the way Ben Cowen approaches his life. To be with him at university was to be with somebody who represented the best of his father: the intellect, the charm, the mischief and the sense of joy in pure existence. Ben is a reflection of his father and he is a source of great pride, justifiably, to his family. To see in Ben Sir Zelman is to have a sense of the best of the man himself.
Similarly, Steven Skala, who has had an extraordinarily distinguished career in business, banking and public service, is one of the many who classed Sir Zelman as his mentor. Steven speaks of the generosity of Sir Zelman with his time, but much more than that which of itself was extraordinarily valuable was the generosity of spirit. To listen to Steven talk about Sir Zelman and his ability to engage and to give people a sense that their lives could be rich with possibility and a sense of their moral duties was to feel Sir Zelman's impact. I want to quote one critical sentence from Steven's very moving eulogy at the state funeral for Sir Zelman. Steven Skala said:
In short, he was wise.
He embedded in us a love of learning, the pursuit of ideas and the power of reason in achieving justice, simply by being who he was.
I think the most valuable line in Steven Skala's eulogy, though, continues:
It is important to emphasise that he did not shape us—he helped us to shape ourselves. In discussion with him, when he sensed that we finally understood or had absorbed something, he would smile and say, ever so ambiguously: "So there we have it." This was Sir Zelman's distinctive method of closure.
It was about allowing each person to reach their potential, not to define that position for them.
The third person through whom I have had a sense of Sir Zelman is the member for Kooyong, my great friend and best man, although he says it is enough to call him merely the better man, Josh Frydenberg. Josh was a true protege of Sir Zelman. Josh collects mentors and Sir Zelman collected proteges. I think it was the perfect relationship. He was the ultimate avuncular figure for Josh and, as Josh said in his own speech at the funeral ceremony for Sir Zelman:
It became Sundays with Zelman.
On many Sundays over many years, Josh would sit at the feet of Sir Zelman and talk ideas, exchange personal directions but, above all else, develop, almost by osmosis, a sense of the morality of the world and our responsibilities as individuals. Josh has the most loving parents in Erica and Harry but, along with them, no other person was more influential in Josh's development than Sir Zelman, who gave him a sense of moral purpose and moral responsibility and the ability to aspire to be our very best selves—and, in that, you see the man.
The third element that I want to cover, apart from the public and the personal, is the community and, in particular, Sir Zelman's role within the Jewish community not as a religious leader but as a secular leader within the Jewish community and a secular representative from that community at the absolute highest level of Australian society. It is part of a great tradition: in the early part of the century Sir John Monash and Sir Isaac Isaacs were fundamental to the directions of this country.
Sir Zelman then became one of the critical standard bearers for the Jewish community. He lifted all of us. We were a better nation as a result of his presence, and his role within the community was fundamental. In the same way, that standard was then passed to people such as Mark and Isi Leibler, Leon Kempler and Colin Rubenstein. I apologise if there is a slight Melbourne bias, but those are the people whom I have known best. A new generation is now beginning to pick up that community leadership on the secular side of the Jewish community—people such as Josh Frydenberg and Anthony Pratt, both very close friends. The sense of moral purpose and a higher duty has been the consistent thread through the lives of all of them and perhaps no person within that heritage exemplifies it more courageously and with more dignity and beauty than Sir Zelman and the life he led. I want to acknowledge and reflect upon that life—not so much the public achievements, although they were great and majestic, because they have been well canvassed—and the impact that it had on many within my own sphere of engagement. It was a great life, a magnificently lived life, and we are all the better for having had him within our sphere.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (10:10): I rise today to speak to this condolence motion, which pays tribute to the Rt Hon. Sir Zelman Cowen and the contribution that he made to the Australian community. On 8 December 2011, Australia lost one of its best Governor-Generals and one of the world's most respected and distinguished legal intellectuals. Sir Zelman's elevation to the role of Governor-General was a clear indication of the esteem in which he was held. It was also an acknowledgement of the growing multicultural fabric of Australia at the time, a process that continues today.
Born in Melbourne in 1919, he attended and was dux of Scotch College, then Melbourne University, topping his year in all of his subjects and taking an honours degree in arts and law before being awarded a Rhodes scholarship to further his legal studies at Oxford University, where he was dux of the 1947 Oxford postgraduate law school. He returned to Melbourne, where he held the positions of Dean of the Faculty of Law and Professor of Public Law, before being appointed vice-chancellor at the University of New England and then vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland.
As the member for Ryan, I want to make particular note of Sir Zelman's period of office at the University of Queensland. During the period between 1970 and 1977 as the third full-time vice-chancellor at the university 17 new buildings were completed on the campus, including Mayne Hall, now known as the James and Mary Emelia Mayne Centre. The university has named the building which houses the music and architecture faculties after Sir Zelman to honour his significant contributions to the arts. He oversaw the establishment of the Department of Fine Arts, the provision of a performance room with the then music department and the development of the Mayne Hall as a concert venue.
In 1970, like most leaders in the academic world, Sir Zelman was confronted with student protests and violent unrest on his campus. The anti-Vietnam War protests were in full swing and as a strong advocate of free speech the vice-chancellor gained something of a reputation for confronting the demonstrators head-on. Rather than avoid the protest, he would approach them and, having listened to their chanting, put forward an alternative view and make suggestions for them to consider. This behaviour apparently gained him the nickname of Super Zel among some of the more militant student groups. University of Queensland staff, past and present, comment on the way in which he treated all students at the university with dignity and respect, especially during periods of unrest.
Sir Zelman's role at the University of Queensland was a complex one. A rapidly growing student population, an incomplete and war-retarded campus, an urgent need to widen the range of the curriculum and a need for money for buildings and more staff were some of the challenges confronting him. An early task was to foster the formation of an alumni association so that graduates could maintain their links with their alma mater and grow into a supportive body. A connoisseur of the arts with a strong belief that the arts should bring equality and a dimension of richness and maturity to the life of a nation, he was determined to move the university's valuable art collection from its packing cases in the basement and set up an art gallery and an arts case in the Forgan Smith building.
The alumni association cooperated with a series of profitable social functions, and the tower of the Forgan Smith building was soon converted to include a gallery to house the university's large and valuable collection of art works and an art department under the direction of lecturer Nancy Underhill. Next, at Sir Zelman's request, the alumni association financed the creation of a teaching garden down by the river for the Faculty of Agricultural Science. A following big project was the erection of the Mayne Hall, named to recognise the university's largest benefactors, the Mayne family. It was a dual purpose building, primarily so that graduation ceremonies could at last be held on campus instead of at the Brisbane City Hall.
Part of Sir Zelman's wide-ranging thinking was to have an all-glass wall on the highest side of the hall so that the graduates on their important occasion could look from inside the hall across the lawn and see the university buildings in which they had received their education. He envisaged the rich tones of a pipe organ to usher graduands to their seats and to add dignity to the rendering of Gaudeamus Igitur. Here once again the alumni made the expense affordable. The cost of a special world-class pipe organ and the building of Mayne Hall were defrayed in part by the many successful concerts that attracted full houses for many years before the increase in student number necessitated further expansion. Under a later vice-chancellor, a larger graduation hall was built and Mayne Hall became the university art museum, housing the greatly expanded art collection. Both Sir Zelman and Lady Cowen were committed to the University of Queensland in a very wide sense. From the start of his appointment, Sir Zelman Cowen's involvement was wide ranging. A vice-chancellor's house was to be built, and he saw to it that it was planned with a view to saving the university money. As vice-chancellors have a certain amount of entertaining to do, their home included a strategically suitable area, handy to the kitchen for catering but separate from the privacy of their residence. It was most successful planning. Lady Cowen held monthly mornings for staff wives and thoughtfully produced a couple of mature aged students to babysit their children.
Sir Zelman had ideas for money-raising functions to bolster campus facilities. The public area of the house was ideal for classical concerts, with catering for 100 guests each time. They were organised by the alumni association but Sir Zelman personally paid for the grand piano to be tuned each time that it was moved between the music department and their home. The supper was all at their expense and his cooperative and very helpful wife, Lady Cowen, prepared it herself in their kitchen.
Given that this time last year the University of Queensland was engaged in the 2011 flood clean-up, it is worth noting another facet of Sir Zelman. After the terrible 1974 floods, when the lower areas of the University of Queensland campus were left a sea of rotting and stinking mud, the vice-chancellor and Lady Cowen were prominent among the volunteer workers clearing the debris from the grounds.
I would like to thank the current vice-chancellor, Professor Deborah Terry, and former vice-chancellor Professor Paul Greenfield, as well as other members of the University of Queensland community, who have expressed their appreciation for Sir Zelman's contribution to academia in Queensland. Professor Terry stated:
Students and staff at the University of Queensland continue to enjoy the legacy of Sir Zelman's outstanding leadership of this university. He led the University of Queensland during a period of significant growth and was influential in fortifying the university's strong cultural profile, which continues to flourish today.
I commend Sir Zelman for his contribution to the University of Queensland, the electorate of Ryan and the wider community in Australia. In short, Sir Zelman was a good man who achieved great things. As a nation, we are the beneficiaries of Sir Zelman's achievements and of his extraordinary life. On behalf of the electors of Ryan, I feel privileged to have had this opportunity to pay tribute to a great Australian.
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (10:17): I rise to add my comments to the condolences that we have heard today and yesterday on the passing of Sir Zelman Cowen on 8 December last year, the day that marked the 34th anniversary of his swearing in as Australia's 19th Governor-General in 1977. Sir Zelman was a true giant in our nation. There are few in Australia's short history whose public contributions can match those of Sir Zelman. Sir Zelman Cowen's name sits comfortably in a long line of Jewish-Australian patriots who have contributed so much to the building of our great nation—names such as Sir John Monash and Sir Isaac Isaacs come to mind.
Sir Zelman was born in 1919 in Melbourne, where he was educated at Scotch College and Melbourne University. He was a brilliant student, dux in his school and, as the previous speaker said, the top of every single subject that he did at university. He became a Rhodes scholar and later completed a further degree at Oxford University, where he remained for some time.
In 1951, at the age of just 31, he returned to Australia and became the dean of the law faculty at the University of Melbourne, a faculty that I attended some years ago. Later, he was appointed as the vice-chancellor of the University of New England and then as the vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland. By this time, he was regarded as one of the top constitutional lawyers in the English-speaking world. Having already made an incredible contribution, Sir Zelman is best known for his exemplary service as Governor-General of Australia, the position which he held from 1977 to 1982. He, of course, served in this role at a time when the institution had come to be mistrusted by a proportion of the Australian people, something that might have boded ill for our nation's unity if it were not for Sir Zelman's statesmanly vice-regal approach. He served with great distinction and grace and restored trust in the institution of Governor-General. He was, as many people have noted, the great healer of our nation at that time.
Among his many other talents was his ability to perceive, recognise and nurture the talented amongst those his junior. The member for Flinders, Greg Hunt, touched on this. For instance, as Greg and many others have noted, he was an important professional and personal mentor to my great friend and colleague Josh Frydenberg, the member for Kooyong. I never had the privilege of knowing Sir Zelman Cowen as well as Josh did. As is often the way, we often only understand that our not knowing someone is regrettable when the opportunity no longer exists. But I do hope that the story of Sir Zelman Cowen's life and his legacy is made more widely known among younger Australians so that they might be inspired by his example as a scholar and as a servant to the public in the best possible sense of that term. We will all miss this great Australian—a scholar, a leader, a healer and a patriot. Our condolences go to Lady Anna Cowen and the Cowen family.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (10:21): I rise today to speak on the motion of condolence for one of our former governors-general, Sir Zelman Cowen. Sir Zelman sadly passed away last year on 8 December, which was the 34th anniversary of his swearing-in as Governor-General. Today I would like to pay my respects on the passing of this remarkable Australian. The passing of Sir Zelman is a great loss to our country, and I would like to reflect on the inspirational, remarkable and distinguished life of this noble man.
Sir Zelman was an incredibly accomplished man, having graduated from the University of Melbourne in arts and law and furthering his studies by taking up a Rhodes Scholarship in 1945. It is clear from the life that Sir Zelman lived that he truly embraced academia and believed strongly in the importance of education as a foundation for one's life. Sir Zelman was not only a Rhodes scholar but, later in life, a professor and Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Melbourne between 1951 and 1966 and vice-chancellor at both the University of New England, in 1967, and in my home state of Queensland at the University of Queensland, in 1970. I would like to place specific emphasis on the academic career of Sir Zelman as something I hope the young people of my electorate of McPherson will look up to; I hope they will see his achievements as something to aspire to. I share Sir Zelman's passion for the progression of academic excellence and the importance of education for our young future leaders. With his passing we have lost a great advocate for this very important cause. However, while Sir Zelman is no longer with us, his legacy most certainly is.
Following his time at our universities, Sir Zelman was asked to be Australia's 19th Governor-General to succeed Sir John Kerr. He graciously accepted this position in 1977 and held the post until 1982. Sir Zelman was Australia's second Jewish Governor-General, with the first being Sir Isaac Isaacs some 40 years prior. Being embraced by all sides of politics is no mean feat. However, Sir Zelman managed to achieve just that, receiving the admiration of politicians past and present from all political persuasions. Australia has gained immensely from Sir Zelman's decades of public service, and his passing is a significant loss to our nation.
Public service is a rewarding and often difficult business, and it is usually our families who provide the most valuable support and foundations for our success. It would appear that Sir Zelman was no different. In fact, when discussing his many achievements, Sir Zelman paid particular homage to the support of his wife, Lady Anna Cowen. We measure our life's achievements through the legacy we leave on the people and communities we leave behind when we pass on. I believe Sir Zelman's legacy is not only one he could be immeasurably proud of but one we as a nation can be collectively thankful for. I offer my sincere condolences to Sir Zelman's wife, Lady Anna Cowen, his children, his grandchildren and his extended family.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (10:25): I rise to add my comments to the condolences for Sir Zelman Cowen. The Australian Associated Press best described Sir Zelman Cowen as the healer of the Australian nation. They say he sometimes spoke of his success in life as being down to good luck and fortune. Although I did not know Sir Zelman Cowen personally, I have great respect for Australia's 19th Governor-General and the contribution he made to this great nation as a modern servant and leader of our country. Sir Zelman was a wonderful Australian who contributed enormously to public life with a wide variety of responsibilities and experiences during his lifetime, including serving in the Royal Australian Navy during World War II and becoming a member of General Douglas MacArthur's staff.
In 1951, Sir Zelman, at the age of 31, became the Dean of the Law Faculty of the University of Melbourne. This marked the start of a highly professional educational career which saw him travel the world, advising on legal and constitutional matters as a highly regarded professor. Other achievements include becoming the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland, where he made his mark as a highly skilled diplomat or negotiator during the protests associated with the Vietnam War, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier in greater detail. He was also honoured as the Chairman of the British Press Council.
Sir Zelman's diverse background, combined with his worldly knowledge, paved the way for his appointment as Governor-General following Sir John Kerr's turbulent period in office and subsequent resignation in 1977. He entered office during a particularly difficult time in our nation's history and succeeded in healing the nation. I am reminded of a quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson:
You cannot do a kindness too soon, for you never know how soon it will be too late.
We as a nation were blessed to have a man with his vision and compassion as our Governor-General during this difficult time. Sir Zelman was a faithful representative of the Queen, and, during her visit to Australia in 1980, the Queen appointed him a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order. This was one of many great honours that were awarded to him during his lifetime.
Sir Zelman continued to make an important contribution in many fields, such as academia, business, sport and the community, especially the Jewish community, well after his formal vice-regal duties finished in 1982. Sadly, the last 15 years of his life were marked by Parkinson's disease, from which he eventually passed away on the 31st anniversary of his swearing-in as Governor General. Sir Zelman will be remembered as a fine Australian who spend the majority of his life serving others. I would like to add my condolences to his family and friends.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (10:29): I rise to add my voice to the many words of condolence on the passing of Sir Zelman Cowen. I never met the man. The first Governor-General of whom I was aware was Sir John Kerr, but the man of whom we are speaking now set the template for what the Governor-General's role is today. The man's smile seemed so warm. He seemed so friendly, so welcoming, so Australian and so tailored to the role of Governor-General.
But Sir Zelman's legacy to me will not be so much in relation to his role as Governor-General, although that is the thing he is most known for. I come from Townsville, where we have a regional university, James Cook University. After having been a Rhodes scholar, and as a 31-year-old associate professor at Melbourne University, it would have been so easy to stay in academia in Victoria. But to him to take up the vice-chancellor role in Armidale for the University of New England says to me that he focused on education for all and that education is a key to all things. To branch out in education away from the sandstone buildings and into the regions was a truly remarkable feat by a truly remarkable man. He was then to go on to be vice-chancellor at the University of Queensland during the 1970 Springbok tour, when the city of Brisbane was nearly torn to pieces as competing interests and passion on all sides rallied and protests were made. His role as a healer then was every bit as evident as later on in the country.
I also mention his role as a mentor. I speak often with the member for Kooyong, who has told me of his friendship with Sir Zelman. I think those of us who have mentors who are older than us. In my city it is Graham Jackson of Loloma Jewellers, who gives and gives of his time and is always welcoming. I think that is what it would have been like to be in the company of Sir Zelman Cowen, to be in the company of someone who is willing to give his information and who is willing to give his knowledge as his true gift to Australia, and I think that is something we will always be very aware of.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (10:31): Sir Zelman Cowen died in Melbourne on 8 December 2011, 34 years to the day since he was appointed Australia's 19th Governor-General. Chosen to be the next Governor-General after the divisive dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975 and the early resignation of Sir John Kerr in 1977, Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser offered Sir Zelman the position of Governor-General, a role which at the time he described as 'the most difficult role to fill'. Mr Fraser said just recently that Sir Zelman:
… worked extremely hard to see as much as he could and to talk to as many Australians as possible-
And that:
He took over the position at a more difficult time than any other governor-general and served in the role with great distinction.
One of Australia's most distinguished constitutional lawyers and academics, Sir Zelman's life was a rich tapestry of achievement, duty and service above self. After serving in the Royal Australian Navy in World War II he began his studies in Oxford, England, where he completed a Bachelor of Civil Law degree before moving on to become a highly regarded consultant on legal matters to the British military government in Germany.
With all his accomplishments, it was easy to see why Sir Zelman was often described as the perfect choice to 'restore Australia's faith in the office of Governor-General'. He was often described as a distinguished Australian with an international reputation and with professional qualifications which were beyond dispute and, given that he had never been in politics, his political views were unknown. Sir Zelman was also Jewish, and this gave his appointment a multicultural aspect in keeping with contemporary Australian sentiment.
Sir Zelman was the breath of fresh air a government under pressure needed to bring trust within the walls of Parliament House and to show the Australian people a united front. He was, as has been described in the eloquent speeches given yesterday in the House, a healer. As the member for Kooyong stated so very well at Sir Zelman's state funeral:
Sir Zelman was destined for greatness, born as he was on 7 October 1919, the day Alfred Deakin died. He was bound by intellectual brilliance, a profound decency and a firm moral compass which were equally matched by a deep sense of his own identity.
I know how much the member for Kooyong is mourning the passing of Sir Zelman, friend that he was to this late great man. A man of greatness he was, a great Australian; one who will be missed, one who helped build bridges to this country's greatest asset—its people.
Sir Zelman knew where he was going and never forgot from where he came. He was a man who loved his faith as much as his family and was described by the member for Kooyong as being proud of his immigrant background and his Jewish faith. He never sought to distance himself from his heritage during his long and distinguished career.
Sir Zelman will be sadly missed by many but especially his wife, Lady Anna, and his four children and extended family. Shalom.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (10:34): I would like to associate myself with the comments of the Prime Minister; the Leader of the Opposition; the members for Melbourne Ports, Kooyong and Riverina in particular; and other members who have spoken so eloquently here this morning and yesterday on the condolence motion for Sir Zelman Cowen. Like them I too am in awe of Sir Zelman and the life that he lived. As the member for Kooyong said, Sir Zelman was a true giant of a man in Australian history, with a history of achievement spanning the best part of a century.
His lists of achievements others have detailed. He was a leader in every field of endeavour to which he turned his hand. He was co-dux at Scotch College in Melbourne, a Rhodes scholar and a dux at Oxford's postgraduate law school. He was internationally renowned as a legal academic and vice-chancellor. He was chairman of Fairfax and chairman of the British Press Council. He was made a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order by Queen Elizabeth II. He was an avid St Kilda Football Club supporter and leader of the Australian Jewish community. He was a loving and devoted family man. He married Lady Anna, then Anna Wittner, after serving in the Second World War both in Darwin when it was bombed in 1942 and as a sublieutenant on the staff of the US General Douglas MacArthur.
Sir Zelman Cowen was born on 7 October 1919 and passed away, as we know, on 8 December 2011 at the good age of 92. His life spanned more than the best part of the 20th century. Sir Zelman Cowen bridged a gap in Australian government at a time when it most needed to be bridged. His predecessor, Sir John Kerr, had changed the political landscape forever in this country with the dismissal of the Whitlam government. A rift, I have got to acknowledge, had developed as the role of Governor-General did come under increasing scrutiny at the time. In bridging the gap Sir Zelman Cowen was credited with 'healing' the nation and in doing so he brought the role of Governor-General closer to the Australian people—so much so that the nation mourns his loss as a family mourns the loss of someone dear.
Noting Sir Zelman's Jewish background, I know that in Hebrew the word 'shiva' is literally translated as 'seven' but it is also known as an emotional and spiritual bridge that does heal the grief of family members in times of loss. 'Shiva' is seen as the bridge that helps them cross the void that is left in their life. Traditionally, given that 'shiva' means 'seven', it is a seven-day mourning period in Judaism. A week seems a little inadequate, given the magnitude of Sir Zelman's impact on our lives, our government, our people and our nation. We, as a nation, join Lady Anna and the family of Sir Zelman in mourning their loss but also celebrating a full life, fully lived.
If I may, I will end by borrowing from a well-known Jewish prayer, the El Malei Rachamim:
Fully compassionate God on high:
To Sir Zelman Cowen who has entered eternity
Grant clear and certain rest with You
In the lofty heights of the sacred and pure
Whose brightness shines like the very glow of heaven.
Source of mercy:
Forever enfold Zelman in the embrace of Your wings
Secure his soul in eternity
Adonai: He is Yours.
He will rest in peace.
Amen
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (10:39): I rise today to also offer my condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Sir Zelman Cowen and particularly to give my support to other members who have spoken, including the member for Kooyong and also the member for Melbourne Ports. Sir Zelman Cowen was Australia's 19th Governor-General, who sadly passed away on 8 December 2011 aged 92. It was the 34th anniversary of his swearing-in as Governor-General in 1977. He served with distinction for 4½ years as Governor-General from 1977 to 1982. He suffered from and battled with Parkinson's disease for the past 15 years of his life and was labelled as Australia's Muhammad Ali for his long and brave battle against it, a battle that my family has also come to know more about since my father has been suffering this terrible illness for the past 12 years. It is a really debilitating disease.
When Sir Zelman Cowen was sworn in to the office of Governor-General, he was regarded as one of the leading constitutional lawyers in the English-speaking world and very much a leader within the Jewish community. High Court Justice Michael Kirby said that Sir Zelman had restored what was much needed—that calm to the office. He said further:
His greatest service to Australia was that he used his incumbency to bring a "touch of healing"—
and the word 'healing' has been mentioned in a number of speeches by my colleagues from the opposition and by members of the government—
to settle the sharp divide—
that had occurred in our nation. Sir Zelman told Australians that he hoped to bring a touch of healing to the country and its people. He declared that he was going to avoid being portrayed as the caricature of a cutter of ribbons and an utterer of platitudes, describing his role as Governor-General as being to interpret the nation to itself. In a speech to the Australian Academy of Science, Sir Zelman Cowen promoted the cause of free scientific inquiry, notably in genetic engineering. He also advocated support for refugee assimilation.
He served in the Royal Australian Navy during World War II, from 1941 to 1945, and his expertise was in naval intelligence. He was based in Darwin during the Japanese attack of 1942. He later served as a sublieutenant on General MacArthur's staff in Brisbane—the headquarters are now located in Queen Street, which is part of the electorate of Brisbane. After the war, from 1947 to 1950, he was a fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, and then went on to become a Rhodes scholar at New College, Oxford, where he completed a Bachelor of Civil Law degree and jointly won the Vinerian Scholarship. He was also a consultant on legal matters to the British military government in Germany. My colleagues have spoken about Sir Zelman's many achievements. He was an outstanding individual.
I remember Sir Zelman with great fondness. In particular, I remember his appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland, in 1970. I saw him utilise his exceptional diplomatic skills to negotiate and calm student protests and, in particular, a number of disturbances that were occurring at the university. The memory of this great Australian will live on across this country in many ways. Victoria University is home to the Sir Zelman Cowen Centre, providing training and support to the courts, legal practitioners, judiciary and other professions. In 1981, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects established the Sir Zelman Cowen Award for Public Architecture, recognised as Australia's leading award for public buildings. His reach and his influence went far beyond the area of law. Melbourne Law School awards the Zelman Cowen National Scholarship to incoming juris doctor students. The scholarship is awarded purely on the basis of academic merit and is the law school's most prestigious scholarship.
I join with my many colleagues in mourning the loss of Sir Zelman Cowen, a distinguished Australian with an international reputation, who has indeed made an outstanding contribution to this country. It was indeed my privilege and honour in the House yesterday to be in the presence of his wife, Lady Anna, and one of his children and to hear numerous members who rose at the dispatch box to speak about his incredible life. Today I speak about and acknowledge the wonderful contribution that he made to this country as Governor-General both here and abroad. I mentioned earlier his wonderful skills, particularly in being one of the leading constitutional lawyers that this country has ever seen, and for that he is to be truly commended. It is a rare privilege today to speak and join my colleagues. Again, I offer my condolences to his family. We have indeed lost a truly remarkable and outstanding Australian.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (10:44): Many of my colleagues have had the privilege of knowing Sir Zelman Cowen and have spoken fondly of their memories of him, outlining how, through friendship and mentoring, he helped shape their lives. Sir Zelman was appointed the 19th Governor-General in 1977 and, from all accounts, he was surprised but delighted by this appointment. Sir Zelman has been described by many as a healer of the people through his role as the Governor-General. My colleague the member for Kooyong said that Sir Zelman set a standard which will be the benchmark for those who follow as Governor-General. He had an impeccable reputation based on a life lived with honesty and integrity, according to the member for Kooyong. Others have commented that he returned a dignity to the role of Governor-General.
Throughout his 92 years he witnessed some major historical events that certainly shaped our country. Sir Zelman Cowen had a link to Darwin and the Northern Territory. His first visit to Darwin was in 1942 as a Navy lieutenant during World War II. In fact Sir Zelman was in Darwin when it was bombed by the Japanese in February 1942. I understand that Sir Zelman has, over the years, given several accounts of his experiences during the bombings of Darwin. These accounts have assisted many historians in ensuring that this very important event in our history has been recorded. In a couple of weeks time we will be commemorating the 70th anniversary of the bombings of Darwin and, unfortunately, Sir Zelman will not be with us for these commemorations.
Another historical event that Sir Zelman was involved in that relates to the Northern Territory was when as the Governor-General in 1978 he opened the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. This was a significant event for Territorians, as this was when the Northern Territory was granted self-government. I did not personally know Sir Zelman, but from all accounts he was an amazing man and I am just delighted that he was able to be involved in some significant events for the Northern Territory. I extend my condolences to Lady Anna and her family.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (10:47): I rise to speak on the condolence motion on the death of Sir Zelman Cowen. Sir Zelman was Australia's 19th Governor-General. He died after suffering an illness at his Toorak home. His wife, Anna, was by his side. He is survived by his wife; his four children, Simon, Yosef, Kate and Ben; 16 grandchildren and six great-grandchildren. He was 92.
Much has been said by my parliamentary colleagues and I endorse the sentiments that they have expressed in the chamber and the Federation Chamber. I vividly recall the appointment of Sir Zelman Cowen as the Governor-General following Sir John Kerr's 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam government. In the events that unfolded, I was working as a primary school teacher and, on that day, I came back in from yard duty and the message was very clear: the Whitlam government had been dismissed, setting in train a sequence of reactions, emotions and bitterness. It divided a community and it divided a nation, as debates occurred at dinner tables, events and functions that people attended. But the other part of this that was important was that I was teaching at the time, and the year 7s I was teaching wanted to know about those events and the subsequent appointment of Sir Zelman Cowen. That was my introduction to him as an individual and to the contribution that he had made prior to his appointment.
I certainly witnessed the raw anger expressed by many and the bitterness at the events which unfolded on 11 November 1975 and afterwards. I attended political rallies in Forrest Place, Perth, to hear the various members of parliament and was concerned at the level of anger and bitterness about the dismissal of the Whitlam government. As a young man I honestly wondered how we, as a nation, would move on from a period that was unparalleled in Australian history. Michael Gordon and Michelle Grattan, in their article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 9 December 2011 titled 'He "restored Australia's faith": Sir Zelman Cowen dies at 92,' wrote:
One of Australia's most distinguished constitutional lawyers and academics, Sir Zelman was appointed to the vice-regal post by Malcolm Fraser in 1977. Critics said the role had been politicised by the controversial sacking but he won respect from both sides.
I recall from the commentary in the media and from conversations at the time that there prevailed a strong view that the office of the Governor-General had been compromised and that our faith as a nation in the impartiality of that office would never be the same. Political wounds leave incredible scars of pain because of our passion as individuals for the philosophy that we hold dear and the party that we support. The challenge was to heal those wounds and restore the faith in the impartiality of the Governor-General.
The appointment of Sir Zelman Cowen certainly raised interest. What I found about Sir Zelman was that he was attentive and cared deeply about the pain that was created. He was highly compassionate and empathetic to the needs of others, seeking to bring peace and integrity to Australian society at large. He wanted to heal and correct the conflicts that divided political and social groups. He was committed to things that were positive and made extraordinary sacrifices in an attempt to achieve the ideals that were important to all Australians and he related to all those whom he met and influenced. I heard Sir Zelman Cowen speak on one occasion and was taken not only by the content of his message but more importantly by the gentle way in which he delivered that message and the way that he projected. I was made to feel that I was part of an audience he was talking to individually. Mark Leibler, a Jewish community leader, said in a recent interview with the Sydney Morning Herald that Sir Zelman was one of Australia's greatest Jews and a man whose advice and guidance was sought frequently. I think that advice and counsel was sought by many outside the Jewish community who valued a man of principle and integrity. We owe Sir Zelman a debt of gratitude for healing our nation and for the work he did in serving this country.
I want to conclude with the words of Josh Frydenberg, the member for Kooyong, who paid tribute to a humane and decent man: 'He was interested in your own personal development. He was always a source of sound advice and he took great pride in mentoring many people. He was much loved and respected by people from all walks of life and will be remembered as one of the greatest Australians to ever live.' I think there are times when we are fortunate to meet people who have the capacity to bring together those who have been scarred or hurt by the pain of an event and then to reflect within their thinking and psyche a peaceful approach that restores that which existed prior to the event. A man of that integrity, or any leader who has that quality, is someone who is to be admired greatly. My condolences go to Anna and to Sir Zelman Cowen's family.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (10:53): Following on from the very eloquent and moving words of my colleague the member for Hasluck, I rise today to also pay tribute to a remarkable Australian who led a remarkable life in his 92 years. Sir Zelman was a constituent of mine and an inspiration to so many. Thrust into public life after one of the most, if not the most, tumultuous times in Australian political history, Sir Zelman was a pillar of strength who brought a sense of stability and authority to the office of Governor-General. There would not be one person in this place who would not be intimately familiar with the events of November 1975. What is somewhat less well documented is the role that Sir Zelman played in his own quiet way in uniting and healing our nation when he was made Governor-General in the year of my birth, 1977.
He had a most distinguished career. Born to Jewish immigrant parents in 1919, Sir Zelman graduated as dux from Scotch College. He then went on to complete an arts-law degree from the University of Melbourne. At the tender age of 19, he was the youngest person ever to receive a tutorship at the University of Melbourne, where he tutored in political philosophy. After being awarded a Rhodes Scholarship, he deferred his overseas studies to serve in the Navy in Darwin and was stationed there during the Japanese attacks in 1942. At the completion of his service, Sir Zelman returned to study and he and his wife moved to Oxford to commence his scholarship. Sir Zelman continued his academic career as a lecturer and fellow of Oriel College. At the age of 30 he was offered the position of dean of the law school at the University of Melbourne. After his tenure at the University of Melbourne Sir Zelman went on to become vice-chancellor at the University of New England and the University of Queensland. Known for his sense of humour and kind nature, Sir Zelman was a wonderful example of human nature in its finest form. As we heard yesterday from my friend and colleague the member for Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg, Sir Zelman's welcoming personality and generous nature made him a wonderful mentor.
Sir Zelman's commitment to his Jewish faith was paramount. It was something that he celebrated and it was this shared Jewishness that my friend Josh described as one of the foundations of their friendship.
In addition to Sir Zelman's public service, scholarly achievements and faith, at a personal level Sir Zelman shared a wonderful partnership with his wife, Lady Anna, to whom he was married for 66 years. He is survived by Lady Anna and his four children, Rabbi Dr. Shimon Cowen, Nick, Ben and his daughter, Kate. Our condolences go to them for their loss of a husband and father. Today, we pay tribute to the public service of Sir Zelman Cowen.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (10:56): Zelman Cowen was born in 1919 on the day of Alfred Deakin's death. As many people have observed—Michael Kirby was the first to do so—it was as though Sir Zelman always felt that some spark of Deakin had entered his soul at the time he came into the world. This is entirely inconsistent with Jewish theology or indeed Christian theology; nonetheless, it is a wonderful idea. And it is a reminder of the way in which the threads of Zelman Cowen's life—very long life—are connected in tangible and intangible ways to so many other important figures in Australian history, not simply to Sir Alfred Deakin. It is an interesting point to note that Zelman Cowen was of course the second Jewish Governor-General of Australia, the first having been Sir Isaac Isaacs. Again, is it a coincidence that Sir Zelman had written a biography of Isaac Isaacs some years before? And is it a further coincidence that they died at exactly the same age? What were the chances of that? There are a lot of threads in Zelman Cowen's life that connect him to the history and the prominent figures of our country, some that are rather more intangible.
I first became aware of Zelman Cowen in a law library. When he was a young scholar at Oxford—he was Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University—he wrote a very important book on evidence, called Essays on the Law of Evidence, in partnership with another academic named Peter Carter, who did not go on to greatness in public life but remained a teacher at Oxford University. Indeed, when he was lecturing me and others in 1979 on evidence, I have no doubt that the notes he was lecturing to us from were the same he had used when he was a fellow with Zelman Cowen, given that the notes were so ancient and tattered and that moths were practically flying off the page every time he turned one over. That was my first encounter with Zelman Cowen in print. But when I was at Oxford I learnt an enormous amount about Zelman Cowen from my very good friend and fellow Rhodes Scholar Steven Skala, who was one of the handful of guests at our wedding in 1980. Steven had grown up in Brisbane and had, it seemed, effectively become part of the Cowen family. He spoke of Zelman with a warmth and an insight that made Lucy and me almost feel as though we knew him, even though I had not at that stage of my life met Zelman, other than through the pages of his evidence text—which is not the best way to get to know anyone, I might add. So Steven spoke of a man who was warm and was a mentor, although mentor is a rather chilly term—I think it was almost as if he was a man who was prepared to be almost like a father to so many other young people. This was a long time ago. It is well over 30 years ago that I am talking of Steven's discussions about Zelman Cowen with me. It is very touching that, much later, in much more recent years our colleague the member for Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg, had a similar filial mentor relationship with Zelman Cowen. Just as Zelman inspired and helped fashion the ideals and values of Steven he has clearly done the same with Josh, and it says a lot about the character of the man. Of course, there are so many other people on whom he had this impact.
He was, above all, a natural teacher. This is an important point because many teachers and scholars of Sir Zelman's rank find teaching students a little bit beneath them, and they prefer to leave that to their assistants and concentrate on research and giving grand lectures. But his enthusiasm and passion for other people, particularly for young people, marked him out as a really special teacher, somebody who had not simply the intellect, the charisma and the ability to communicate but also the compassion and the genuine human interest in others. That is remarkable. The great scholars of whom you could make those observations would form a relatively short list, in my experience.
He held many university positions. He was a fellow at Oxford. He later became the Dean of the Melbourne University Law School, the Vice-Chancellor at the University of Queensland and prior to that at Armidale, and later, after his Governor-Generalship, he was the Provost of Oriel College. He had a range of interests and they went well beyond the academic. But the big event in his life was when Malcolm Fraser invited him to become Governor-General of Australia. At the moment of his appointment he described it as the opportunity to deliver a touch of healing, and that is exactly what he did. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the 1975 dismissal, the actions by Sir John Kerr and the subsequent political controversy had brought the office of the Governor-General into a degree of bitter contention and political acrimony that it had not had before nor, I am happy to say, since. It required a very special person to take over from Sir John Kerr.
Sir Zelman Cowen was able to bring a remarkable intellect but also a depth of humanity and empathy with all Australians that enabled him to reach out and reconnect that office with the people in a manner that restored confidence in it. He had a genuine warmth. Again, we have had many great viceroys at the federal and the state level. You can think today of the extraordinary warmth of Marie Bashir, the Governor of New South Wales. They are of course two very different people, although both great scholars and academics in their own fields, but each of them had that degree of humanity, compassion and warmth. I dealt quite regularly with Sir Zelman Cowen during the debate over the Australian republic. I am pleased to see my colleague the member for Goldstein, Andrew Robb, here who was also on the side of justice and truth in that campaign. Zelman Cowen had been an advocate for an Australian republic for some time, well before the referendum campaign in 1999. He had the same view about what an Australian republic should look like—that is to say, it should have a president who has essentially the same powers as the Governor-General—but he was strongly opposed, as indeed I was and the member for Goldstein was, to the idea that the president should be directly elected by the people.
His argument in that regard was very well made on a number of occasions but most notably in the Hawke Lecture in 1999, which he entitled 'The guide for the perplexed', which is a very neat literary reference to Maimonides work on theology. Sometimes constitutional law is even more obscure than theology. His argument was essentially that you must, in looking at the office of head of state, first ask yourself what you want your head of state to do and be. If your job description is, 'We want somebody who is nonpolitical, nonpartisan, seen as impartial and not caught up in political controversy,' then it follows that electing them directly in a contested public election is unlikely to deliver a person who would fit those characteristics. Almost invariably—and this is true in every country where presidents are elected, whether they are executive presidents as in America or non-executive presidents as in the Republic of Ireland—you would end up with somebody who is a nominee of one of the major political parties. We shared exactly the same views about it. He intervened in the debate, as his friends Sir Ninian Stephen and Sir Anthony Mason intervened, and that was very important, not simply because jurists of that stature gave support and credibility to the proposition that we should make this change but because they were able to assure Australians that the change was not going to result in red revolution. Of course, our opponents were busily saying that would be the case and running all source of scare campaigns.
Zelman and I spoke on a number of occasions about one of the most egregious scare campaigns run by the no case in that referendum which was that, if Australia became a republic, we would have to leave the Commonwealth—that we could not be a member of the Commonwealth any longer. It beggars belief that anyone would make a claim like that, because the largest country in the Commonwealth, India, is in fact a republic. Zelman was able to deal with this repeatedly. I will quote from part of his Hawke lecture in 1999. He said:
I therefore support the Constitutional Convention's proposal that the President be elected by two-thirds of a joint sitting of the two Houses of federal Parliament. This is the proposal which will be put to the people in November this year, and I believe it can be safely recommended to our fellow citizens as giving us an Australian head of state without radical change to our parliamentary system.
Of course there are other aspects which merit attention. There is one I would like to mention in closing. It is the question of whether Australia's becoming a republic has any implications for Australia's continued membership of the Commonwealth.
… … …
The point can be simply put: Australia's becoming a republic is entirely consistent with our continuing membership of the Commonwealth. This point was established almost exactly fifty years ago, when the consequence of a member state of the Commonwealth becoming a republic was considered by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers meeting in London in 1949.
It was there resolved that India, which had put the matter before the Prime Ministers, might maintain membership of the Commonwealth as a republic, and that India would for its part recognize the monarch as Head of the Commonwealth ... The upshot is that the modern Commonwealth includes states which are republics—the majority—those which have their separate monarchs, and a substantial minority which retain the monarch, among these Australia.
Interestingly, as he goes on in his speech he acknowledges that, at the time that he was a young law lecturer and a fellow at Oxford, he and all constitutional lawyers of the day had been brought up to believe that fealty to the Crown was an integral part of being a member of the Commonwealth, as indeed it had been. He says that this change in 1949 came as somewhat of a surprise. He goes on to note:
I remember that soon after the decision of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers was made public, I - then a young Oxford law teacher - was sitting alongside Mr Attlee, who was then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and a party to the London agreement. A youthful purist (some might say pedant), I asked whether in view of all of the history, he had difficulty in reaching his conclusion. The most laconic of men, he answered directly to the point. 'No.' That was all.
Sir Zelman was very important in that debate. He did not win the referendum, of course, but his input was intelligent, sober, sane, measured, nonpolitical and capable of providing the sort of intelligent input into policy debates that we could perhaps do with a little bit more of from time to time.
His healing hand was not only felt in the Commonwealth of Australia. Our paths had crossed previously, in the early nineties, when, after a long series of corporate catastrophes, John Fairfax had gone into bankruptcy and my firm was representing the subordinated debt holders, the so-called 'junk bond' holders. We put together a group comprising us, the bond holders, Kerry Packer, Conrad Black and an American private equity fund to make a bid for the companies as the so-called Tourang consortium. It was eventually successful, but, given all the colourful characters involved in that bid, it was no surprise that just about everyone fell out with everyone else.
The takeover of John Fairfax was effected at the end of 1991, we got the deal done, and then the company was relisted in early 1992, and Zelman was the first chairman of the board. Chairing a board with all of those characters on it, or represented on it, would have been pretty challenging—although we did have as a director Laurence Street, who ultimately succeeded him as chairman.
Zelman and I crossed swords, in a gentle way, at the Fairfax AGM on 25 November 1992, which was the first AGM of John Fairfax since young Warwick had recklessly taken it over in 1987, with all of the disasters that followed. I was then a shareholder. My shareholding was not substantial in a companies act sense but, for me, it was a very substantial shareholding in the company. I had taken exception about a month or so before the meeting when I learnt that the directors were proposing to issue to themselves and to some executives options exercisable at $1, notwithstanding that the market price for the shares was $1.50. I had rung up the chief executive, Stephen Mulholland, to complain about this, and he had abused me rather colourfully. An hour later, he sent me some flowers, which I thought was sweet of him. I rang him back and he did the same thing again. The second time, the flowers did not come.
So we commenced proceedings in the Federal Court in which my father-in-law was my counsel and Lucy was the solicitor—so it was definitely a family exercise—and we were successful. Regrettably for Fairfax and Conrad Black, their solicitors had made a few errors in the notice of meeting and there were some other deficiencies, and they basically had to surrender. So the options exercisable at $1 were not issued. This was a big issue leading up to their shareholders' meeting, and Conrad Black and I spent much of the meeting shouting at each other: me from the floor of the opera theatre, I think, and Conrad on the stage. Needless to say, there were 800 shareholders there, most of whom were small shareholders, and you can imagine their sympathy was not with the directors giving themselves options at $1.
Over all of this Zelman managed somehow to keep order and he was able to radiate a degree of calm. At one point he suggested he might have to rule some remarks of mine as out of order, and we had a debate about whether he was trying to gag me or not. With his charm and my sense that I might lose the support of the room if I had a row with such a distinguished chairman, we managed to get through to the end of the meeting satisfactorily.
He did a very good job at Fairfax and, just as he had been as chairman of the press council of Britain, he was not unfamiliar with the media. It was a good example, in a very practical and turbulent sense, with 800 largely very unhappy shareholders and some pretty arrogant directors and executive on the part of Fairfax, Stephen Mulholland and Conrad Black in particular. It was a good example, I thought, of Zelman's ability to provide a calming influence not just in a speech to a gentlemanly or ladylike gathering or in a committee meeting but in a big hall.
He led a long and incredibly full life, a life of great accomplishment. He died laden with honours and loved by all. He obviously, however, cherished his family above all, as we all should—and in this respect Zelman Cowen is an example to all of us. It is common to say of people, 'He was a good family man' or 'She was a good mother and wife' and all of that. That is a good thing to say, but Zelman Cowen's family was his passion. In that sense, it was part of his Jewishness. Of course the Jews are not by any means the only people who love their families, but family life and the warmth of family life, the hamesha family life, the warm homeliness of it, is so central to Jewish life, to Jewish culture and to Sir Zelman Cowen.
Mourned by all, missed by all but admired for a lifetime of achievement, we salute Zelman Cowen and, as a parliament, offer our condolences to his widow, Lady Anna, and to their children, grandchildren and all of their family, some of whom, like Josh and Stephen Skala, were effectively informally adopted.
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (11:18): It is a great privilege for me to have an opportunity to say a few words of condolence about this very great Australian. I must say how much I enjoyed, and I endorse, the comments by the member for Wentworth, which were put so eruditely and finely in the last few minutes. I enjoyed also the interactions that Malcolm Turnbull experienced with Sir Zelman over a long period of time.
I had the great honour of getting to know Sir Zelman perhaps over the last 15 years. As the member for Wentworth mentioned, we were engaged with Sir Zelman in all sorts of ways during the republic debate and I shared Sir Zelman's view of how it should proceed and what shape it should take—the minimalist model and the lack of election of a president, which he felt very strongly about, as did I and still do. That gave us a point of connection and it gave me a great opportunity to get to know the man and to appreciate what so many others have eloquently put in this chamber about the qualities of Sir Zelman and the reasons for which he is so widely respected within the Australian community and the global community in the many areas that he has interacted with. I have been able to maintain some measure of contact, often by coincidence, as Sir Zelman lived near my electorate. Caulfield, in which he resided, is the neighbouring suburb to my electorate. I have around 8,000 members of the Jewish community in my electorate of Goldstein and I enjoy my regular interactions with the Jewish community. I would often find myself at the same function or event as Sir Zelman as a consequence.
The thing that struck me about him, both in my interactions with him and in the way he dealt with other people, was his humility. I found it hugely instructive and also a source of great admiration for a man of such extraordinary achievements—and not just for the magnificent role as Governor-General but through the history of his achievements which have already been chronicled so well by so many: from a young age as dux of his school, as a Rhodes scholar and then later as the Dean of Law at the University of Melbourne at the age of 30. These marked him as a man of remarkable intellect and capacity. I suspect, despite the humble, sympathetic and empathetic manner that he always brought to interactions with people, there was clearly great strength of character. He was a man who was not easily swayed from his view of things. He had a capacity to stay true to what he believed and to argue it and influence others without any bombast and without any acrimony. It is again a lesson for many of us in this place that there are multiple ways of achieving outcomes and multiple ways of legitimately disagreeing with one another without some of the nastiness that can surround proceedings not just here but in other parts of our community.
Sir Zelman was operational in Darwin when the bombings took place in the Second World War. He experienced the bombings, which in fact exceeded Pearl Harbor. This is not well understood due to the strategic approach taken at the time not to frighten the rest of the community with what was happening up north. To this day, I do not think Australians appreciate the significance of the magnitude of the disaster or the intensity of the hundreds of Japanese bombings that took place. Sir Zelman experienced all of that. He was a patron of the Darwin Defenders group and without exception attended the Darwin Defenders service, which is held on 19 February each year in Melbourne and in other parts of the country. Without exception, he was a patron of the Darwin Defenders group. For the years I have been in parliament I have attended each year, and he has always been there, no matter what his state of health has been. Again, he was always responsive to people and always had that great capacity, which the member for Wentworth described so eloquently, for mentoring. He had this innate ability, whether you were speaking to him for one minute or for 30 minutes, to influence what you thought, without preaching at you or imposing a point of view. It is very hard to articulate; he was a very remarkable man and he had this quality about him. Others, such as the member for Kooyong, have spoken eloquently about this capacity, and they have enjoyed that experience, perhaps more than others, with Sir Zelman.
I saw it again and again. In every interaction I had with him over the last 15 years, that was the thing that stayed with me. I always came away from that discussion, no matter how short or how long it was, with a feeling of more certainty about certain issues and with something to think about. Again, it was all done in a gentle manner. His humility was a constant and it was extraordinary. He had many reasons to have a touch of arrogance or hubris, given his contribution, but you never saw it for a second.
He was a man of great empathy and patience. When Malcolm described that unruly shareholder meeting, I could visualise it. I could see the patience that he would exert, the wisdom that he would convey in his comments and the respect and empathy that I know he would have shown for everyone in that room. That invites cooperation. It calms things down and leads to constructive outcomes. I was not at the meeting, although I have read about it. I can see him in my mind's eye carrying out that role that the member for Wentworth so adequately described. The patience, empathy, intellect and loyalty that he showed to the Darwin Defenders constituted a life and a respect that is not unique but is as strong as you would ever find for any individual in Australia.
It is a great immigrant story, and many have spoken about that. It reinforces the pride that I have, and the confidence that most Australians have, that we are a much greater nation because of the millions of immigrant stories, and this is another immigrant story of great quality. Not only does it help to form the glue that holds this country together; it also ensures that we go from strength to strength. The sorts of stories, experiences and qualities that he is an example of broadens and deepens the Australian character. I think there are many great Australians who have had profound influences over the development of Australia in the last 200 years. There are people who have done things which have unambiguously had long-term influences in shaping either the physical attributes or the cultural attributes of Australia. So there are many great Australians through history, but I think it could be reasonably argued that no-one has had an influence that exceeded his. They might be equal to him, but no-one has had a singular influence that exceeded the unique healing role that he so magnificently performed during his time as Governor-General.
I do think it was a time when Australia could have been heading towards a significant fracturing of our fundamental institutions or culture or sense of oneness. It had that potential to go off the rails, and that could have been a long-term, damaging and unfortunate development. But I think to the great surprise of everyone in such a short period—he had 4½ years as Governor-General but, really, this was within two years—he had taken hold of that source of division, angst and potential fracturing and calmed it down. He had shown a greater purpose that we have all got together, and the value of putting those things behind us and moving on. Things happen—in a family, in an organisation, in a country; they cannot be removed, they happen, but you have to find ways of dealing with them. I think he showed Australia a way of dealing with that issue. For that if for nothing else, even though he made the most extraordinary contributions in so many areas, he must have the undying gratitude of all Australians for many decades into the future. He shaped Australia. He made a critical and fundamental contribution to the essence of the Australian character through the civilising influence he bought to that job. I do feel that he and his family should be enormously proud of that role that he played.
There is so much more that others have said, and said more eloquently than I could. His achievements are just remarkable. As the member for Wentworth said, it never stopped. He contributed at an extraordinary level right through to the end. Despite years of ill-health in the latter part of his life, he was still having this extraordinary influence on people and events.
I conclude by saying that it was a great life. He was so greatly respected. His life was one of simply great accomplishments. But he was a man who was marked by extraordinary humility, empathy and respect for others. We salute Sir Zelman Cowen. His was a life well lived. We offer our condolences to his widow, Lady Anna, his children, all those that were close to him and all those that he loved so much.
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (11:33): I rise today to pay tribute to a fine Australian who has been remembered as one of the great political healers of our time. Sir Zelman Cowen served for 4½ years as Australia's 19th Governor-General, from December 1977 to July 1982. He was described as a great and dignified Australian after being hand-picked in 1977 as a unifying figure to help heal the politics of the nation after the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975.
Sir Zelman was appointed to the position of Governor-General by Malcolm Fraser in 1977. In his later years he described the appointment as 'totally unexpected' but 'the greatest experience' of his life. The Sydney Morning Heraldrecently quoted Malcolm Fraser, when he said:
Sir Zelman "restored Australia's faith in the office of governor-general".
Malcolm Fraser went on:
"Sir Zelman took over the position at a more difficult time than any other governor general and served in the role with great distinction …
According to Fraser:
"Sir Zelman worked extremely hard to see as much as he could and to talk to as many Australians as possible."
I would like to express my condolences to Sir Zelman's wife, Anna, and their four children, Shimon, Nick, Kate and Ben, and his 16 grandchildren and six great-grandchildren. I am sure that, while they grieve the passing of a man they loved so much, they are also very proud of the contribution that he made to our nation and the faith that he restored in our political system.
At his funeral, Sir Zelman's son, Shimon, said his dad:
… rebuilt or healed a divided nation and indeed throughout his life constantly sought to work consensus by modelling mutual respect and decent values.
He said his dad was not philosophical and that he was a doer, who dedicated his life to humanity.
Sir Zelman was labelled as the 'perfect choice' for the post of Governor-General in 1977. He was a distinguished Australian, with an international reputation in the field of law and education. Between 1951 and 1966 he was the Dean of Law at the University of Melbourne. He was appointed the Vice-Chancellor of the University of New England in Armidale, New South Wales, in 1966. In 1970 he was appointed Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland in Brisbane.
He was regarded by his peers as one of the leading constitutional lawyers in the English-speaking world. He won a Rhodes scholarship in 1940 and decided to join the Royal Australian Navy. He served in Darwin in February 1942 during the Japanese air raids on Darwin and Northern Australia.
Later in the war he worked as a sublieutenant on the staff of General Douglas MacArthur. Sir Zelman was also a proud member of the Jewish community and, in 2003, he urged all Australians to show more compassion and generosity towards refugees. Even in retired life he set a fine example for other Australians to follow.
After his retirement, Sir Zelman pursued a range of other interests, including serving for five years on the board of Fairfax newspapers and being patron of St Kilda Football Club.
Sadly, he was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 1990 and, as a result, he lost his voice in recent years. At his funeral, Shimon said this gave his father a new view of life and spirituality. He said that his dad responded to his condition without anger or irritation and that he was cast into an entire new modality of listening and receptivity.
It is clear that Sir Zelman was a great man both in his public and private life and, whilst he gave so much to his country and humanity, I am sure he gave a lot more to those who loved him the most—his family.
Sir Zelman was a great leader in both the Australian and Jewish communities and someone whom all politicians could aspire to today. He showed great humanity and dignity during his time in office and championed many important causes. He set a great example for all of us who serve our communities here in this place, and I believe this is one of the greatest legacies he has left behind.
I am proud to see so many of my colleagues pay tribute to Sir Zelman today. He was a great Australian who deserves the kind words which have been spoken about him. I only hope that his death will not be in vain and that we all take a page from his book and continue to work hard to bring great integrity and dignity to the jobs which our communities have elected us to do.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sir Zelman for his contribution to our nation and for the great legacy he has left behind for his children and his country. I would also like to note that, before I spoke in this chamber today, the member for Kooyong sat through and listened to a number of speeches of my colleagues on the condolence motion for Sir Zelman. Sir Zelman was a great mentor for the member for Kooyong and we see the member for Kooyong, a great shining light, come into this House. I am sure that Sir Zelman would have been very proud of his performances not only in this House but also within his community. I am sure we all would have liked to have had a great mentor such as Sir Zelman. I am looking forward to watching the member for Kooyong grow in this House and in what he achieves for his community. The Australian people will be proud of the member for Kooyong in the way he performs his duties in this House.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (11:39): I rise to speak on the life of Sir Zelman Cowen and on his contribution to our country. Sir Zelman passed away on 8 December, at the age of 92. He was born in the Melbourne suburb of St. Kilda in 1919, on the same day as the death of Alfred Deakin, one of the founding fathers of our nation. At 19 years of age he became the youngest tutor in the history of the University of Melbourne. Chosen for a Rhodes scholarship the following year and at just 31 years of age, he was chosen as Dean of the University of Melbourne's Faculty of Law, one of our nation's great schools of law. He also helped establish the Monash Law School and the Griffith Law School and was appointed Vice-Chancellor of the University of New England and then of the University of Queensland, exemplifying his unique commitment to learning and leadership.
His writings on privacy and bioethics have stood the test of time and helped shape the laws we hold firmly to today. As many Australians have found their hero status in the field of combat and in the face of fire, Sir Zelman's heroic deeds were performed in peacetime but at a time of crisis. In 1977 he was appointed as Governor-General. It was his most important role. After the 1975 dismissal, our nation was fractured. He entered with a goal to become the healer and he left five years later having achieved this goal.
His many more contributions to the British legal system and the Press Council have been recounted numerous times, as have his love for his family and his contribution to the vibrant Australian Jewish community. But Sir Zelman was more than that. He represented a new stage in Australia's development. He was a first-generation Australian who strongly represented our new multicultural society. He brought together old-world religious, cultural and social traditions with the continuous development and growth of our legal system and practices. He reflected great courage as a 1930s school student, writing stories for his peers about the great suffering being heaped upon the Jewish community in Europe. He defended our nation and our nation's core values on the battlefield, in the classroom, in the lecture theatre and on the typewriter. He possessed an intellect that few could match but preferred to use humour as a tool to get his message across; yet this keen intellect and intuition was on constant display throughout his days as he remained steadfastly loyal, despite only once being rewarded by that great institution, the St Kilda Football Club. He was a truly broad Australian of intellect and a love of sport. Sir Zelman was a hero on the field of combat and in his peacetime pursuits. He was a truly great Australian. We will miss him greatly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ): I too wish to associate myself with the contributions made by other honourable members. Sir Zelman Cowen was not only a distinguished Australian; he was a great Australian. I take this opportunity to extend my deepest sympathy to Lady Cowen and her family. May he rest in peace.
I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by standing in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the Committee.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11:43): I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
Veness, Mr Peter
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (11:44): On indulgence, I was very saddened to hear of the passing of Peter Veness. He was a young, courageous and good man who at 27 years of age departed far too early from this earth. I got to know Peter as a journalist for the Australian Associated Press, the AAP, when I first came to the parliament in late 2010 and he was working in the Canberra press gallery. He always struck me as having a nice sense of humour, an ear and an eye for a good story, and a professional and dedicated commitment to his journalistic craft. Even as he battled against a rare form of brain cancer, which was diagnosed in 2009, Peter remained stoic and positive and true to his larrikin streak. In his own words, 'Live a life of no regrets. Don't die wondering.'
In a poignant article in 2009 Peter wrote:
Even when life is consumed by thoughts of death, of leaving my most loved, of lying in a coffin, of being lowered six feet, there are ways of smiling. Old, silly jokes still bring a smile to my face and the sight of just about any dog makes me joyous from a childhood spent spilling all my secrets to my loyal blue heeler, Bert.
There is one final wish I haven't mentioned. To live. I pray at night, asking my God the seeming simplest of questions: 'Will you save me?' I haven't heard back yet.
God did not answer that call in the way we would have liked, and so, Peter Veness will be deeply missed by his colleagues in the press gallery, his admirers in the parliament and his loyal friends and treasured family.
My condolences go out to his wife, Bec, and his parents, David and Cheryl, at this very difficult time. Rest assured you are in our thoughts and prayers as we remember the life and contribution of a good and decent man, Peter Veness. Peter, may you rest in peace.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (11:46): Having been elected in 2010, like my colleague the member for Kooyong, I have not had as much as others to do with the fourth estate, camped down the hallway in the press gallery. But I did get to meet a number of characters in a short space of time. Some of them can drive you to this blissful plane of distraction and albeit occasionally infrequent frustration. One bloke I had the genuine pleasure of getting to know as he went about with his scrawny beard broken up with a grin that had a good load of cheek in it was Peter Veness. The scrawny beard came about for a reason that too many people knew. In late 2010 I came to appreciate why he had grown that beard. I got swept up to go into a fundraiser at the National Press Club to raise funds for cancer research. Pete had his beard shaven off as a broader effort to raise funds for cancer research.
In dealing with Pete he never gave you a sense of what he was going through. He masked it so well. He was literally an emotional rock. But if you wanted an insight into what he was going through you just needed to Google the feature he wrote in 2009. I certainly commend that to people. Not only did he share in the trials and the difficulty that cancer patients go through in their treatment but you are enamoured with his spunk and with his fighting spirit.
I want to reflect on some of that. I loved when he said, for example:
The doctors give me little hope. Stuff the doctors who have already killed me; they don't tell me when to die. These are the same doctors who told me they would eat their hats if there were any tumours on my spine. Well, get out your knives and forks, boys, and chow down on those Akubras.
That is the attitude and spirit that drew me to Pete Veness, and it drew a lot of people to him.
We would bump into each other from time to time and you would have no sense of what he was going through. But when we did, he and I folded arms in a corner of the gallery, sorting out issues nimbly and with ease, him razzing me and me trying to get one up on him. These moments and stories were shared by many. The impact of the bloke, as seen by the outpouring of emotion after the terrible events of Sunday, 15 January, really spoke volumes. The power of Pete was that he could make you laugh through your tears. A lot of us would recount the good in him and want to measure up to that good ourselves. A number of pieces that were written and a number of words that were said have left an impact on me. Chris Johnson, writing on 20 January, recounted a number of stories, but he summed it up neatly when he said:
This cannot be a dispassionate piece of writing, because Veness was not a dispassionate person. A larrikin's larrikin by any reckoning. Loud and boisterous, yet with a heart as big as his cheeky grin. And a sensitivity that could make you weep.
I also love:
He taught all his blokey friends that it was okay to say "I love you, brother" and really mean it.
Chris Johnson also recounted how, after Pete's high-school days at Gilgandra, he and his family settled in Bathurst, where Peter studied journalism at Charles Sturt University:
It was from where he sought out again the sweetheart he first met in Gilgandra, Bec Bignell. Long-time partners, they married after his diagnosis.
To Bec, and to his folks, David and Cheryl, I extend my deepest condolences.
I was unable to attend his funeral service or the wake afterwards because I was overseas, but I did keep tabs on what people were saying and the outpouring of emotion that I mentioned earlier. One article about it reads:
AAP colleague Adam Gartrell said Pete - as he was known - embodied many of the best things about the craft of journalism. Pete believed the best story he ever wrote was a yarn about a farmer doing it tough, which he got by striking up a conversation with a random guy at a pub out bush. "That was pure Pete. He may have written about elections, political spills and scandals, but writing about the plight of the common man was what really made his heart sing," Gartrell said.
His wife, Bec, was quoted:
She said many had remarked it was a tragedy that someone so young had lost his battle with cancer. "He didn't lose. He kicked cancer's arse every day for almost three years," she said. "He got out of bed every single day up until a month ago."
It is these types of things that moved people about Peter—the strength within him but everything still done with class.
But for a smart bloke he made bad sporting choices. I told you about all the razzing that he did of me. He would razz me about my support of the Chicago Bulls basketball team, and he countered it with his misplaced support for the Utah Jazz. At this point I would like to advise the ABC's Latika Bourke, who says that not many people follow the NBA, that she should talk to some of her colleagues, because Pete was a mad fan. He would talk to me about the greats of the Utah Jazz—Stockton, Malone, Andrei Kirilenko, Mehmet Okur and Deron Williams. Back and forth on Twitter or Facebook, he and I would be talking about the NBA and swapping insults. We were joined by a long-term mate of mine who I discovered later is actually his cousin, Todd Clewett. If Pete Veness were in this place right now, he would dare me to do this, to put on the colours of the Utah Jazz. There are not too many teams that I would do this for, but for Pete, and in respect of his cheek, I will do it this one time and I will say, 'I love you, brother.'
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (11:53): On indulgence—what to say about the life of Peter Veness? Many things have been said, by many who knew him a long time and many who knew him just in the recent months of his most acute suffering. I do not intend to speak about his life as a journalist. Others are much more familiar with that than I am. His colleagues have spoken of his professionalism, and they will speak with eloquence and effect on that. I would just like to reflect for a moment on Peter Veness the human being, the person. There is a strange thing about this place—Parliament House, Canberra; the cauldron of the nation. Here we see the best and worst of people. Peter Veness was one of the best, because he had about him an almost universal humanity and a universal—and I use the word advisedly—spirituality. There was something about this young man that, beyond his experience of suffering and the automatic response of compassion which that evokes in any person of feeling and of conscience, gave him the remarkable ability to touch you as a human being. What was it that was unique about this young guy in his 20s? It had something to do with the fact that Peter had a deep and underlying dignity and calm. As the member for Chifley just reminded us, he was the best at a throwaway line or remark about the depths of suffering through which he was going. That is one of the great Australian attributes. When people ask, 'How are you going, mate?' a person might reply, 'Oh, I'm battling on,' knowing that they only have a few weeks to live. But, underneath that, it was the dignity and calm of this individual that struck me as a human being.
That dignity and calm came from a number of factors. When he was getting sick again, he asked to come and have a yak. I had just come out of heart surgery at the time, and so he came round to the house that we have in Yarralumla. We spent a long, long time talking. His grounding as a human being—his dignity, his calm and his poise—came from the absolutely foundational love of his parents. Adults do not often reflect on that, but it was the unconditional and supporting love of his parents that gave him those things. David and Cheryl were rocks to him—the rocks of his life. That gave him a sense of foundation from which he could not be moved.
Then there was the love of his life, Bec. They chose to get married in 2009, both knowing full well that he had a pretty ugly sentence hanging over his head. But they embarked upon the adventure of a married life together absolutely confident in their future and absolutely determined to rejoice in every day that they had together. This for him became the second great grounding force in his life. I have never met a young woman like Bec, who has such strength of character for one so young. She was presented with so many of life's adversities in such an acute form so early. Maybe it is growing up in the country; I am not sure. But the two of them, and young Bec in particular, would literally take my breath away, and Therese's as well, as we sat and talked. We attended the same church here in Canberra, St John's in Reid.
That brings me to my third point. He was also a person grounded in his faith. He had extraordinary and remarkable faith. His was not a long discourse with yours truly about Dietrich Bonhoeffer; his was a long discourse about why he was here, what his purpose was and what he was supposed to be doing in life. He was anchored in these deep spiritual fundamentals, which gave him calm, poise and dignity even as he faced death.
I last spoke to him when he was in Clare Holland House, the hospice here in Canberra. He was fading in and out. I am not quite sure how much he took in of what I was saying, so I decided to read to him instead. I understand that he took that in and received some modest element of comfort in that basic expression of human solidarity from that. I do not come to this chamber often to talk about individual lives. It has never been my habit. But the great thing about this guy is that he is one of those folk who will stay indelibly imprinted in our minds, our memories and our hearts because of who he was and not because of the position that he held. There is something deeply commendable about his humanity which I believe can ennoble us all if we reflect on it in our own future lives.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (12:00): On indulgence—I also rise to briefly add to the remarks that have been well made by others—such as the member for Chifley, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—about a person who left us far too young, unfortunately and sadly. I do not pretend to have been the closest friend of Pete Veness. This place is a strange place in that you meet and develop acquaintances with all sorts of people who you would not normally do so with outside of this environment. They are unusual acquaintances, because they most often come with different perspectives. Pete was a ferocious pursuer of us at the doors, which is now a famous Canberra practice. Particularly as new MPs, you get practice at talking to TV cameras and so forth. He did not very often let off new MPs who maybe needed a bit of a break and who were not as good as others at performing at the doors; he did not let anyone off. Being pursued by him was somewhat akin to facing a Curtly Ambrose spell on a greenish WACA wicket. That was the way that he pursued people, refusing to let them come out and chant a mantra that may have been sent to them in messages earlier in the day.
He was a very friendly person. He obviously had a lot of passion for life. People who come here usually come here because they are driven. Pete was no exception to that. In 2009, not long after being diagnosed with the cancer that eventually killed him, he wrote a beautiful piece. It showed all the raw emotions of someone going through that awful experience of being given a death sentence through something that they cannot control. An interesting line that encapsulates what we should be all about and what we try and ingrain in our children was 'live a life of no regrets'. Albeit that his life was far too short, Bec and his parents David and Cheryl can certainly look back and know that that is what Peter did. He lived a life of no regrets.
I pass on my condolences to his new wife, Bec, and to his parents, David and Cheryl. Having children makes you realise how devastating and difficult it must be to lose one before you go. That is not how it is meant to be. It must be a very difficult time for them. With those short remarks, I add my condolences for the loss of a fine young person, a person who we will remember.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (12:04): On indulgence—I would like to offer my condolences for the death of Peter Veness to his family and to his wife, Bec. Like the previous speaker, the member for Mayo, the first time that I met Peter Veness was at the doors of Parliament House. I concur with the member for Mayo that he never let me, as a new MP in 2007, get off lightly in the questions that he asked. He also—and this was a real part of his nature—never followed the lead of the other journalists on the door, with many of the questions coming very much from left field. They were sometimes ones that I was not prepared for. I believe that that showed Peter's tenacity. After that we did manage to move on from some of those difficult questions. We had a lot of conversations outside the doors. What struck me was really that he was a bit of a go-getter. He was certainly a go-getter who wanted to throw himself into everything that he did. Certainly, with his diagnosis of cancer, I think I got to see an enormous courage in how he battled that.
I know that a lot has been said of his Twitter account, which says that he was no-one special, but certainly—having had time to meet him and have conversations with him over the last four years since I have been in this place—he was someone special. I do not know many people who would be battling cancer at such a young age, having to go through that, who would still be able to get up to go to work in the morning and, more than that, want to go to work in the morning. Every time I spoke to him he was very keen to come back to work, to come in and do what he loved.
Also, he was not going to let the love of his life get away. He was determined to get married to Bec, and I think that shows once again that tenacity but also that love of life and determination that he showed in his work and in his life.
In terms of his commitment to raise money for the cause, once again that was something that he did—not in the more traditional way, I guess, but in his unique way that he always demonstrated, a way that really fitted into always keeping true to himself, which was another thing that I certainly noticed.
He was also a young man who liked to have fun. I was not on the 2007 campaign bus, but, while a lot of the journalists have kept under wraps what happened on that bus, it does sound as if Peter was the entertainment on that and had a lot of fun with everyone on it.
I believe that he showed so much courage and commitment and, from talking and hearing about his family, that they—and obviously his wife, Bec—also showed such courage and commitment to fighting cancer. I offer my deep condolences to Bec and to Peter's family and wish them the best one can hope for in these difficult times.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (12:07): On indulgence—Peter Veness was just 27 when he died. At 27 years of age, we are told, the world is at your feet, you are learning constantly in your chosen career, you may be meeting or sharing the early years with the love of your life or you may be travelling the globe. Dying should not be on this list. Peter left behind a young wife, a loving family and many, many friends. His eulogy was filled with loving family memories, funny stories and his love of his journalistic career.
Peter Veness covered a lot in his short yet accomplished career as a journalist. Described by his colleagues as someone who embodied many of the best things about the craft of journalism, and renowned for writing about the plight of the common man, it really made his heart sing. Peter had a knack of bailing up politicians and asking questions few dared to raise. He wrote on elections, political spills and scandals. However, he was once quoted as saying that he believed the best story he ever wrote was about a farmer doing it tough, a story he got by striking up a conversation with a random guy at a pub out in the bush.
Journalism is a tough job. It has long hours, late nights and early mornings. You are often perceived as the bad guy with a habit of elaborating the truth and being heartless. Peter Veness was a truth teller and he had a big heart. The Nationals leader described Peter as one of those genuine nice guys who always had a beaming smile and time for a chat and laugh, but he always had a job to do, a job he did very well.
Peter was a regional boy. He went to school in Batemans Bay and completed high school in Gilgandra before starting his communications degree at Charles Sturt University in Bathurst. Peter then started out at the Bathurst Western Advocate newspaper in 2004 and remained there until he became a member of the Australian press gallery in 2006. He joined Australian Associated Press in April of that year. He was described as eager and tenacious, and these attributes served him well when he fought the good fight, a long battle lasting three painful years. Peter wrote poignantly of his illness in 2009. In this he emphasised his love for his then fiancee and soon-to-be wife, Bec—the woman of his dreams, as he called her. He wrote of how he intended to relive a fond childhood memory and I quote:
I have recurring memories of being dunked by waves on the NSW south coast where I spent my childhood nearly drowning and spitting out sand.
Despite the pain in my back from a biopsy on my spine, I am going to drive down the mountains from Canberra to the sand and let one giant wave hit me, drag me under the white foam and bash me.
It's a silly memory, I know, but I would regret not doing it if it is to be for one last time.
Sadly, Peter succumbed to his rare brain cancer on the night of 15 January 2012, taken too soon, far too young. His death reinforces the fragility of life and the fact that cancer does not discriminate. Vale Peter Veness; may you rest in peace.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (12:10): I rise today to offer my condolences to a well-loved and respected member of the community of this place, Peter Veness, known to his mates as Pete. I also particularly rise here today to offer the condolences of a member of my staff, Julian Leembruggen, who was a dear and very close friend of Pete and would often be in Canberra over the term of their friendship, which goes back to university days, and spent many times with Peter, particularly during the last period of his life.
I was privileged to attend the service in Pete's remembrance and honour in Canberra a few weeks ago, joining other colleagues, including the Prime Minister. I am sure Pete would have been very pleased to see so many of his journalist friends in church. It would have been something that I am sure he would have been encouraging them all to do in his own way. The way I think he would have done that most of all would be through the example of his own life, because we all know those actions speak louder than any words we might say ourselves.
I wasn't a close friend of Peter's but I met him as many people in this place had—that is, on the doors of Parliament House. I think one of the great tributes that were made to Peter at the service was that, despite the hard questions and the strange angles they came from at times, which were always based on the good solid research that Pete was well known for—as the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, it was something for which the Director-General of ASIO commented favourably on him—it was without malice and it was without guile; it was nothing more than just a very professional person who believed in what he was doing and was seeking to get straight answers from all of us.
Pete joined the parliamentary press gallery in 2006 and quickly established himself as a talented and eager journalist. His enthusiasm and old-school style, Julian tells me, won over his colleagues and earned the respect of politicians of all stripes. I think we can all attest to that, and the tributes that have been flowing in this place back that up. Like many members, I encountered him on the doors and occasionally we would have the opportunity to chat afterwards. One particular occasion I had the opportunity, particularly as he went through his illness, to talk about some of the things that were going on in his own life at that time and how he was dealing with them, as I know many people in this place had the privilege to do—and they have said so in this place today.
There have been many tributes to Pete. Phil Hudson, the president of the press gallery, said Pete's 'great determination to live life to its fullest' and his refusal to give in was an inspiration to many of his colleagues. The Prime Minister commended his 'fight for life with every fibre of his being'. The Acting Leader of the Opposition at the time of Peter's passing remembered Pete as 'one of those genuinely nice guys who always had a beaming smile and a time for a chat and a laugh'. The AAP editor-in-chief, Tony Gillies, said Pete confronted the gravity of his illness early and 'stood defiant, disarmingly talking about his own prospects in such a matter-of-fact way that was often delivered with a sense of humour'. Pete's father, David, gave a very poignant portrait of his son as someone who was not only a dedicated journalist but also someone who, in his short life, made a significant contribution to humanity, especially by teaching people how to love. I can think of no greater commendation than that. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs said earlier in this place, Pete was known for who he was, not what he did, and for the substance of the man. That is something that I think we would all aspire to. Pete certainly lived that. For his father to be able to say that of a son, or for any parent to be able to say that of a child, would fulfil any parent's greatest aspiration for their children. It is such a tragedy that he had to say it so soon in Pete's young life. For those of us who had the opportunity to meet him and get to know him a bit, it was one of the hard things to understand—he was only 27. A fellow such as this, who had developed such wisdom, such insight, and such fullness of personality, was still at such a young age. Therein lies the great tragedy of this story. The potential, the opportunity, the contribution, the love, the care, the relationships—these are the things that we mourned when we gathered in Canberra just a few weeks ago.
I recall most vividly one thing after walking out of what was an absolutely inspirational service. The tributes were great, they were often witty—you would expect that; his mates were journos. They know how to write and they know how to put words together, and they certainly did on that day, and they did a wonderful job in giving testimony to their mate. But the one thing that came out of that story, which is such a sad story, was the issue of hope. It is such a refreshing thing in this day and age that in the midst of such tragedy you can walk out of a service such as that and reflect on the fact that there is hope. Pete embodied hope; he embodied hope against all circumstances. He lived for hope. He triumphed hope and championed it every single day that he cherished in those few remaining years that he had left.
His family and friends will attest that Pete was a generous, kind young man who, while often brash and uncompromising, was innately generous and selfless. This spirit helped Pete fight with a fierce will to live and a resolute hope that treatments, tests, setbacks and bad news rarely dampened. It was a spirit that, even in the midst of his own suffering, drove him to help others, such as raising funds for youth cancer charities like the Warwick Foundation, and famously involving the growth of perhaps the most confronting facial hair—Julian writes here—ever to grace these halls; I can well remember that beard and the shaving of it on a particular occasion here in Canberra. Hundreds of mourners said farewell to Pete at St John's Anglican Church, and it was good to be there amongst them.
At that service, reference was made to an article that Pete wrote in 2009, and it was a very honest article. Pete's honesty, in the little I knew of him, was incredibly confronting but it was like the sword that divides sinew and flesh. His honesty penetrated. In this article he wrote about his cancer. He said, 'I pray at night, asking my God the seeming simplest of questions: will you save me?' In that article he wrote, 'I have not heard back yet.' In this piece Pete wrote, in the midst of a struggle, about his will to live a life of no regrets. This is something that he not only wrote but lived every day of his illness. At Pete's funeral, the Reverend Margaret Campbell comforted all of us in attendance with her homily. She told us that Pete would be the first person to tell you that God did not cause his cancer. God does not send us suffering to teach us things, but in suffering we can sure learn. We learn that we are not invulnerable and that life surely ends in death from the first breath we take. We learn that sometimes we have no control over the things that happen to us but we do have control over how we react to them. Put simply, we all choose how to respond to life. She went on to say:
I can tell you that before he died, he did hear back. Pete knew that through God's love he was saved, he was upheld, he was sure of the promise of eternal life, and was still able to give God glory until his last days.
It is a tribute to Pete's spirit and an inspiration for us to stand for our beliefs and pursue what is right and fight for what is worth fighting for. Pete is survived by his wife and inspirational life partner Bec, his parents David and Cheryl and brother Tim and sister Lara. He will be fondly remembered by all of them, I am sure, all the days of their lives and he will be fondly remembered by his good mates including Julian Leembruggen and others in the gallery and all of those who comforted him and were inspired by him over his last days. I am sure all my colleagues here and everyone in this place will join with me in offering them our great comfort, with a sense of sympathy and regret, while at the same time joining in that sense of hope that was so evident in that service.
Of all the tributes, I think the one Pete would have valued most greatly is the one given to him as he met his heavenly father, who would have said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant.'
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (12:21): Sometimes the people from the Central West of New South Wales, like all Australians, look at Canberra from time to time, sometimes to see if their local member is doing his job and for other reasons. The Central West of New South Wales, and Bathurst in particular, has spent a few years looking down here because they had someone here of whom they were very proud, and that was obviously Peter Veness.
Peter started his journalistic career at the Bathurst Advocate. He was there from 2004 to 2006. One of the reasons locals were proud of Peter was that they knew he was respected, and he was a very young person to have reached the heights of journalism that he did in the parliamentary gallery. It takes most people a lifetime to do that; he did it in a very short time. His family, who still live in Bathurst, are wonderful people. Pete's father, David, managed the RSL in Bathurst until recently. The way they took finding out that Pete had that rare form of brain tumour was as amazing as the way in which Peter himself dealt with it. Quite apart from his ability as a journalist and his ability to talk straight to everyone regardless of their place in politics, what he wrote—live a life of no regrets, don't die wondering—was amazing stuff. It was incredible for someone who knew he had nowhere to go. It does not change the fact that the last thing he wrote, if I recall correctly, was that he still wanted to live. I guess it is a touch of reality that most of us who are a lot older than he was probably have not retained anything like the respect he gained in a very short time. It was not just about politics; it was about good and accurate reporting—which does not always happen. I think all of us would say that. I think he set a standard not just for us; he set a standard that those in the gallery, some of whom are a lot older than him, could take note of. The whole of the region will join me in offering our condolences to David and Cheryl and particularly to his wife, Bec.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): I thank members for their heartfelt tributes.
MOTIONS
Queen Elizabeth II: Diamond Jubilee
Debate resumed on the motion:
That:
An Address of Congratulation be presented to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, as follows:
YOUR MAJESTY
We, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, express to Your Majesty our warm congratulations at this time of celebration of the Diamond Jubilee of your accession to the Throne.
We express our respect and regard for the dedication you have displayed in the service of the Commonwealth and your deep and abiding commitment to Australia and her people.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (12:24): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to give my warmest congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen as we celebrate the Diamond Jubilee of her accession to the throne. This is a remarkable achievement of longevity and commitment, particularly to Australia, and for that we are sincerely grateful and appreciative. In 1977 Her Majesty celebrated her Silver Jubilee; in 2002 she celebrated her Golden Jubilee; and now, in 2012, she will celebrate her Diamond Jubilee. The milestones of Her Majesty's reign have been celebrated with enthusiasm throughout the Commonwealth, and I am confident that the Diamond Jubilee will be no exception.
Queen Elizabeth II will be one of only two British monarchs to have celebrated such a milestone as the Diamond Jubilee; Queen Victoria is the only other British monarch to have reigned for 60 years or more. I have no doubt that Queen Elizabeth II will become the longest serving a British monarch in history. Her Majesty's father, King George VI, reigned for a relatively short time compared to the reign of his daughter. King George VI passed away too soon, at only 56 years of age, leaving his daughter with the enormous task of reigning over the entire Commonwealth. The Diamond Jubilee takes place this year to mark the Queen's 60-year reign after coming to the throne on 6 February 1952, with her coronation taking place on 2 June 1953.
As Australia is a constitutional monarchy: the Queen is Australia's sovereign, and she plays very important symbolic and ceremonial roles. As the head of state of 15 Commonwealth realms and of the UK as well as of the Commonwealth itself, which consists of 54 independent countries, the Queen is always exceptionally and understandably very busy. However, Her Majesty has always found the time to visit and reaffirm her longstanding commitment to Australia.
We were fortunate enough to be visited by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh in October last year, and I believe there was a real sense of community excitement by all Australians about the royal visit. This was the first time that I had met Her Majesty and Prince Philip, but it was the third time that I had seen both the Queen and Prince Philip. The first time I remember very clearly: it was on 20 April 1970 and it was in Townsville. I was a very young schoolgirl at that stage, and I, with the other children in my class, lined the streets as Her Majesty and Prince Philip drove through. We stood there for many hours, with the excitement and anticipation building, to see Her Majesty for a couple of seconds. Many years later I still hold that memory. It was interesting that, when the latest royal visit was announced and we knew the Queen and Prince Philip were visiting, all of my children shared a similar anticipation and excitement about the Queen's coming to Australia and what it meant to them. So I think the Queen and Prince Philip are very positive both for Australia and for the sense of community we have and hopefully will have into the future.
Discussions on whether Australia should become a republic are frequent. However, despite this debate and a referendum in 1999, our great country still remains part of the Commonwealth, with Her Majesty our Queen. Since Federation in 1901, Australia has only had six monarchs. For over half of this time, 60 years, Australia has been under the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen has seen Australia change Prime Ministers 12 times, yet her commitment and loyalty to all these governments, of both political persuasions, has not wavered.
I will finish my remarks today by again congratulating Her Majesty on the celebration of her Diamond Jubilee and noting the oath she swore at her coronation on 2 June 1953: 'to govern the peoples of Australia and her other realms according to their respective laws and customs'. Your Majesty, you have most certainly stayed true to your oath, and we as Australians are eternally grateful for your service and dedication to us. God save the Queen.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (12:29): It is with much pleasure that I stand here today to pay tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on the accomplishment of her Diamond Jubilee. On her 21st birthday, Queen Elizabeth II pledged:
I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and to the service of our great imperial family to which we will belong.
To this day I believe the Queen has stayed true to her pledge and now, some 60 years on, her passion and dedication has been witnessed as she continues to serve all of the Commonwealth nations.
Over the years the Queen has displayed a genuine love and warmth for our nation, as was evidenced during her visit here last year. That was brought home with her visit to Brisbane and the many that turned out at Southbank to watch her come past, but also in her visits to Melbourne and her time in Perth with CHOGM. Over the years the Queen has visited our nation 16 times, making many public appearances in each and every state as well as the mainland territories during her travels. The Queen is the first reigning monarch of Australia to visit our nation, and the crowds are always immense. Around three-quarters of the population of Australia has over that time seen the Queen during one of those visits.
Over the years the Queen has travelled the globe many times, making many public appearances. This has led to her being recognised as the most widely travelled head of state in history. Her first ever overseas trip was to southern Africa with her parents. This trip occurred around two years after she made her first ever appearance. In a rare interview, Queen Elizabeth spoke about this first appearance, which occurred on Victory Day and which celebrated the end of the war in Europe. With her sister, Margaret, in tow, the young royals mingled with the local crowds in the streets of London. During this interview she said:
We asked my parents if we could go out and see for ourselves. I remember we were terrified of being recognised… I remember the lines of an unknown people linking arms and walking down Whitehall, all of us were just swept along on a tide of happiness and relief.
Some years after her public debut the public appearances steadily increased as her father's health deteriorated. Being the third in line for succession, there was not a great expectation that she would take the throne. It was at the age of 26 when her father passed away that she assumed the role of Queen Elizabeth II.
During her life she has witnessed the ongoing transformation of what was then the British Empire to now the Commonwealth. A quote by Harold Macmillan during her visit to Ghana in 1961 gives an insight into her character, earning her great respect with everybody that she met. He wrote:
The Queen has been absolutely determined through all… She is impatient of the attitude towards her to treat her as … a film star… She has indeed 'the heart and stomach of a man'. She loves her duty and means to be a Queen.
This was amply demonstrated some six weeks prior to the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer when the Queen was widely praised for her composure during a safety crisis when shots were fired towards her at close range as she rode down the Mall. She continued to display this composure and strength during times when she saw people treat her more critically than they had in the past.
Over the years the respect and recognition that the Royal Family has been held in has waxed and waned. Recently that has been greatly renewed with the royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton last year attracting a record amount of interest both locally, nationally and internationally. This was further demonstrated by the Queen's visit to our country last year. That visit elicited a number of discussions with constituents around the electorate. At a school visit last year to Shailer Park Primary School the students were engaged in a host of activities designed to better understand our government and how our country works. In one of those activities students from grades 2A and 2B made collages of the Queen and decorated her crown jewels. It was great to see our younger generations taking such a keen interest in learning about the role of the Queen in our country. She is a terrific role model for all our young people and for our nation as a whole.
It is not just the young who show an interest in the Queen. One of my constituents, June Hinze, tells me that she has a very large memorabilia collection, and I expect that there are many more people in this country who have collections of special editions of magazines or video footage of the Queen's achievements, accomplishments, family milestones et cetera. We greatly appreciate and admire the Queen for her loyal and steadfast support for this nation over the past 60 years and we wish her all the best for many future years in her role. I congratulate her again on her Diamond Jubilee.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (12:35): I have a few words to say about the Queen in recognition of the Diamond Jubilee of her ascension to the throne. I think we have all seen the newsreels of London in the Second World War, when the two princesses, Elizabeth and Margaret, refused to leave and drove trucks around the city to help with the evacuation and rebuilding of London. Therein lies the story of the person: it is service above self. If anyone epitomises service above self it is Queen Elizabeth II.
My grandmother was always a staunch royalist. Every Christmas we would all have to stand in front of the TV. We would be there in shorts with no shirt and bare feet and we would all have to stand to attention to listen to the Queen's message and stand up for God Save the Queen. Those of us who are old enough will remember that when we started school we had to stand on the parade ground and sing God Save the Queen before Advance Australia Fair, and that was another wonderful contact with the throne.
I was lucky enough to be in the crowd at Queen Elizabeth II Stadium during her Silver Jubilee year, at a special athletics meet on a very rainy Wednesday afternoon in Brisbane. She and Prince Philip drove around the track greeting all the students who had turned out. My good friend Nicki Marks did very well that day to get a third in the shot-put. The Queen was driven around, and it was one of those things you see where real class says that it was raining and she did not get wet. That just shows you what sort of person she is.
My grandmother was also lucky enough to meet her at one of the shows in England. My grandparents made their living as pig farmers on the Darling Downs. They were over there ostensibly to look at breeds of pigs. My grandmother was in the tent for an official reception for the Queen and they asked if there was anyone from overseas. My grandmother put up her hand, was brought forward and was introduced to the Queen. Grandma always said she could not just go straight back to the pigs; she had to go back via the flowers. She could not make that trip all in one go. To be in awe of someone like that is truly wonderful.
I was at St James Cathedral in Townsville on Sunday night, when Townsville celebrated the anniversary. We were very privileged to have there the Governor of Queensland, Penelope Wensley. She did the best impersonation of the Queen I have ever seen. In Townsville on Sunday night—this is true—it was 300 degrees and 1,000 per cent humidity! It was stinking hot, and yet Penelope Wensley was there wearing shoes, stockings and a lovely dress, and there was not a bead of sweat to be seen anywhere. The Queen would have been so proud of her representative.
That is what the Queen also has done, by and large, with the selection of governors. Although they are suggested by the governments of the day, we look for a particular type of person. We spoke this morning about Sir Zelman Cowen, and some of us were lucky enough to be at Government House on Monday afternoon with the Governor-General. The way that our governors and Governors-General portray themselves and the role they play in the community mirrors what the Queen has done for our country.
There is not time to talk about the republican movement or have a debate on the issue. I will simply say God save the Queen. She is a truly wonderful person. She has done this for 60 years and never appears tired. May she reign for a lot longer yet and may she have a truly wonderful year.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (12:39): On 9 May 1988 Queen Elizabeth II officially opened this building, our permanentParliament House. On that occasion she related how, exactly 61 years earlier, on 9 May 1927, her father, the then Duke of York and later King George VI, had opened the first parliament house, Old Parliament House, here in Canberra. She also related how exactly 87 years earlier, on 9 May 1901, her grandfather, also the then Duke of York and later King George V, had opened the very first session of Australia's national parliament. The monarchy, mostly at arms length, has accompanied our parliament every step of the way from Federation to today.
For most of that period our head of state has been Queen Elizabeth II. Her 60-year reign has spanned a period of enormous growth, change, development and progress in our society. Perhaps only a handful of members in this place would remember her sudden ascension to the throne on 6 February 1952, when a young Elizabeth was on tour when her father, King George VI, suddenly died. Even the member for Hinkler was one year shy of being a sprightly young teenager. The Father of the House, the member for Berowra, was barely nine years old. The reign that the Queen has enjoyed is something to think about.
During that 60-year reign Queen Elizabeth II has seen 12 prime ministers in both this and Old Parliament House: Harold Holt, John McEwen, John Gorton, William McMahon, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, John Howard, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard—and, of course, Sir Robert Menzies. The Queen ascended the throne four years into Menzies's 16-year tenure as Prime Minister, and it is probably worth noting an extract from an article written by Menzies in 1954 for the Sydney Morning Herald. That extract certainly reflects the mindset and relationship of Australians to the monarchy at that point in time. Menzies said:
It is a basic truth that for our Queen we have within us, sometimes unrealised until the moment of expression, the most profound and passionate feelings of loyalty and devotion. It does not require much imagination to realise that when 8 million people spontaneously pour out this feeling they are engaging in a great act of common allegiance and common joy which brings them closer together and is one of the most powerful elements converting them from a mass of individuals to a great, cohesive nation. In brief, the common devotion to the throne is a part of the very cement of the whole social structure.
Queen Elizabeth II may be our head of state in Australia, but she is probably recognised for many other things. Australians love their long weekends, and the Queen's Birthday long weekend is no different, although her real birthday is 21 April. Go figure—that is typically Australian. If you do not care to send her a card for her birthday, she will still send you a telegram for yours if you are turning 100. During her 60-year reign, Queen Elizabeth II has sent more than 175,000 telegrams to centenarians around the Commonwealth. She has conferred more than 400,000 honours and awards. She has launched 21 ships. She has sat for 129 portraits. How you could sit still for 129 portraits is beyond me, but she has done it. She has also owned more than 30 corgis. That is one thing she is famously known for, and many of those are noted descendants of the first corgi, Susan, which was an 18th birthday present in 1944.
She has undertaken 261 official overseas visits to 116 different countries. But I would like to dwell on one particular visit for a moment. Of the 18 times that Queen Elizabeth II actually visited Australia I would like to highlight her 1954 tour. This tour took in approximately 60 cities and regional centres, including some in my electorate of Dawson in North Queensland. On 13 March the tour took a young Elizabeth to Townsville at the northern end of Dawson. She went to Lindeman Island in the Whitsundays for what appeared to be a brief holiday and then to Mackay after 40 days on tour.
It was a short stay in Mackay—only a few hours—but it was enough to leave a lasting impression on anyone who attended the official occasion. I have got to say that it was most of the town. It was reported that 30,000 people crowded into the Mackay showground. The visit is recorded in fabulous detail in a book called Mackay Revisited, which many Mackay people know as a history of the town. The book paints a picture of townspeople falling over themselves to catch a glimpse of Queen Elizabeth II and records the local newspaper, the Daily Mercury, devoting more coverage to that visit than to any event since the great cyclone of 1918. The editorial of the day after the Queen's visit read:
If so much has been achieved in times when the monarchy had been confined to British shores, how much more could be expected from the rising generations who, with their elders, will draw a new inspiration, a burning zeal, a pride and a joy from the visit in person of their Queen; a closer contact than they have ever known with all the Crown symbolises.
That certainly reflects the mood of the time and the feeling of Australians towards the monarchy. On that visit, the children of Mackay put on a performance for the Queen. There were three items by the Junior Choral Society; there was a verse of Greetings to our Queen by the West Mackay convent; there was an Australian bush ballet scene—I have never seen a bush ballet, but I am sure it was fantastic; and there was a pageant of flags by the local Girl Guides. We have come a long way since that visit in 1954, but the recent marriage of Prince William to Kate Middleton proves that Australians have not lost their interest in the institution of the monarchy.
I have to admit that I am a bit of an anomaly within the federal parliamentary National Party—I support a republic, though the republic I would support would have a directly elected head of state. I am a republican; I am not so gung ho about it, but I am a republican nonetheless. However, you do not have to be a staunch monarchist to appreciate the historical significance of the monarchy and of Queen Elizabeth II herself. I am not sure that even Elizabeth would have appreciated what was to come when she said at her coronation:
I am sure that this, my Coronation, is not the symbol of a power and a splendour that are gone but a declaration of our hopes for the future, and for the years I may, by God's Grace and Mercy, be given to reign and serve you as your Queen.
God's grace and mercy have granted 60 years to Queen Elizabeth II. Even as republican, I hope that there are many more to come. God save the Queen.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (12:47): I welcome the opportunity to commemorate the Queen's Diamond Jubilee: the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne. I, like a few on my side, am of the view that Australia should be a republic; however, unlike the member for Dawson, I do not really favour the direct election of a president. We have recently had the Queen and Prince Philip visit us in Western Australia and other parts of Australia. It was very clear during the visit that the Queen and the Duke and the Royal Family are held in high regard. I attended a couple of events over in Perth. There was a reception in the grounds of Government House for Her Majesty the Queen, and this was attended by a lot of people, including many school leaders from the electorate of Cowan. I remember looking around at that time and seeing how enthusiastic people were.
I do not see their interest in the monarchy as a great loyalty to the mother country or anything like that; instead, I think the interest that people have shown has to do with the respect they have for the lady and the way in which she carries herself. It is not every day that royal weddings such as that of Prince William and Catherine Middleton happen. The wedding was a highlight for a lot of people in Australia—the ratings on TV clearly demonstrated that—but there have been harder times for the Queen and the royal family, and she has carried herself through them with distinction. I think a lot of Australians appreciate that, and, whilst many of us are not absolutely wedded to the constitutional monarchy as opposed to a republic, I think there is interest in the monarchy because of the respect that Australians have for the Queen. Following the opening ceremony of CHOGM in Perth, I remember leaving that venue and seeing all the pomp and ceremony of that event and then walking up through the streets of the CBD of Perth, getting up to St Georges Terrace and just being astounded by the thousands of people who were lining the streets. It was a classic look, really. There were children on fathers' shoulders, mothers trying to hold their babies or toddlers up to get a bit of a view—families all over the place. They were five or six deep, particularly around where I was on St Georges Terrace. Looking to the left or to the west, and to the east down St Georges Terrace, it was the same all the way along. And it was not just a day out for people; I think there was a genuine respect and warmth for the lady and the manner in which she conducts herself.
While in many ways the position of Queen, the head of the royal family of the United Kingdom and, as it stands, of Australia, is a ceremonial position but, again, when you look through the sort of work that they do—the charity work and the representational work—it is hard not to be respectful of the work done by the royal family and, in particular, as I said before, Her Majesty the Queen.
As we look back on 60 years of the Queen's reign, and when you consider what a long life her mother lived, you would imagine that the Queen will certainly exceed the reign of Queen Victoria and become the longest serving monarch in British history. Whilst she reigns, I think Australians will certainly have that ongoing regard and respect for her. I think that in the future we will see a republic in this country, but I think that there will always be a special place in the hearts of Australians for the Queen, and that is due to the way she has conducted herself and the way that she has been a great leader in a lot of regards. And I think that Australians will always have that special place in their hearts for Queen Elizabeth II and that that will always be remembered when we transition through to another form of head of state. But on this occasion I pay my respects to Queen Elizabeth II and wish her all the best for the future.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (12:52): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Queen Elizabeth II on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee. Queen Elizabeth II is only the second British monarch to celebrate a Diamond Jubilee. The last, as we heard from the member for Cowan, was Queen Victoria. Queen Elizabeth II is the longest lived and the second longest reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, and also the second longest serving current head of state.
Queen Elizabeth II ascended the throne on 6 February 1952 and was proclaimed Queen on 8 February 1952. She was crowned at Westminster Abbey on 2 June 1953. Sixty years of public service is certainly an incredible achievement and a remarkable milestone. She has seen 11 Australian prime ministers during her reign.
It was this Queen who, in 1970, invented the walkabout which gives the public the opportunity to meet the royals—a memory that they will cherish and hold dear forever. Others have already noted that, while there is so much that has changed over the past 60 years within our country, there are some things that remain the same. As the Leader of the Opposition stated yesterday, what has not changed is the Queen's unstinting devotion to the ideals of duty and service, nor has Australia's affection for the Queen. This was clearly on display across the country during last year's royal tour to Australia. I as a monarchist was absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to meet Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, albeit very briefly, in Parliament House last year, an experience I certainly I will never, ever forget.
I was interested to learn that the Queen and Prince Philip have visited Australia 16 times in her 60-year reign. During her second visit to Australia, in 1963, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the naming of the capital and the Canberra jubilee celebrations, she toured the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which is based in Alice Springs, my hometown. During her sixth visit to Australia, in March 1977, Her Majesty and Prince Philip visited Darwin. As a symbol of this visit, at the Darwin Civic Centre in Harry Chan Avenue there is a photo of them both inspecting a plaque which pays tribute to victims of Cyclone Tracy.
I would also like to thank Her Majesty for her commitment and service to our country over the past 60 years. As a role model she continues to inspire people from all walks of life with her spirit, energy, wisdom and dedication to public service. I offer my congratulations and very best wishes for her Diamond Jubilee. God save the Queen.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (00:00): I will make my comments very brief. I want to acknowledge the reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. If we look at world leaders today, she stands alone in her consistency both in her majesty and in the way she links with people of the realms for which she has a significant titular role.
Australians have always warmed to the Queen when she has been in Australia, no matter which year it has been from 1952 onwards. Her impact on ordinary people has been significant. I think that is a measure of her quietness and the way in which she looks at the nations for which he has a responsibility, and certainly of her compassion and understanding of people. I think the other thing that is extremely beneficial about this jubilee year is the government's commitment to a series of events and activities that will highlight the jubilee but will also involve Australians. I want to acknowledge Her Majesty and say long live her royal highness, and I certainly look forward to the celebrations of the jubilee year.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): I thank the member for his brevity. I did not mean for him to be so short but I do appreciate it.
Sitting suspended from 12:5 8 to 16 : 0 1
CONDOLENCES
Veness, Mr Peter
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:01): On indulgence, I first came to know Peter Veness on the doors of Parliament House. For those outside this building, doors are a bit of a strange ritual. You walk out the front of Parliament House to a press pack that asks you questions about any issue of the day. Pete Veness was the man who asked the hardest questions. He would often be on the fringes of the press pack and he would call out at you, not about what was on the front page of the paper necessarily but about what he thought was the most important issue. He had been diagnosed with cancer in 2009 and given a few months to live, and he nearly made it to three years. In that time as he worked as a journalist, Pete knew that his life was short and he needed to do what he could to make it count. His questions were punchy, penetrating and straight to the point, as the best journalists are. I remember he said to me after one particularly bruising doors session: 'This place has lost its spontaneity. Doors used to be about the opening of the car doors; now it is about the opening of the parliamentary doors.' All I could reply was: 'Pete, I have come out here to face your questions. I want to be prepared.'
I talked to Pete about this when I went to see him in the Clare Holland House hospice towards the end of his life. I am not sure how much he understood. He was going in and out of sleep at the time. With him was the little blue teddy bear and the crucifix that he held in his hand. As you do in these circumstances, I just talked and told him about how much he had influenced me in the short time we had known one another. And it was a short innings. Peter Veness passed away aged 27, far too young for anyone to be taken from us. His funeral was a fitting send-off. AAP journalist Adam Gartrell spoke about how Peter embodied the best of the craft of journalism. He told the story of Peter Veness writing a yarn that Peter thought was the best one he had ever written. It was about a farmer doing it tough. The only reason he got the story was by striking up a conversation with a random guy in a pub in the bush. Gartrell said:
That was pure Pete. He may have written about elections, political spills and scandals, but writing about the plight of the common man was what really made his heart sing.
We heard from his wife Bec Veness, who with extraordinary strength gently scolded Pete for having failed to prepare some words and said, 'He didn't lose. He kicked cancer's arse every day for almost three years.' Warwick Newell told a splendid story of one of his big nights out with Pete. He said, 'I lost Pete after a big night out. He called me a few hours later from a bus in Bankstown in a frenzied and unexplained search for Paul Keating.' All of us erupted into laughter. That was one of the many sides to Pete Veness.
The service itself finished in the most poignant of ways, with the parliamentary press gallery forming a guard of honour from the door of the church through to the gate at St John's. It was all the more poignant because on the back of the funeral service program was a picture of Pete and Bec coming out of the same door of the church just a few years earlier, after their marriage.
One of my favourite obituaries of Pete Veness was that written by Chris Johnson, a Canberra Times journalist, who really got to know Pete because they were in adjacent offices in the press gallery and were both inveterate music lovers. Chris wrote in his obituary that Pete Veness was:
A larrikins' larrikin by any reckoning. Loud and boisterous, yet with a heart as big as his cheeky grin.
Chris told the story that Pete, who appeared to me an extremely confident journalist, once confided to him, 'Do you know what a big deal it is for me to be in this gallery? I'd better not stuff it up.' But you never got that sense of fragility from Pete Veness. You got a sense of somebody who had earned his right to be here and who did his job in the best spirit of the press gallery.
Chris disclosed that Peter Veness sometimes wrote music reviews under a pseudonym, the name Sal Caulfield, combining Sal Paradise, from On the Road, and Holden Caulfield, from TheCatcher in the Rye. That, of course, sent me on a hunt for some of the reviews written by Sal Caulfield, where you see some of the best of Pete Veness's writing. Here he is in the Canberra Times on 8 May 2008 writing under his pseudonym about an album by Cog, Sharing Space:
Producer Sylvia Massey left plenty of air among the almost apocalyptic electronic twitches that dart around Flynn Gower's pleading, pounding voice in the verses. The air evaporates when the chorus arrives pushing the listener back with sheer volume and urging the ear forward in anticipation at the same moment.
It is beautiful writing—another reason, I think, so many of us are so sad that Pete is not here to contribute to the great craft of journalism for many decades yet. He worked to the end. As recently as 3 November last year he wrote for AAP the story of the killing in Afghanistan of Captain Bryce Duffy, Corporal Ashley Birt and Lance Corporal Luke Gavin. He wanted to keep on working to the end and he did, and he continued to make a great contribution.
Journalist Peter Martin reminded me that one of the things that some of the tributes to Peter Veness have passed over is how devout he was. At the service, Peter read psalm 23, The Lord is My Shepherd, and he pointed out to me that Peter Veness was the chair of St John's Anglican Church council and he was studying theology part time at St Mark's. Peter Martin suggested that in preparing these brief remarks I should speak to Margaret Campbell, the assistant minister at St John's. I spoke to Margaret this morning and she said that I should remind the House of what a man of great faith Peter Veness was, that he took great comfort in the promise of eternal life and that he was there in the church every Sunday. Margaret said, 'Peter Veness challenged us, and we will really miss one of our own.' I too will miss him. Doors will never be the same without him, and this place is a little poorer for his passing.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (16:09): I would just like to say to the member for Fraser, whose speech preceded this one, what a heartfelt and well-meaning speech that was. I pass my congratulations on to him because he has summed up Peter Veness extremely well.
I did not know Peter Veness all that well, but the reason I stand here today to add to the comments about his life, which was so tragically cut short, is that Peter went out of his way to give me advice and to give me the benefit of his wisdom when he did not need to. As a matter of fact, I do not think he really needed to do anything when it came to me. But he did that. He came into my office on two occasions and spent over an hour with me. The first was just telling me about the doors and what you should look out for when you do it—what the traps are when journalists try to interview you, especially the types of things that he was trying to get out of members that would make the news. He did that really out of the goodness of his heart and also because, when it came to policy, we shared a common interest. That was the other hour that he spent with me. That was talking about trade policy.
Peter was a journalist who knew, understood and followed trade policy. He was pretty rare in that regard. I had a very insightful discussion with him about where global trade policy was at and the pitfalls. We could talk World Trade Organisation, we could talk Doha Round and he understood all the language that went with trade.
Once again, he went out of his way afterwards to always make sure he flicked to me the latest developments which were coming out of Geneva—anything that was occurring with regard to Australia's bilateral free trade agreements, whether they be with Korea. I would note—and I think Pete predicted this—that the free trade agreement negotiations with South Korea have stalled once again. But that would be the sort of thing and the sort of advice he would flick to me: 'Have you seen this? Have you seen what's going on?' There was no need for him to do that. There was no need for him to sit down and give me the benefit of his wisdom about the doors. But he did so out of the goodness of his heart.
We touched briefly on his illness and how he was dealing with it. I just remember the incredible strength with which he was able to talk about it and the resolve he had in dealing with it. He was truly someone we should all admire for his strength of character and the way he dealt with, for three years, a debilitating illness that was to cost him his life.
I pass on my condolences to his wife, Bec. I say to her that I am sorry that I could not make the funeral. I would have liked to have been there because of the goodness that he showed me, but I could not be. I would just like to say: rest in peace, Peter Veness.
MOTIONS
Queen Elizabeth II: Diamond Jubilee
Debate resumed on the motion:
That:
An Address of Congratulation be presented to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, as follows:
YOUR MAJESTY
We, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, express to Your Majesty our warm congratulations at this time of celebration of the Diamond Jubilee of your accession to the Throne.
We express our respect and regard for the dedication you have displayed in the service of the Commonwealth and your deep and abiding commitment to Australia and her people.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (16:13): Anniversaries are a time to reflect and a time to celebrate. This occasion is no different. The Queen's Diamond Jubilee is a joyous event in which we as Australians can look back with respect and admiration for all that the Queen has achieved, and continues to achieve, during her reign.
The young princess was touring Africa when she came to the throne on 6 February 1952. Her father, King George VI, had passed away unexpectedly in his sleep. The Queen was just 26 years of age. Along with her title she inherited a huge weight of expectation—that she would be a leader worthy of her nation and that she would be a leader worthy of the Commonwealth; that should also be the bedrock of the Church of England as its Supreme Governor; that she would be a source of strength and guidance for her nation in difficult times.
Her service and dedication were never in question. Even at the tender age of 14 years, the then princess delivered a serious message of comfort and reassurance to other children in Britain during World War II on the BBC's Children's Hour, saying:
We are trying to do all that we can to help our gallant soldiers, sailors and airmen, and we are trying, too, to bear our share of the danger and sadness of war. We know, every one of us, that in the end all will be well.
Throughout her reign, the Queen has fulfilled her duties with humility, grace and dignity. Despite my republican roots, I stand with the staunchest of monarchists to honour the Queen in her Diamond Jubilee year, a particularly special honour, as it is only the second time that a British monarch has celebrated 60 years on the throne. It was another woman, Queen Victoria, who also achieved this remarkable feat and after whom the great state that I live in his named.
Queen Elizabeth has been our head of state and a steady presence during turbulent times in our history, times of crisis as well as times of national celebration. Her reign has outlasted 11 Australian Prime Ministers and 17 opposition leaders. The Queen's example of service and duty to her nation and subjects has inspired millions. In an ongoing legacy motivated by British traditions, every Australia Day we honour those in our society who have contributed to our nation beyond expectations. Under the British system, these awards were originally presented by the monarch. In my electorate of Higgins, we are fortunate to have many inspirations. From business, the arts, sport, philanthropy and community service, Higgins is home to some of the most respected community leaders in Australia, who each in their own way have made our great country even stronger.
This year's Australia Day recipients were Professor Kwong Lee-Dow AC, Mr Stephen Newton AC, Sir Rod Eddington AO, Mr Andrew Darbyshire AM, Mr Bryan Keon-Cohen AM, Professor Sandra Legg AM, Mr David Wittner AM, Mr Barry Comben OAM, Mrs Josette Gostin OAM, Mr Peter Hansen OAM, Mrs Loula Kotsos OAM, Mr Brian Randall OAM and Dr Ian Robertson OAM. Today I also honour these people, but most especially the Queen for her example of unrelenting service, dedication and duty.
It cannot have been easy for the Queen during the last 60 years to balance her public duties with her life as a private citizen as the wife of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh; as a mother to four children, Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward; and as a grandmother to eight grandchildren, William, Harry, Peter, Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James. Living a life in public is a sacrifice that she has made and we honour her for it. Today, we congratulate the Queen on her Diamond Jubilee and wish her all the best for the future.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (16:17): It gives me great pleasure to be so fortunate as to deliver a speech in the parliament of Australia recognising Her Majesty the Queen's 60 years as Queen of Australia. For 60 years, Her Majesty's service to our nation has been exemplary. The depth of her concern for the Australian people knows no bound and her commitment to the Commonwealth family is extraordinary. Her great faith is an inspiration to all of us. To my mind, Her Majesty's presence in our lives and in our system of government is one assured anchor in an increasingly unsure world. Far from being a remote figure worlds apart from her people, Her Majesty's continued presence in the 21st century as Queen of Australia is a constant reminder of her connection to everyday people across all walks of life.
Born not in a royal residence but a private house and christened in Jordan waters with the names of three queens—her mother, her grandmother and her great-grandmother—Queen Elizabeth unites the two contrasting elements of our constitutional monarchy: its tradition and its growing identification with the life of its people. The life of her majesty and her subjects, just as it was in 1952, is centred on family. Her Majesty often speaks of the strength that family can provide during times of hardship and how friendships are often formed in very difficult times. Her family is important to her and she knows how important family is to others—the largest and the smallest, the rich and the poor. Family is the bedrock of our community and of our society.
Her Majesty's own family life certainly mirrors that of many of her subjects world wide, as we also struggle through the heartache and the challenges and are ultimately amazingly rewarded through the satisfaction of family celebrations, milestones and togetherness. Indeed, Her Majesty's own experience as a defence spouse is one that many of the residents in my electorate of Brisbane can empathise with. Having to spend time away from loved ones—loved ones who might be on active duty in a theatre of war—means that Her Majesty has a true connection with those who are involved in military life.
Of course, 'family' does not necessarily have to mean blood relatives, and can often be a description of a community, an organisation or a nation. The Commonwealth is a family of 54 nations all with a common bond, shared beliefs, mutual values and goals. It is a group of the world's largest and smallest, richest and poorest countries that believes that the best democracies are achieved through partnerships of governments, through business and through society. Partnerships are so important. And the important leadership shown in the Commonwealth and displayed by Her Majesty and Prince Philip for the last 60 years is a testament to their character and determination.
The Queen's character and determination were certainly on display in her recent visit to my part of the Commonwealth, the electorate of Brisbane. I shall not forget the images and the reporting of Her Majesty's and Prince Philip's visit, particularly the look of excitement on the faces of the children as they packed Bretts Wharf in Hamilton in an undeniable expression of the affection in which the Queen is held by both young and old. It was no wonder that the faces of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were beaming with smiles in the Queensland sunshine as they boarded their ferry for a tour of the Brisbane River. The crowds that greeted them, flourishing the Union Jack and the Australian flag, and the cheer that swept through Bretts Wharf to the city reach, to Kangaroo Point and ultimately to South Bank, were truly remarkable, and thousands showed up. I was so very proud of the display that Brisbane turned on, and the wonderful day that everyone had.
Being in charge of an organisation, a family or a community for 60 years is a marvellous achievement and something that has to be celebrated and commended. Your Majesty, thank you for your contribution, particularly to the continued growth and development of Australia and the Commonwealth, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your Diamond Jubilee and to wish you many happy returns.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (16:22): It is with great pleasure that I stand here to recognise Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee. In doing so I acknowledge that she has been a fine Queen, and I say that as an ardent republican. The Queen has brought her own style and great grace to the office of Queen. It is acknowledged by all Australians that she has performed all her duties with great dignity and has been a truly regal monarch. I take great delight in paying tribute to the Queen—from my perspective she will probably be the last monarch who actually gets to be the Queen of Australia and serve a Diamond Jubilee—because, as I have already stated, I really appreciate what she has done, and the role she has played not only in Australia and the UK but worldwide. As a republican, I would like one day to be standing here talking about our Australian head of state. But I congratulate the Queen, wish her all the best for the future and congratulate her on the dignified and regal way that she has performed as Queen.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): I thank the member for Shortland for her contribution. Before I call the member for Bonner, I too would like to associate myself with the comments and speeches made in this House and congratulate Her Majesty the Queen on her Diamond Jubilee.
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (16:24): I rise this afternoon to join my voice in commemorating this amazing watershed in our great nation's history—that is, the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. As we all know, 6 February 2012 marked the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty. It was in 1952, at the tender age of 25, that the Commonwealth rejoiced at her ascendance to the throne while simultaneously mourning the death of her father, the much-loved King George VI. This tremendous milestone is underscored by the fact that the only other British monarch to celebrate a Diamond Jubilee is the Queen's great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, who also has the distinction of being the longest reigning British monarch, with a 63-year reign. As such, I am sure that everyone will agree that this is a significant moment in our history and a notable occasion for our young country, being the first such event of this magnitude since we became a Federation on 1 January 1901.
I would also like to remind the parliament that, in September last year, I drew attention to the upcoming Diamond Jubilee. I had been prompted to action after being contacted by the Australian Monarchist League Queensland branch chairman, Mr Tristan Rogers, who asked me to raise this matter in the parliament to ensure that the Diamond Jubilee was recognised in Australia, even in a small way, and separately in each of the states. I absolutely agreed with Mr Rogers on his assertion that as a nation it was essential that we pay appropriate tribute to Her Majesty's longevity.
As I said at the time, it is not whether you are a monarchist or a republican; it is about respect due to the monarch, who, as UK Prime Minister David Cameron succinctly summarised this week, is always dedicated, always resolute and always respected. Yesterday, I was very heartened to see that our government has, as part of the commemoration of the Diamond Jubilee, pledged up to $5 million to the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust. We are told by this government that Australia's contribution to the trust, which is chaired by former UK Prime Minister Sir John Major, will go to the development related projects that will create a lasting legacy in honour of Her Majesty the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.
In light of this announcement, I would like to take this opportunity to again congratulate the Australian Monarchist League on their steadfast efforts in ensuring the Australian public are aware and excited about Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee. I am sure as well that the rest of Australia are looking forward to the visit of their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, who will visit Australia later this year as part of the wider Diamond Jubilee celebrations.
It is true in a technical sense that the British monarch has no political power; however, Queen Elizabeth as the figurehead and official head of state for the 16 countries that still form the Commonwealth of Nations embodies immense influence and power. Throughout the 60 years of her reign she has continued to play a pivotal role in giving the government and the people in both Britain and Australia a wider perspective than that of the immediate political priorities of prime ministers and governments that have come and gone. In Australia and Britain she has seen 12 consecutive prime ministers, and no doubt she will see a few more. One can only imagine the social and economic change that each of these prime ministers has brought with them. The Queen has weathered each with equanimity, wisdom and her trademark indomitable sense of duty.
As many have observed, the Queen has retained the pomp and circumstance of the monarchy yet has made it more accessible to her subjects than any of her predecessors. While what she does behind Buckingham Palace doors is still as much of a mystery as what she has in her trademark white bag, she still manages to show an unparalleled empathy with the general public. Indeed, many commentators have attributed the continuing survival and growing health of the monarchy to her personal values. She is the oldest British monarch in history. Yet, despite her age, she has never shirked her public duty and continues to maintain a rigorous schedule with hundreds of engagements a year. If only we could all have such unflagging energy and dedication to our roles. There is no doubt she rules by example, carrying out her role to the very limits of her ability. If there could be a single word that adequately encapsulates the general public's feeling towards her, it would be respect—respect that has been earned and maintained despite the tribulations of the Royal Family, most notably the death of the immensely popular Princess Diana. The Queen Mother, as we fondly know her, lived to be 101. Since the Queen seems to have inherited her mum's longevity, I have no doubt that in three years we will be celebrating her as the longest reigning monarch in British history. The Diamond Jubilee is but a prelude to that momentous occasion.
The Queen once again demonstrated her immense sense of public duty this week when she vowed to dedicate herself anew to the throne. As Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II commences her seventh decade, I would like to take this opportunity to extend on behalf of the people of Bonner our heartfelt congratulations to her. Today we also extend our thanks to her for her life of magnificent service to our country. Long live the Queen. Long may she reign.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (16:31): It is with pleasure that I join the chorus of Australians paying tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on this the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee. As many have noted, her 60 years on the throne have seen dramatic changes across the world, in our economy and technology but also in the way we, as people, conduct ourselves and in the way we live.
Throughout her reign, Her Majesty has been a beacon for the Commonwealth through good times and bad. She has been the focus of unity for her Commonwealth and it is especially to her credit that the Commonwealth has not only survived but grown and thrived. It has changed, naturally, as it must. But the stability and surety the Queen has provided has been a major part of keeping the Commonwealth group of nations together while absorbing change. Not only is the Commonwealth strong, but its members remain substantial partners in world affairs with a sense of duty, striving for the greater good. Her Majesty has travelled the Commonwealth constantly and was the first reigning monarch to visit Australia—and she has come back time and time again. She has been with us to celebrate and commemorate our special national events. Her messages of sympathy and concern have been a great comfort whenever we have experienced hardship and tragedy.
I also want to record my gratitude to Her Majesty for her support for regional Australia. She did not just travel the Sydney-Melbourne-Canberra triangle. The Queen has made the extra effort, gone the extra mile, to visit regional areas, which has always been greatly appreciated by the people, with many travelling from far and wide to catch a glimpse of their Queen. I myself first saw the Queen on her triumphant two-month first tour of Australia in 1954. My family made the three-hour trip to Toowoomba to stand in the street to see her motorcade pass by. Much later, I had the honour to meet Her Majesty several times on subsequent visits. In 2006, I farewelled the Queen and Prince Phillip from Canberra Airport and it was suggested at the time that I might be the last person to do so from our national capital. Pleasingly, that was not so. Last year she was back Down Under for an extended period, and as a nation we were glad about it. She may be 85, but I think and pray she will make the journey yet again in the years ahead.
Today, I congratulate Her Majesty the Queen on 60 years of exemplary service. This Diamond Jubilee is filled with respect, admiration and genuine appreciation for her dedication to the Commonwealth over a period of dramatic change, both here in Australia and across the globe. It is a hallmark of that enduring respect that even the staunchest republican pauses to admire this queen.
Australia is 111 years old and, for 60 of those years, there has been just one monarch. Queen Elizabeth II is the only monarch most Australians have ever known. But she is honoured for far more than durability: her surety and resolute nature, her gentle hand in the shaping of a modern monarchy have steered the course of generations across continents and transcended cultures.
She assumed the throne as a 25-year-old in 1952 following the untimely death of her father, King George VI, who died at just 56. She was in Kenya on safari when the tragic news came. She sped back to England for a no doubt daunting coronation. Her sense of duty was forged in the wake of her father's example as well as that of her mother, Queen Elizabeth I. The king, despite illness and following the abdication of his brother, King Edward, was a leading example and a source of inspiration through the war years.
Queen Elizabeth, the Queen's mother, was no less resolute. During the relentless bombings of London when many families ferried wives and children to the countryside for safety, the Queen refused to leave with her children. She stayed with her husband and king and stood by the people of London in their darkest days, sharing in their dangers. When the young princess became queen, that character was again on display in the wake of her father's passing and has never wavered in six decades.
It is really hard to comprehend the extent of her reign. Robert Menzies was in the Lodge on her coronation. Artie Fadden was the leader of the Nationals. Winston Churchill was in Number 10 Downing Street and Harry Trumann in the White House. Joseph Stalin was premier of Russia. To many, these names are history and yet it was the queen we admire today who was on the throne during those historic times. She guided Great Britain through the arduous work of postwar reconstruction and, from the rubble, emerged a new England and a monarchy more attuned and less rigid. In Australia, her reign has covered seismic shifts in our society and economy. We have shed the colonial yoke and transformed into a vibrant, modern and multifaceted nation.
Sixty years ago the crowds enthusiastically chanted, 'Long live the Queen!' At 85, she is the longest lived monarch in British history and shows no signs of slowing down. We honour her dignity, her service and her humanity. In his famous 1963 speech to the Queen, then Prime Minister Menzies quoted the verse, 'I did but see her passing by, and yet I love her till I die.' It was reported at the time that the still young queen blushed. The world has changed but, judging by the admiration for our monarch and the enthusiasm with which Australians saw 'her passing by' during last October's Commonwealth Heads of Government visit, some things remain the same. I join in congratulating Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, on her Diamond Jubilee and wish her good health and every happiness in the years ahead.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (16:38): I have to say it was good in the past year to have a number of visitors to this country and, obviously, pre-eminently the visit of Her Majesty was certainly something to be proud of and very pleased to be associated with. She is, as has been reflected by the member for Wide Bay, a witness to great moments in history and has provided great stability over the course of her reign and her heading up of the Commonwealth.
I want to place on the record also my commendation for what will be done to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee, while the Prime Minister outlined yesterday. It is worth noting that the government will recognise the Diamond Jubilee through the lighting of a jubilee beacon on Parliament House in June; Australia Post will issue a jubilee stamp; the Royal Mint will issue a jubilee coin, and an east-west road in the Parliamentary Zone will be renamed Queen Elizabeth Terrace. I was particularly pleased to hear that a scholarship focused on women's leadership will be established. In particular, it is worth noting that Her Majesty has been an outstanding international statesperson who has, in her own deft way, been able to guide the affairs of the Commonwealth. It is good that we have a scholarship that will be focused on women's leadership. There will also be a jubilee essay competition. This is on top of some of the other events and initiatives that the Prime Minister outlined yesterday, including the establishment of the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust.
Whilst I do note my admiration for Her Majesty's role, I think at some point it is worth us beginning a discussion again about the future chapters that need to be opened up in terms of our nation's history, recognising the great role played by the monarchy but also recognising that we can have a future in which a person born in this country can ultimately become the head of state, that an independent Australia, a republic, can be established. Whilst I have the greatest admiration for Her Majesty, I have the highest aspiration for our nation. The highest aspiration should be that we, at some point, establish this nation as a republic with its own head of state. I am proud that we have been able, through the course of the last day, to recognise the achievements of Sir Zelman Cowen and recognise too that we have had Governors-General who have contributed in great ways to the development of this nation. I quoted in my inaugural speech to parliament the words of Sir William Deane, another Governor-General who I have huge admiration for. But ultimately we should be prepared to have a mature discussion about the next chapter that we can open for our great country.
I think that, as much as we celebrate the Diamond Jubilee, we should also be prepared at some point to open up the discussions. There has never been a perfect time to do it, but I think that time is well and truly due. We had the referendum in 1999 and its outcome has been respected. That was the will of the Australian public at that point in time. But there is nothing holding us back from being able to imagine a different future, an independent future, one where an Australian head of state is able to rightly take their place in a republic. I wish to conclude my remarks by indicating that we have spread out a range of initiatives to recognise and commemorate the Diamond Jubilee, but I also hope that we may look ahead to the other chapters that can be opened up for our great nation.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa—Second Deputy Speaker) (16:43): What a great pleasure it is this afternoon to address this congratulation to Her Majesty in the Federation Chamber. It is indeed a great honour to be here on the day of its first operation as the Federation Chamber. I rise today to congratulate Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee. On 6 February this year Her Majesty marked the 60th anniversary of her ascension to the throne, becoming only the second monarch in the history of Britain, Australia, Canada and other Commonwealth realms to have celebrated a Diamond Jubilee. The only other person was Queen Victoria in 1897. On her coronation—I was but a very small child at the time—the 25-year-old Queen declared that 'my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service'. She has lived up to that declaration through extraordinary changes. Times have changed so much and she has become so much admired as a monarch and the head of the Commonwealth of Nations. I know that last week she also repeated that pledge to the people of the Commonwealth—that she will devote her entire life to our service. That was not the exact quote but the original quote stands.
When Her Majesty assumed the throne following the death of her father, King George VI, there were but a handful of Commonwealth nations under the banner of the Commonwealth, and of course Her Majesty the Queen and prior to that King George VI were the heads of the Commonwealth of Nations at that time. But, in Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's time, the Commonwealth of Nations has grown to 54 independent member states, including Australia. Being a member of the Commonwealth, I believe, gives a great strength to this nation, and we recognise also through that that we all share something in common—that is, the Westminster system of government. It stood the test of time in the face of world wars, civil unrest and even natural disasters. Being a member of the Commonwealth and consisting of former British colonies, we have inherited the Westminster system of government, which comes from the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, to fit our particular circumstance. It is not a replica of the Westminster system of the House of Commons, nor are the systems of any of the other Commonwealth countries, but I do know that we are the envy of the world because the Commonwealth of Nations is not based on ethnicity, religion or geography. It extends around the world and unites us all in the common cause.
In fact, I had the very wonderful experience of being able to attend the Commonwealth speakers conference in Trinidad and Tobago, at Port-of-Spain, early in January. What was inspirational for me there was to see the numbers of women who are now speakers of their parliaments in their respective nations. I know I digress from the original congratulations to Her Majesty, but I think it is worth putting on the record. It is inspirational to see that Rwanda has been accepted as a member of the Commonwealth. Rwandans attended their first Commonwealth meeting in Perth last year and they attended their first Commonwealth speakers conference—which I attended on behalf of our parliament. It was wonderful to see that it was a woman who was the speaker of that parliament, knowing the history of the genocide and the horror of the civil wars that they have lived through there. The other inspiration for me was Dr Mirza, the speaker of the Pakistan parliament—another Commonwealth country. Dr Mirza is the very first female to be elected a speaker in an Islamic country. I think that speaks volumes about our system of government, being a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, and I think it underpins the great leadership and, I think, inspiration that we have had from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II over such a long time. We have seen it grow and we have seen so many countries binding themselves to the principles that are so important to us here in our Constitution and those constitutions which have brought such peace to those countries.
Last year Australians welcomed Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to our shores. It was interesting to see. I was apprehensive. I wondered, 'Will many Australians turn out?' I think Perth turned out better than any other state, although we will say that in Brisbane we did very well. She was accompanied, of course, by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip. It was their 16th visit to Australia. What will endure for me in many ways, in Brisbane and in many other parts of Australia with the television coverage, is those wonderful scenes of young girls with bouquets of flowers, wanting to present them to the Queen. It said a great deal to me. I think those young girls probably felt like princesses, and it was wonderful to see that and the respect that they had for Her Majesty; that was demonstrated by that young generation. Of course, they are the future of Australia. I also noted that in Queensland construction workers working on buildings, with their hard hats and high-vis jackets, stopped work and put down tools and watched her procession on the boat up the Brisbane River. They too were supportive, I believe, of Her Majesty and all she has given us in this country. I was also proud to represent—as you did at one time, Deputy Speaker Livermore—the town of Longreach in my electorate, Maranoa. We are all still very proud, as is often shown by the many people who visit, that the Stockman's Hall of Fame and the Outback Heritage Centre were opened by Her Majesty in 1988, our centenary. The Stockman's Hall of Fame and the Outback Heritage Centre were the inspiration of RM Williams, Hugh Sawrey, Ranald Chandler, Sir James Walker and other great people of the outback. She paid us, the outback of Australia and the early settlers of outback Australia a great compliment by making time available during that visit to open the Stockman's Hall of Fame and the Outback Heritage Centre.
On 6 November 1999 Australians had an opportunity to vote in a constitutional referendum on whether Australia should become a republic and whether a preamble should be inserted in the Constitution. Both proposals were defeated, and neither were able to achieve a majority overall, or a majority in any state. That is the wonderful thing about democracy. You can ask the people to vote, you can ask their opinion—that is what really matters in any liberal democracy. I must say that the electorate of Maranoa led the charge to make sure that the Queen remained head of state. More than 75 per cent of the voters in Maranoa voted no to a republic. In fact, we had the highest recorded 'no' vote of any constituency in Australia. I remember that the Prime Minister, John Howard, at the time said, 'How is the kingdom of Maranoa going?' and I said, 'Prime Minister, they were well informed.' All jokes aside, once again, it was democracy at work.
I expect that 2012 will be a great year of celebration here in Australia and across the Commonwealth of Nations. On behalf of the people of Maranoa, I would like to wish Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II good health and happiness. We thank her for the stability that she has provided to us as our Queen over so many years. Long live the Queen!
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (16:52): What a rare moment in history—even more so as a member of parliament—to be able to recognise our reigning sovereign's Diamond Jubilee. I would like to put on record my congratulations and deepest respect for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on this, the 60th anniversary of her ascension to the throne after the death of her father, King George VI. In the year of her Diamond Jubilee, we have the ideal time—indeed, the only time in the history of our federal government—to pause to reflect on and honour her service, her dedication, her loyalty to her duty and the great love she has shown her people, who reside all over the world in our Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth today is a voluntary association of 54 countries, made up of the world's largest and smallest, richest and poorest countries—home to two billion citizens of all faiths and ethnicities. Her Majesty is not just the Queen of England but of all these nations, which include Australia. It is little wonder that, over her 60-year reign, the admiration and love of her people has continued to grow.
Although we have not had a visit from the Queen in the electorate of Ryan, we are very fortunate to have been visited by Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, in 1958, and Prince William was not far outside our boundaries when he represented Her Majesty during his 2011 visit to the flood victims in Brisbane. However, the Queen, accompanied by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, has visited the city of Brisbane on several occasions. There are a number of important reminders of her time there.
In 1954, as the newly crowned monarch, she was the only reigning monarch to have visited Australia. In 1963 she unveiled a marker stone in the ongoing building work of the magnificent St John's Cathedral. In 1970, they were joined by Princess Anne for the bicentenary of Captain Cook's arrival in Australia. During that visit she opened the Brisbane District Court and attended a performance by the Queensland Theatre Company, the only Australian theatre company to have given a royal performance. In 1977 the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh came as part of celebrations for her Silver Jubilee, unveiling the Jubilee Fountain at the new Queensland Cultural Centre. In 1982 they came for the Commonwealth Games. They came again in 1988, this time joined by Prince Edward, to visit World Expo 88. Finally, of course, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh came last October to view the progress after our recovery from the January floods. On all occasions, flag-waving Queenslanders welcomed her with open arms.
Towards the end of 2011, which had been a year of both tragedy and, later, triumph for our state of Queensland, we had the pleasure of welcoming the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh to our city again. It was a remarkable scene, with tens of thousands of people greeting their Royal Highnesses upon their arrival at Southbank. The special place the Queen has in the hearts of all Australians was very much on show throughout that special day.
Many of my colleagues here today have spoken of how the Queen has dedicated her entire life to the service of her country and to the Commonwealth. I do wonder, however, how many of us can truly understand the magnitude of this task and the responsibility that comes with it. Our own experience of public life can perhaps give us a very small insight into what is involved, but the magnitude of the task must have been overwhelmingly daunting for the young Princess Elizabeth. It is for this as much as for any other reason that we should be grateful to her for her constant service.
As a country we have come a long way since that day in February in 1952. The world is a very different place. Although there have been times the countries and the governments of our world have wavered, with conflicts, with war and with upheaval, the Queen's steadfast leadership has not. As we reflect on what has occurred over the past 60 years, it puts into perspective the various leaders who have held power in this period of history. Presidents, prime ministers and indeed opposition leaders have come and gone all over the world. In Australia we have had 11 Prime Ministers and 17 opposition leaders in this time. One of the abiding tenets of our system of government is that, beyond the ties of history, language and institutions, it is the understanding of shared values which unite us: democracy, freedom, peace, the rule of law and opportunity for all. The Queen's continuing reign over this Commonwealth, including over this country, is a testament to the stability of our system of government and the quiet wisdom of leadership, which I hope will continue for many years into the future.
I know Australians will at this time and over the coming year stop to acknowledge and celebrate the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. I am grateful that I have been able to speak on behalf of the citizens of Ryan to this very special motion and to say on their behalf: 'God bless Australia and may God bless the Queen.'
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:58): It is an honour to stand here today and congratulate Queen Elizabeth II on her Diamond Jubilee. This week marks 60 years since the passing of King George VI and 60 years since a fresh-faced youngster took the Crown with all the responsibilities that came with it and discharged her duty with a maturity that few could match at that tender age. Queen Elizabeth has carried the hope of the nation, an empire and what would become the Commonwealth Nations on her shoulders for a lifetime.
Queen Elizabeth was the first reigning monarch to visit Australia in 1954 and has since visited our nation on 16 occasions, including last year, when the Queen visited the Great Hall here in our own Parliament House. I recall on that night with great amusement that many of the most former staunch republicans were the ones who appeared most eager, desperately pushing to get to the front to capture the moment of being in the royal presence, of being with the Queen. However, this is not uncommon when it comes to Queen Elizabeth. She is a monarch who has always commanded great respect and loyalty from all those in the Commonwealth, and her genuine love for those subjects and her 60 years of service are just some of the reasons for this loyalty. Queen Elizabeth II commands the loyalty and admiration not only of those within the Commonwealth but also of those from outside it. It shows quite a lot that even presidents of the United States love to have their photos taken with our Queen. She is truly one of the most respected and popular leaders the world has ever seen.
Under the reign of Queen Elizabeth II the Commonwealth has become a beacon of stability across the globe. Her dedication is apparent not only in her actions but also in the way that she has spoken about her duties as monarch. Her Majesty once said:
I cannot lead you into battle. I do not give you laws or administer justice but I can do something else—I can give my heart and my devotion to these old islands and to all the peoples of our brotherhood of nations.
These words she spoke not long after taking the throne, in 1957 during her annual Christmas address. They perfectly encapsulate her reign. Queen Elizabeth has always been a monarch who wanted to help and to provide the best for her people. This is evident in her push to help stabilise Northern Ireland and her calls for the end of violence in that area. She has never been afraid to take a moral position, while upholding the integrity, nobility and honour of the Crown.
Our queen, Queen Elizabeth II, is only the second monarch to reach this most esteemed occasion that has brought us together in this chamber today. Elizabeth's great-great-grandmother, the only other monarch to reach this milestone, Queen Victoria, celebrated her Diamond Jubilee on 22 June 1897. Notably, Queen Victoria issued a telegram across the empire which read:
From my heart, I thank my beloved people. May God bless them.
To echo the words of her great-great-grandmother, and on behalf of the people of the seat of Hughes, I wish to say to Queen Elizabeth II that from our hearts we thank our beloved monarch. May God bless you, Queen Elizabeth II, and long may you reign.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (17:02): Queen Elizabeth II has been a mighty monarch. To hold down any role for 60 years in any era, let alone in this day and age, is truly remarkable. Yet when it comes to Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, this is unsurprising, for Her Majesty is a truly remarkable woman.
It was said that the sun did not set on the British Empire when Queen Victoria was on the throne. This was because in the 19th century—the Victorian age—the British Empire was so huge, and covered so many parts of the globe, that it was always daylight somewhere in the empire. Yet Queen Victoria, who reigned a record 63 years and seven months—from the time that she was 18 in 1837 until her death in her 82nd year in 1901—spent most of her time at home and much of that mourning the early death at age 42 of her beloved husband, Prince Albert, in 1861.
The life of Queen Elizabeth II was never going to be sedentary. The times into which she was born and raised demanded an active, busy and globetrotting monarch, and in Queen Elizabeth this is what the world has seen. The world is an astonishingly different place now from what it was in 1926 when Elizabeth became the first child of Prince Albert—Duke of York and later King George VI—and his wife, Elizabeth. Sixty years after she ascended to the throne upon the 1952 death of her father, in an austere Britain still facing post-World War II rationing, Queen Elizabeth reached the Diamond Jubilee of her reign with a new website, showing just how much the world has changed.
The Queen has modernised the monarchy, a tradition stretching back to the eighth century. Despite the often anti-establishment age in which we live and a voracious media, sections of which have relentlessly pursued and tried to tear down the royal family and all it represents, the monarchy endures strongly, with widespread global respect and admiration thanks largely to the awe in which Queen Elizabeth is held the world over. This is how it should be.
Queen Elizabeth has been a fine Queen. She is a queen deserving of the greatest affection and respect—dignified, honourable and regal, yet happy to mix freely with people of all backgrounds, faiths and races, especially in times of crisis. Whilst the boundaries have changed, the Queen's appeal in the Riverina led to 66.81 per cent of voters in the 1999 republic referendum voting 'no' to change. This was the fourth highest vote against the republic of the federal electorates within New South Wales. The Queen is enormously popular, certainly in the Riverina. Locals still recall her visit to Wagga Wagga on 13 February 1954, an event headlined by the Daily Advertiser newspaper as the city's greatest day. Indeed, when I had the privilege of meeting the Queen in Sydney during her royal visit in 2000, she recalled the fanfare she had received at what she aptly remembered as a market town. Her memory was vivid and her recollections of Wagga Wagga and its people were fond. I was impressed that, of all the towns in all the realms over which she reigns and which she has visited, she had such a recall of Wagga Wagga. Maybe that was also to do with the quaint name of my home town—but she did remember the people and the fanfare that she received.
May her long reign continue and may happiness and good health carry her through her continuing devoted duty to her subjects and to the Commonwealth. Long live the Queen!
Mr IRONS (Swan) (17:05): I rise to add my voice to those of members who have spoken before in recognition of the Queen's achievement of her Diamond Jubilee. Whatever personal views individual members in this place have on the republic debate—and I accept that someday a republic may happen—it is only right to pay tribute to 60 years of duty and service to Australia. I also welcome the arrangements announced yesterday by the Prime Minister for Australia's role in the celebration of this occasion this year.
It was 60 years ago, before I was born—and I am sure the member for Maranoa, who spoke before, does remember the previous monarch—that upon the death of her father, King George VI, Queen Elizabeth was called to take on the mammoth task of being the constitutional monarch for peoples across the world. At only 25 years old and while grieving for her father, it must have seemed such a daunting task to take the throne and meet the expectations of the people of the Commonwealth around the world. Yet she did, committing herself to the duty of the throne, which she has always seen as a job for life. Sixty years on the great majority of people alive in Australia have known no other monarch, and most of us have long-lasting memories of her royal tours.
It seems that the Queen becomes more loved every year, as was borne out by the extraordinary scenes in Perth last year for the Queen's visit to CHOGM. The reception by the crowds in Perth shows that there is still a magic about the monarchy and that people continue to show great affection for monarchies around the world. Although I know that many people would like a republic, the magic of the monarchy is inescapable and means a lot to many people. Who can forget the time when Jane Priest on the beach at Cottesloe in Western Australia kissed Prince Charles and it was flashed all around the world? The magic of the monarchy does not disappear. It is held dear across the whole world, and it is great that Western Australia played a little part in that so many years ago. While we may have a republic one day, let us enjoy the magic while it lasts and enjoy the year ahead. It looks like being an exciting one, with all the events planned in Australia and overseas. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition talked about a paradox of the monarchy: the less actual power they wield the more popular they are. This seems to be the case in Australia.
We were fortunate enough to have a royal visit in the electorate of Swan, with Her Majesty visiting Clontarf Aboriginal College in Waterford. On the day the Queen met the students, she was presented with kangaroo stew and even an Australian football before opening the new boarding facility at the school. I attended the official blessing for the new boarding facility. The Queen was characteristically dutiful and resolute and she gave a well-received speech on opening the facility. The students and the staff of Clontarf were so excited about the visit, and it gave me an insight into what has made her reign so successful—her special ability to bring these unique experiences to so many over such a long time.
After Clontarf we had the Big Aussie Barbecue on the Perth foreshore, which was attended by 100,000 Western Australians, a public gathering which I think shows the affection that Western Australians have for the Queen and the monarchy. This was her last official engagement of the tour in Australia, and what a send-off it was! It was a perfect Perth day on the banks of the Swan and, as the royal motorcade made its way from Government House and the foreshore, the Swan Bells rang out from the Bell Tower. The Queen made a wonderful speech in which she reflected on the success of the tour, before going on a walkabout with the Duke of Edinburgh to meet the crowd along the Perth foreshore.
CHOGM itself was considered a success, with the noteworthy commitment to polio eradication as well as the well-received changes to the royal succession laws to give a firstborn daughter the right to the throne. One of the highlights was the Commonwealth Business Forum where it is said that $10 billion worth of deals were done. It was the biggest political gathering in Australia's history with the presidents and prime ministers of 53 countries, representing one-third of the world's population. I would like to recognise the government for choosing Perth as the host city for this event.
I attended the opening on 28 October 2011, which was made a public holiday by WA Premier Barnett, held at the exhibition centre, and a fantastic opening it was. If there was one slight disappointment with CHOGM it was the nonattendance of the Indian Prime Minister.
Perth was a great host and many people in my electorate of Swan volunteered at the airport and in greeting visitors at the Big Aussie Barbecue at the events on the South Perth foreshore. We have proved once and for all that we can put on a great show in Perth, and I know that the people in my electorate of Swan are proud of that.
In her 60 years the Queen has represented a great hand of steadiness and stability. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described her in his introduction in 2010 as 'an anchor of our age'. In an unstable political environment there was certainly a sense of stability while the Queen was here.
Along with the stability of the Queen's 60 years on the throne she should also be commended for her remarkable ability to change with the times. Her reign has seen great social change through to the rise of the internet and the digital age and, also, unfortunately, many wars.
The Empire is now the Commonwealth and many of the ties and mechanisms between Australia and the Crown have been altered, but certainly not cut. Throughout all these changes the Queen has been wise and ushered society and the monarchy through that. We certainly also appreciate the charity work the royal family does, and it is great that there is a strong relationship with the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which benefited from contributions from the recent royal wedding.
More than anything else, though, when reflecting on this milestone, we need to recognise the Queen's sense of duty as the most admirable aspect of her reign. Her actions every day over 60 years; her public engagements and walkabouts with the people; her appropriate but key role in the political process, as seen on her recent Australian tour; and her loyalty to the Commonwealth demonstrates this unflinching duty. Her Diamond Jubilee message was characteristic of this sense of duty. In particular, her words, 'I dedicate myself anew to your service,' was a repetition of the words she first said at the age of 21. She meant those words then and we know that she means them now. On behalf of the people of Swan and of Western Australia I congratulate the Queen on her Diamond Jubilee and wish her the very best of health for the jubilee year and for many years to come.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (17:12): I rise to support the speakers before me in celebrating the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. As a proud monarchist it gives me great pleasure to extend my warm congratulations to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee. For most of us Elizabeth has been our Queen for as long as we can remember. It is difficult to imagine the monarchy without her. In fact, the only British monarch to reign for as long as her was her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria.
Over the last 60 years the Queen has conducted herself with such grace, dignity and quiet authority that it is easy for us to forget the role is one that she neither sought nor expected. She was unexpectedly thrust into the position as first in line to the throne only after the shock abdication of her uncle Edward VIII and the elevation of her father, Albert, subsequently known as King George VI.
The legacy of Queen Elizabeth's reign will be one of dedication and exemplary service. Her sense of duty was well and truly in place even before she ascended to the throne. Indeed, it was on her 21st birthday that she famously declared that she intended to devote her whole life, whether it be long or short, to the service of the people of the Commonwealth. I suspect there were very few of us who expressed such noble sentiments at our 21st birthday speech.
Since that time she has stayed true to that vow and in my opinion thoroughly earned every privilege given to her at her birth. In fact, the Queen has set a new standard for selflessness that would leave many in this place in her shadow. We consider ourselves to be busy people. But Her Majesty the Queen has maintained a schedule equal to, if not greater than, ours not for a couple of terms of three years and not for a couple of decades but for half a century. Now, at the age of 85 years, she shows few signs of slowing down. I bring the room's attention to Her Majesty's recent visit to Australia where her schedule kept her enormously busy. The stamina of the lady was something that both my wife and I commented on. I daresay that our parents would not have been able to keep up with the schedule of the Queen.
It is amazing to think of the changes that have marked this period in our history: the expansion of the Commonwealth, the growth of the European Union, the end of the Cold War and the threat of terrorism that has engulfed the world. Throughout this period, through all the changes, the Queen has remained a continuous beacon of the values of our system which this government is built upon. We are justifiably proud in this country of our standing as one of the world's oldest continuous democracies. However I believe that we owe a great deal of this stability to the Westminster system of government that we inherited from our British forebears.
The Queen has a special place in the hearts of all Australians; that much is obvious from the tens of thousands who gathered to see her when she visited Australia last year. I believe the monarchy is going through something of a resurgence at the moment. Some people still talk of the need for a republic, but I believe that the public outpouring of support for the Queen seen in recent times—and not only for the Queen but also for Prince William, for his new bride and the royal family—puts that crusade to bed for the foreseeable future. In my opinion, that is not a bad thing. In times of constant change and turbulence, whether those upheavals are political, social or economic, it is good to have something good that surrounds us—a point which we can look to and be reminded of who we are, where we come from and how as a nation we do things.
I conclude by again offering my warm congratulations to Her Majesty on this remarkable achievement. May she always be remembered as dedicated and as a source of wisdom and continuity. Long live the Queen!
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (17:16): I rise today to echo the sentiments of all those who have gone before me in wishing the Queen well on her Diamond Jubilee. Sixty years as the monarch is truly an incredible achievement. The grace and dignity with which she has carried out her office is something which we can all learn from. I would like also to offer congratulations to her on behalf of my constituents in Wannon. I have no doubt that they would also like me to pass on my thanks and their praise for the way she has performed her role over those 60 years. That has not only stood the British monarchy in great stead, but it has also helped Australia's stability as one of the world's—if not the world's—greatest functioning democracies.
It is quite extraordinary to think of a young woman thrust into that role at the age of 25—a role which she had not expected to be hers so quickly—but the way she carried that role out from the word go is truly remarkable, and she has done so under constant media attention and in the constant media spotlight. I remember my parents giving me an example of this through a story of when Prince Charles came to Australia and boarded at Timber Top. He visited the farm I grew up on the year before I was born. Whenever my parents told the story of his visit to the farm they could not get over the fact that already in 1967 Prince Charles had to have two minders with him so that he could be looked after, and they could also keep the media out of the way. That gives you a sense of what Prince Charles was dealing with at the time. The royal family has always had to deal with the British and the global media wanting to know every last drop of information about their lives. The fact that the Queen has been able to deal with this and live through it without ever having been the subject of any stories apart from those which talk about her grace, her dignity and her ability to conduct her role is a shining example of how well she has reigned as the British monarch.
I add my congratulations to her on this wonderful milestone. I wish her well and hope there are many more jubilees to come.
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (17:20): I would like to associate my electorate, the electorate of Hinkler, with this motion of the House, the Prime Minister's motion, congratulating the Queen on the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne. As other members have said, for most of us the Queen is the only head of state, the only monarch, we have known in our lifetime. Her reign is compared, I think quite fairly, with that of Queen Victoria and that of the first Queen Elizabeth as landmark reigns and landmark events in British history that shaped democracy, politics and indeed the development of the world.
I can remember very vividly the Queen's first visit to Australia. I was a young cadet and all the streets of Brisbane were lined with military people, from cadets right through to regular Army people. We were very lucky—my school got the spot just on the rise going up to Fernberg House, which of course is Government House in Brisbane, so we got an absolutely stellar view of this new, young Queen.
I can remember coming back on another occasion in 1969 or 1970 and meeting her at a garden party at Parliament House, the year I was state president of the Young Nationals, or the young Country Party as it was then. Then I remember the opening of Expo '88 in Brisbane, on the river stage at Expo '88, and what a marvellous event that was. It was the coming-of-age of Queensland, and it was appropriate that the monarch should be there for that.
As the member for Ryan has said, the Queen's coming to Queensland over and over again has coincided with significant events in the development of the city of Brisbane and the state of Queensland. In my own electorate—or what has been in my electorate from time to time—two events stand out. The first was when the Queen came out in 1954 and Bundaberg was chosen as the Wide Bay centre for the event. There are still today photos of her visit to the Bundaberg showgrounds and the kids there in the circles around which the royal car circumnavigated. The image of the little flower girl presenting the flowers—she was interviewed just recently, I might add—was a very potent image. Interestingly, when Prince Charles went to Timbertop, he went for his holidays to Eidsvold Station, just west of Bundaberg, which, for a time, was in my electorate. I have stayed out there at Eidsvold Station. At the time the owner was Barney Joyce. Barney was a great outback character, and Mrs Joyce was a great mentor and substitute mother for Prince Charles. So there are two very vivid images of the Queen's influence over my electorate. Of course, it came home to us in a very forceful way at the time of the Childers backpacker fire, when she sent Princess Anne to Childers to meet the people associated with that horrific event and for the celebration of the recovery from that dreadful event. So they are the very vivid images in and around my electorate.
I am a monarchist but I am not some fawning devotee of a particular person. I think that the strength of the monarchy is not in the power it invests in any one person but in the power it denies to all others. In other words, the monarchy becomes the unifying symbol of a nation—in our extended form, the Commonwealth—and that power is invested in that figurehead. It is not a power that was used by kings of old in some cruel or demonic way, quite the contrary. The more brutal aspects of monarchy within the system we live in have been flushed out over time, from when William the Conqueror came through to the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors, the first Elizabethan age, the Stuarts and so on into modern times. It has gone hand-in-hand with the development of law. We and the parliament we serve here and the parliaments of the Commonwealth, and in particular I refer to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom, have grown up within that framework of law and monarchy and constitutional government.
Those things are intricately interwoven. They are especially potent symbols. When you get someone who not only is the embodiment of that but carries out the task with an even greater aplomb, a person who, as people have said in this chamber today, became the embodiment of duty, purpose, leadership, family and unity of nations, it becomes a much more potent symbol. I was quite surprised during the royal tour last year at the level of affection that has grown for the person of the Queen; there is a tremendous level of affection. Strangely, in that whole event, which I thought would be riddled with republican sentiment, quite the opposite happened. There was even a truce called, if you might call it that, by the republicans because, even amongst them, there is a genuine affection for Elizabeth Windsor, Elizabeth II.
She has continued to be that symbol. We can remember her during the Second World War as part of the unity of the British nation, working on trucks as a young mechanic. We have seen her become the young Queen. We have seen her reign for 60 years. We have seen her as a symbol of unity for 53 or 54 nations, and we saw that in a very potent way in Western Australia at the last CHOGM meeting. We have seen her now introduce another step in modernity for the monarchy in so far as succession will now apply equally to male and female heirs. So, if the firstborn is a female, she will be the heir presumptive to the throne. I think that is a great form of leadership and I think it is one of the crowning glories of this reign. On behalf of the people of my electorate, whom she has visited and whom on other occasions she has sent her children to visit, may I extend the warmest congratulations. I hope this year is a memorable and happy one and that God will continue to bless her in her work.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (17:30): I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (17:31): I am pleased to be able to speak on the most recent report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into the committee's statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. ASIC is responsible for monitoring the integrity of Australia's financial system and it has a broad range of responsibilities. We have heard some interesting evidence from specialist witnesses in recent months, including Mr Michael Chaaya, a partner at Corrs Chambers Westgarth and a specialist in a number of areas that are relevant to the responsibilities of ASIC. Mr Chaaya gave evidence about what he calls the twin peaks model of regulation under the Australian system, with two peak statutory bodies, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. He made the point that such a division of responsibilities is unusual by international standards. There are both pros and cons, as might be expected. His evidence was quite interesting in light of some of the evidence that has emerged about the collapse of Trio Capital, the subject of a separate inquiry about which I will speak in a moment. One of the questions that has presented itself in that inquiry is the degree of coordination between the two principal agencies, APRA and ASIC, and whether the response to the emerging and increasingly evident difficulties at Trio Capital could have been accelerated had the regulatory and institutional structure been different. I certainly do not express a concluded view on that question, but I do note that the evidence from Mr Chaaya was relevant and interesting in that context.
Of course, the committee has also heard from ASIC. Most recently, evidence from ASIC has addressed three broad areas: actions it has undertaken to deliver on its strategic framework; its processes to ensure the integrity of licences and adequate surveillance mechanisms to minimise possibilities for fraud; and an update on the position in relation to frozen funds. I want to speak for a moment on a couple of these issues. In relation to the strategic framework I would like to commend ASIC for its work to improve financial literacy—for example, through the mortgage health campaign, the retirement guide and better communication about Australian financial services licences. But what I would like to speak about more specifically is the question of frozen funds. A number of my constituents found, to their surprise and distress, that mortgage funds in which they had invested substantial amounts of money, typically to provide for their retirement, were frozen in the wake of the global financial crisis. On the assumption, which I think is valid, that my constituents are not atypical of the broader class of persons who hold units in these funds, it is clear from the surprise expressed to me by my constituents that there is limited understanding in the community that funds of this kind, typically mortgage funds, do have the ability to freeze redemptions. I have asked ASIC a number of questions about this issue at recent hearings. At the most recent hearing the chairman of ASIC, Mr Medcraft, explained that when funds were first frozen in November 2008 the total amount involved was $23.3 billion and there were 87 funds involved. By the end of June 2011 the amount of money frozen had reduced to $17.2 billion, of which approximately $5.2 billion had been restructured with member approval. Mr Medcraft explained that this means they are 'delivering perhaps partial repayments or they are being wound up'.
The issue here is the mismatch between the nature of the assets owned by the funds and expectations on the part of unit holders, investors in the funds, as to the degree of liquidity they might expect. Mr Medcraft explained that as a result of the global financial crisis ASIC now makes it plain to investors considering mortgage trusts that such funds are not liquid funds in the same way as bank deposits. The committee is of the view generally, and it is certainly my view, that anything that can be done to increase the awareness of investors on this point is a good thing. I think it is also important—and I very much urge ASIC to do this—to maintain a continued level of very close scrutiny on funds managers who have frozen funds. I would be particularly concerned if it were the case that funds managers were continuing to draw their normal healthy commission or management expenses in circumstances where investors were not being provided with the liquidity that they had expected. Let me conclude my comments on that point.
Debate adjourned.
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (17:37): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the ongoing progress of the inquiry of the Corporations and Financial Services Committee into the collapse of Trio and the consequences for investors, as shown in this interim report. The collapse of Trio is a very unhappy story which has left a number of Australians materially worse off. A number of my constituents approached me after having invested substantial amounts of money, typically via self-managed superannuation funds, with Trio Capital and its products, including particularly the ARP growth fund. Trio collapsed in 2009 and investigations began on the part of ASIC, APRA, a liquidator and other players, and it became clear that there was substantial evidence of fraudulent conduct. It appears that over $100 million has been lost by investors in two principal categories: self-managed super funds, as I have mentioned, and also those who have invested via APRA regulated superannuation funds.
Last year then Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten, prior to taking another step on his glittering ascendancy to inevitable total world domination, announced that there would be compensation for those Australians who had lost money as a result of the Trio Capital collapse who had invested in APRA regulated funds. However, this compensation did not extend to people who had invested by means of self-managed superannuation funds. In my view, what has happened here is a real tragedy, as I have argued previously in this place. These are people who have sought to provide for their own retirement. I speak of my constituents who have invested via self-managed superannuation funds and many other investors who have invested in that fashion. They are in the main quite financially sophisticated people. They are people who have accumulated substantial balances designed to provide for them in their retirement. In other words, they have been seeking to take responsibility for their own financial position in retirement. Yet the balances in those funds have been entirely lost. The average balance in the self-managed superannuation fund component of the Trio collapse is some $700,000, so these are very substantial amounts of money that have been lost. It was therefore pleasing to me that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services commenced an inquiry into the collapse of Trio and what we have learned through that inquiry is quite troubling. Trio operated a complicated web of products and funds. It was the trustee for several APRA regulated superannuation funds. It was also the responsible entity for a range of funds and products, including the ARP Growth Fund that I mentioned and the Astarra Strategic Fund. These funds attracted significant investments from typically self-managed superannuation funds.
Now much of this money went offshore and quite a lot of it ended up in jurisdictions like the British Virgin Islands and was last seen having been invested into swap deals with parties like Bear Stearns as the counterparty. None of this is very encouraging news for those who discovered that this is where their money had gone. The root cause of this very unhappy story appears to have been that in approximately in 2005 a well-established funds management business based in Albury was taken over by what now appears to be a criminal organisation. That is a very serious thing to say, but the evidence suggests it is an entirely valid thing to say. One key figure in this saga, Shawn Richard, has already gone to gaol as a result. Other key figures are considered to include a Hong Kong-based former US lawyer, Mr Jack Flader, who has a long-term record of involvement in what are called boiler shops or securities fraud in a number of jurisdictions.
The interim report of this inquiry notes the view of ASIC chair, Mr Greg Medcraft, that a key problem here is gatekeeper failure, that is to say in particular financial advisers who did not identify the risks that their clients faced and other players such as auditors. I do not dismiss that as being at least a partial explanation, although I am not persuaded it is the complete explanation. I have been surprised to find that a common pattern, as I mentioned earlier, was that the entire balance of a client's self-managed superannuation fund, often built up over many years, was put into a product like the ARP Growth Fund and, in turn, went into very risky offshore investments.
I would like to make three observations about the report and the observations that might be drawn at this stage of the inquiry. Firstly, consistent with what I have said before, it appears that a significant element of what occurred here was criminal conduct. It was put to the inquiry by one witness, who appeared on a confidential, in camera basis, that if you were looking for the perfect financial crime, what you might well do was attract money from a range of investors, put it into risky products such as swaps and then say to the investors, 'Look, I'm so sorry. As we all knew this was a risky investment. The risky outcome has occurred and you won't be getting any money back.' That might well be a very effective cover for what is in fact a criminal venture.
I want to record that I am not yet satisfied that that possibility has been adequately explored by ASIC and APRA, nor am I yet satisfied that these regulators have in place, or that there is in our regime, sufficient protection against criminality in the retirement-saving system in Australia—that is to say the threat of Australians retirement savings being misappropriated by criminal elements. Let us not forget that the Australian retirement savings pool at $1.3 trillion, one of the largest such pools in the world, is obviously therefore a very attractive target to those interested engaging in fraudulent conduct. The same witness I mentioned earlier made the point that one of the other reasons why the retirement income system in Australia is very attractive for those wanting to carry out financial fraud is that because the individual member of a fund does not claim on the fund until they reach retirement age, it may well be 10, 20 or 30 years before a fraud or a crime is discovered. The second observation I would like to make is that I am not satisfied that sufficient efforts have been made to pursue Jack Flader, the gentleman who is alleged—I repeat, alleged—to have been a mastermind of this scheme, and who is certainly reported to have been involved in fraud, boiler room operations and the like, in a number of jurisdictions. I have asked questions in the committee process about the options open to Australian regulators to pursue international fraudsters preying upon Australian investors, and I have been given answers in general terms as to the availability of treaties, extradition arrangements and so on. But my own view is that there has not been persuasive evidence provided to the committee that Australian regulatory authorities have pursued Jack Flader with maximum possible vigour with a view to determining whether he is in fact responsible—as the evidence allows an inference to be drawn—for defrauding many thousands of Australians of their retirement savings.
The third observation I would like to make comes back to the point which was made by ASIC Chairman Mr Greg Medcraft about gatekeeper conduct. I want to speak particularly about a gentleman formerly known as Paul Gresham, who has now changed his name to Tony Maher. It might be said that the mere act of changing your name raises a suspicion, but of course there may be a reasonable basis to change your name. What we do know is that Paul Gresham has recently granted to ASIC an enforceable undertaking permanently preventing him from working in the Australian financial services industry. We also know that he was a financial planner who was responsible for putting a number of his clients, including constituents of mine, into the ARP Growth Fund. Certainly ASIC is to be commended for having required him to provide this enforceable undertaking. They note, in their media release announcing it, that Mr Gresham, as he was then known, received undisclosed payments of more than $2 million arising from investments he recommended for ARP and its predecessor called Professional Pensions Pooled Superannuation Trust.
As I have indicated, when you look at the kinds of investments that the contents of these self-managed superannuation funds went into, it is very hard to see how they were appropriate investments or an appropriate mix and spread of investments of different risk classes to provide for the retirement incomes of the members of those self-managed superannuation funds.
I do, however, want to make the observation that it would be, in my view, unsatisfactory if the only sanction that were visited on Mr Maher, formerly Mr Gresham, is that he is prevented in the future from working in the financial services industry. Of course he is entitled, like anybody else, and like anybody I have spoken about today, to the presumption of innocence. But should inquiries find that the actions that ASIC have taken are based on factual circumstances that could be proved to a criminal standard then, in my view, it would be entirely appropriate to pursue action against him, and I would certainly encourage ASIC and other appropriate regulators not to cease their engagement with this matter with the obtaining of an enforceable undertaking.
Debate adjourned.
National Broadband Network Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (17:49): This is the second report on the progress of the National Broadband Network, and it is fair to say that it has not progressed very far. There are 4,000 active customers of the NBN, of which less than half are actually connected to the fibre network, which was, of course, the centrepiece of the whole project. We were advised by the company—and it is reported here in this report back in September—that as at 30 June, the NBN Co. had passed 18,000 premises with its fibre rollout. In January the company published a press release in which it said that as at December 30 it had passed 18,000 premises, which can only lead us to conclude that in the intervening six months between the end of June and the end of December it had passed no additional premises.
The progress seems very slow. That is being too kind—it seems to have been nonexistent. There is also a very unsatisfactory standard of reporting the progress from the company. It treats this committee as though it is an enemy. It treats the committee as though its objective is to avoid giving it any information. It is a matter of immense regret and disappointment to me that here we have a telecommunications company wholly owned by the Australian taxpayer and the largest infrastructure investment in Australia's history, and yet the level of its accountability to the public through the NBN committee in this parliament is much less than the level of accountability of a publicly listed company to its shareholders and, of course by that medium, to the whole of the world. It does seem ironic that the telco which the Commonwealth government no longer owns—Telstra—is more forthcoming, more transparent and more accountable than the telco which it owns 100 per cent and is pouring tens of billions of dollars into.
There are many examples of the unsatisfactory nature of the information that is being provided, and I will not delay the committee with every example, but take the area of greenfields. These are essentially areas of new housing developments as opposed to brownfields areas, which are already built up. On page 17 of this progress report there is a statement referenced from the NBN Co.'s chief executive, Michael Quigley, saying that the company has passed 65,000 lots. Five dot points further down the page there is a reference to the shareholder ministers saying that the NBN Co. has exceeded its expected target with 75,000 lots passed. You would think from those two numbers that the rollout in the greenfields area was going along very well.
However, the department has subsequently had to correct this and said that instead of passing 75,000 lots—and by 'passing', what we mean is that the cable has actually gone down the street and is passing, literally, the premises concerned and is available to be connected, so it is just a question of hooking it up—that these two figures are in fact wrong. They have written to the committee and said that instead of passing 75,000 lots, the real state of progress was that the NBN Co. has:
… received approximately 1700 applications from developers … with 1188 active applications covering—
not passing—
approximately 75 000 lots …
So that means that they have had 1,188 letters from developers saying, 'We'd really like you to come and roll out fibre in my brand new housing development,' and the sum total of all those letters is 75,000 lots. Those are two completely different things. We were given the impression they had actually rolled the fibre past 75,000 lots, but, no, all they have is letters from developers saying, 'Please come and roll fibre out at some point in the future.'
All of this raises more questions than answers. What is the difference between an application and an active application? When are contracts actually signed? How long are people having to wait between putting in an application and signing a contract? How long does it take for the contractors of the NBN to actually turn up to somebody's house to deploy the infrastructure? When you look at the spreadsheets of the forward schedule for the NBN rollout, published on its website, it is hard to know where all these premises are actually coming from. The spreadsheet for the greenfields rollout, under the heading 'expected date of ready for service', shows 2,000 premises for before June 2012—in other words, passing just over 330 premises a month. The idea that the NBN is rolling out to thousands of greenfields premises a week is clearly delusional.
When you speak to people living in greenfields estates, to developers or to the private sector greenfield broadband operators, such as OptiComm, Pivot and so forth, the story is very different. Rod Binedell, a developer in the town of Beveridge, north of Melbourne, recently told the Herald Sun that he could not afford to wait for the government to deliver fibre to the premises, so he hired an existing fibre company—OptiComm—to deliver it at his own expense. Phil Smith from OptiComm told that newspaper:
There is a lot of frustration out there about NBN's responsiveness and delivery to new estates.
I think my friend the member for Chifley has complained about this himself—it shows how unsatisfactory it is when the NBN is being complained about by Labor members.
We need to remember that NBN Co. had to pass off to Telstra all greenfields estates under 100 premises, which accounts for the majority of such estates. That was done solely because NBN Co. was chronically unable to meet orders in the greenfields market. Because of the anticompetitive nature of the NBN—its monopoly over fibre rollouts—Telstra is unable to deploy fibre, so in many such cases it is deploying copper networks. It is a very disappointing situation and, as I say, we have very inadequate levels of information. We moved some amendments—regrettably they were not acceptable to the Independents and the Labor Party—which would have made a big difference here. Our amendments would have ensured that the private sector broadband companies—OptiComm and others—would have stayed in business and that a developer would have been able, if he or she chose, to appoint a private sector company to do the rollout and then that company would have been remunerated by NBN Co. at an agreed tariff per household. The work could thus have been done at a time and in a manner convenient to the developer. These amendments were rejected.
NBN Co. is increasingly looking like a very big, nasty monopolist. You see this in their interaction with the ACCC. The SAU, which is the instrument which should govern the manner in which NBN Co. deals with its customers, has not yet been determined by the ACCC. NBN Co. decided that it was going to get its customers to sign up to wholesale broadband agreements one at a time—to pick them off one by one. It decided to do so because the wholesale broadband agreements trump any instruments approved by the ACCC and therefore would effectively put NBN Co.'s dealings with its customers outside the jurisdiction of the ACCC. To their great credit, the ACCC arced up about that and was able to put a lot of pressure on the NBN Co., supported by the industry and indeed by the coalition. As a consequence, the wholesale broadband agreements that the NBN Co. is getting signed have a life of only one year, which should give enough time for the structural access undertaking to be considered and approved by the ACCC. At every step this company is acting in a way that is monopolistic. It has the arrogance and the muscle of knowing that it has a government and for the time being a parliament that is prepared to give it the power and the means to exert its influence over the industry.
One of the issues that has been a matter of controversy in some sections is the question of whether the NBN Co. is going to make broadband prices cheaper or dearer. I have made the point that the NBN Co. inevitably will result in access prices being dearer than they otherwise would be and some people have criticised me for saying that. I just want to say to the House that we really do need to get real about this issue of the economics of the NBN. We are all in violent agreement about the need for all Australians to have access to very fast broadband on an affordable basis. We all agree about that. The debate about the NBN is not about the joys of broadband; the debate about the NBN is about whether the approach the government is taking is the most cost effective, the most timely and delivers the best value both to the taxpayer and the consumer. That is the sum total of the debate. Our objection is that because they did not do their homework and because they have not done the cost-benefit analysis, whether it is buying the satellites as announced today or the fibre-to-the-home rollout, they are not in a position to say this is the most cost effective way of delivering the outcome upon which we are all agreed.
In terms of cost to the consumer we really do need to get real. When you are committing tens of billions of dollars to replacing the entire existing infrastructure of a vital industry, you cannot be sentimental or self-deluding. There are no fairies at the bottom of the NBN garden that can suspend the laws of economics. By any measure, this is a massive investment. The government says the direct capital cost will be $37 billion and its peak funding will be $41 billion. Most industry experts expect the eventual cost to be significantly higher. Some estimates exceed $60 billion. Let's face it: what was the last big government infrastructure project finished on time and on budget? Telstra are rolling out a fibre-to-the-premises network in South Brisbane. They are actually doing it and their experience is that it is taking longer and costing more than they had anticipated. So there is every reason for this project to become even more expensive.
The simple fact of life is that if you overcapitalise your business in a competitive world—let's say it is a restaurant and you go mad and put in a really flash fit-out—you will not be able to charge prices for meals that you are selling to your customers sufficient to get you a return on that investment if your competition, being better managed, is charging less. You have to meet the market. You might just have to write down your investment. Your banker might have to do some of his dough. The shareholders might do their dough. If you are a monopoly you are not so constrained. The difficulty that we have got with the NBN is that we know it is massively overcapitalised. They say we are only going to seek to get a seven per cent return on the capital investment. But that is no comfort because if the capital investment is two, three or four times more than was needed, that is still going to be an enormously high price. We must not forget—and Rod Sims has made this point many times, as have others—that one of the reasons why we have seen this massive increase in electricity prices, particularly in my state of New South Wales, is what has arguably been an overinvestment in infrastructure by the electricity companies, a gold plating partly driven by the companies and partly driven by regulation, upon which capital investment they are entitled to a regulated return. We cannot suspend the laws of economics. The NBN Co.—overcapitalised, monopolistic—is a bad deal for taxpayers and a very bad deal for consumers.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (18:04): It gives me great pleasure to speak on the second report of the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network. The report reviews the rollout of the National Broadband Network, the largest infrastructure project this country has seen, and details some of the milestones reached in the early days of this project. I also recommend that people read the contribution of the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in his National Press Club speech in December, in which he outlined some of the things that have been occurring in a short space of time for a project as big as this and what has been achieved.
In 2011 there was great progress, which is also documented in the report—eight first release sites; 18,000 premises initially passed with 3,000 customers connected; the signing of big construction contracts and other associated contracts; the use of Fujitsu in new developments; a major contract signed with Silcar to assist with the construction; the use of Ericsson for wireless deployment; the involvement of Optus and IPSTAR in satellite and interim satellite services; and the outlining by the NBN Co. that over the next 12 months it will run past 485,000 premises.
With this work comes a flow-on effect. For example, $3.5 billion of NBN Co.'s procurement will be spent locally, with local firms benefiting from the investment being made through the NBN. But it is the jobs component, the employment impact, the massive shot in the arm for local skills and for Australians to be engaged on a project of this magnitude to build up skills in this massive nation-building project that we are committing ourselves to. In one major project we will upgrade the technological infrastructure of this nation, which will require a lot of people to be involved. In actual fact, given it is a significant national project, 18,000 jobs will be directly created as a result of the project—up to 23,000 if you include the indirect benefits. That is a major shot in the arm for local skills. We are going to need that number of people because when the project hits full speed it will be running past 6,000 homes a day.
Jobs, employment, training, skills—these are areas within this committee, which I am very honoured to be sitting on, that I have a deep interest in and that I have raised with the chair, the member for Lyne. We should look at maximising input from people on this project and should also recognise that this will fundamentally reshape the sector because we had a dominant vertically integrated player, which will be structurally separated. In my former role I represented employees within Telstra—and I am joined here by the member for Throsby, who also took as a badge of honour a role representing the needs of people employed by Telstra and in the sector. Maintaining jobs is certainly a big focus for us both, and I bring that focus and that commitment to my role as a member of this committee.
It does cause me a great deal of concern to know that under the deals with Telstra we have been able to establish a $100 million workforce retraining package. That is outlined on page 49 of the report, where we spell out that under the Telstra agreement the government will provide assistance to Telstra to help it retrain and redeploy staff who are affected by reforms to the structure of the telecommunications industry. The Retraining Funding Deed sets out those terms. It will conclude on 20 June 2019 and it will require Telstra to give priority to retraining staff who currently work on the copper and HUFF networks, including the wholesale copper work force and the direct field support workforce. I have been concerned because I have met with people who are looking at the prospect of jobs in Telstra being offshored. I have been concerned that jobs will be lost now, that people will not be given the opportunity to be retrained to ensure that their skills are kept and that in actual fact jobs will be offshored. There have been a number of articles in the press recently. I refer, for example, to an Australian Financial Review article of 7 December titled 'Telstra: 280 jobs to go overseas', which referred to the offshoring of 280 jobs from a key growth area in Telstra. Telstra is claiming that the move will help it achieve its growth targets and shift its focus to higher value areas. Yet they are being granted $100 million to retrain staff. I do not see evidence that they are applying that in a meaningful way. Further, a few days ago the Australian noted that Telstra had briefed staff that it planned to move an additional 73 jobs offshore and a further 26 jobs were to be made redundant. Again, this is of great concern to me because I think we should be working to bring people that are affected over. Telstra has a responsibility to ensure that those skills are maintained in the industry into the years ahead.
As I said, this is one of the areas that I am interested in pursuing. The chair of the committee has indicated that this will be an area of work we will be investigating—for example, the Telstra submission of its plan on how it will be retraining its employees. Telstra will be working with the department in basically submitting that plan, the budgets attached to that plan and, importantly, the training targets that will be committed to within it. It will need to provide six-monthly reports to the government on the progress against these plans and it has got to consult with stakeholders on how it intends to use the funds and deliver the training courses.
Within the sector itself—and again the report touches on this—there is a need for education and upskilling. ICT professionals will need to be able to undertake the development and implementation of applications within Australia that will flow as the NBN rolls out. If people turn to pages 100 through to 102 of the report they will see that while some universities had huge intakes of ICT students in Australia, Monash University has halved the size of its ICT department from three years ago. Only two Australian universities are now providing specific ICT e-health development programs. This is leading to concerns that there will be insufficient graduates to be able to meet the market's needs. ICT places have declined in South Australia by 50 per cent and in Western Australia by 38 per cent. There is a need for the industry to tackle this because we do face a situation where skill shortages may hold back the development of the sector.
I have previously spoken in the House of the value of the internet to Australia as documented by Google. It engaged Deloitte and Access Economics, which put a value of $50 billion in terms of GDP value on having access to high-speed broadband. If we provide the network and the platform through the NBN, clearly we need to have the skills around to be able to capitalise on it.
There is another group that I am concerned about as we transition to a broadband network that is faster and as people become adept at adopting technology in their daily lives. I have spoken on this in the House in reference to the House of Representatives Infrastructure and Communications Committee inquiry report, Broadening the debate on the NBN. It detailed, for example, that as countries improve their internet access and where people and businesses transition more of their functions online you may have a decline in postal services because people do not feel like they need to send letters anymore. We have seen a contraction in letter volumes. That has an impact, particularly in regional areas, in the employment of people within Australia Post. There will be more homes in Australia—more delivery points—but less mail. It is a formula that will have an impact on Australia Post. I have spoken previously about the need for the government to develop a long-term strategy to upskill people within Australia Post as letter volumes contract but at the same time parcel volumes increase because people are using the internet for retail purchasing and are needing home delivery. Australia Post needs to be filling the void there. There is a need to be able to change the skills mix within Australia Post. While Australia Post has embarked on a process of restructuring and has committed $20 million over three years to prepare its 40,000 employees for this change, structural assistance certainly is an area that needs to be examined. The member for Wentworth in his contribution yet again put out a number of myths, such as that we do not need the NBN. I have heard the member for Wentworth comment a number of times that we do not need the NBN. Apparently coalition policy is basically balanced on the member for Wentworth's iPad. He often refers to the fact that he uses his iPad and that he gets wireless access and that we do not need the download speeds that are demanded, as he would put it, by the NBN, even though, as documented in this report, the growth in data demand has been phenomenal. Between 25 and 35 per cent per annum growth in download speed has been required over the last two decades. No-one is calling for us to go back to dial-up. The demand is there just as much for upload, for example, to be able to do high-definition videoconferencing; we need to have a network that can do that. What those opposite are proposing is a patchwork approach where we do not have uniform speeds and where we do not have a uniform approach, where we rely on, for example, wireless, which in low-density areas works great but which in high-density urban areas fails to keep track with what people want.
We also have this claim that technology itself will make the NBN redundant. Those opposite point out that wireless or HFC is the way to go. As I said a few moments ago, there are major shortcomings with a reliance on HFC. In some cases it is completely overwhelmed by volume demands in certain areas. The committee report documents that there has been a huge growth in fixed line broadband and that there is a shift in demand for wireless. Mike Quigley, who gave evidence before the committee, said:
When looking at total worldwide broadband data downloads they expect the amount of traffic on mobile broadband to be one half of one per cent of fixed line network traffic by 2016 ...
That was from a conversation that he had had with people from Ericsson. Further:
We expect the number of devices to go up, but the heavy lifting of applications other than voice is going to be done on fibrebased networks.
So we are not ruling out the use of wireless; there will be a complementary mix of services, but this idea that we can just rely on wireless is simply selling short the notion of what is required of a network of this magnitude.
It has been repeated today that this is going to cost too much. The member for Wentworth, Mr Turnbull, claimed today that the cost of broadband will go up. Mr Turnbull has said that the NBN will increase retail prices. In fact, an economist used by Mr Turnbull, Henry Ergas, claimed a couple of years ago that the NBN would cost users more than $200 a month. The reality is completely different. The fact is that retail pricing over the NBN today is broadly in line with, and in many cases cheaper than, current ADSL. For example, NBN packages will start from $34.50 per month. For $37.50 per month you can get a 25-down five-up service, which is superior to anything available over copper. The independent consumer website, WhistleOut, has said that the entry level NBN prices were between 23 and 43 per cent lower than comparable ADSL2 plans. So this bogey campaign that says that the NBN will cost too much is, in actual fact, not supported by reality. The member for Wentworth said that he believed the report raises more questions than answers. The main question we need answered by the opposition is: are they able to put a credible alternative forward that demonstrates that they can do what the public wants?
And what the public wants is documented in those statistics I mentioned earlier: a 25 to 35 per cent increase per annum in demand for data that cannot be delivered under what had previously been supported by the coalition. There were 19 failed plans—they knew there must have been something that was required—so they have tried 19 times to bring in faster broadband service to Australians but have been unable to do so. The answers required are from them not from this report.
Mr SECKER (Barker—Opposition Whip) (18:20): Again we hear the fallacy from the now government—we used to hear it when they were in opposition—that when we were in government we had 19 failed plans. The fact is: technology is a changing beast and, whenever there was an upgrade, of course we upgraded our plans; we changed the plans. And I very well remember, back in 2007, this government, when they were in opposition, promising 99 per cent coverage for $4.7 billion. We said that was not possible. We knew it was not possible. But they said, 'Oh yes, we're going to achieve it all for $4.7 billion.' Well, we are about nine times that now, and my guess is that this is going to increase a lot more. That is an educated guess, from experience in dealing with Labor governments in the past; they always blow out, just like their budgets. Even if we accept the figures of the Labor government, it is still going to cost $2,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia.
I noted that the member for Chifley in his contribution talked a lot about the jobs and skills being created locally. That certainly does not show up in the national employment figures because in 2011, for the first time in 20 years, we had no jobs growth. And, as nothing has actually happened in Barker—an electorate which is bigger than Tasmania—there are no jobs at all.
He also referred to the download base increasing by 25 to 35 per cent. That may be the case. But guess how it is mostly being achieved now. It is through wireless. If you go to anyone in this parliament, just about everyone has an iPad and a phone. And guess where they get their downloads from: from wireless—not from the NBN program. In fact, people are choosing, five to one, wireless, and it is not because of cost; it is actually because of convenience and flexibility. You do not have to be plugged into a certain spot. You can go wherever you like, provided there is coverage.
I remember—and I am sure the member for Mallee would remember—that we actually had a program; we had signed contracts, which this government, when they came in, welshed on. And that was a contract with OPEL which was actually going to cover 98 per cent with superfast broadband.
So for that reason I stand here this evening to speak on the review of the rollout of the National Broadband Network. And, given the discussion this evening surrounding the progress of the NBN, I thought it would be fitting to give the House an update on the NBN's progress in my electorate of Barker. The rollout is way behind schedule. In the second half of 2011, the NBN's fibre network was not extended to a single household—not one single household. In fact, only 4,000 households across Australia have received broadband over the NBN. And, sadly for the people of Barker, there is no progress at all in the seat of Barker. A look at the rollout map on the NBN Co website shows there are no services currently available, no construction underway, and no sites earmarked for construction in the next 12 months. So every constituent in my seat—in fact it is more than constituents; every man, woman and child is paying $2,000 for nothing. So, after four years in office, this government's record on broadband is certainly disastrous not only for my seat of Barker but also for Australia. It is a huge cost that just does not bear any cost-benefit analysis.
The rollout is behind schedule, we all know that. There has been a whole swag of rorting, overspending and misconceptions by the Gillard government. On 1 November last year, I told the House about rorting occurring in the Barossa region of Barker. Barossa couple, Denise and Richard Mahlo, were asked by an affiliate of housing developer Hickinbottom to pay $995 for wiring to ensure that their new home would be NBN compatible. The Mahlos were told that if they did not pay the $995 they would have to sign a disclaimer warning of long-term consequences. A spokesperson from NBN Co. confirmed to the Australian newspaper:
... the Nuriootpa estate was 'not an NBN development', meaning 'we are not installing nor have been asked to install the fibre there'…
Yet the rort of trying to get $995 out of the Mahlos was happening. I called on the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, to come clean about the hidden costs and rorting within the NBN. It is staggering to think that the NBN is now forecast to cost at least $50 billion. As I said earlier, that is 10 times the original budget that the Labor Party went to the 2010 election with. No other country is spending as much public money on broadband. Even their saint, Obama, the one they think is so fantastic, is going with wireless. He is not talking about this NBN suggestion.
In January of this year, Mr Deputy Speaker Symon—and may I congratulate you on your elevation to the position; I am not sure whether he heard that but I am sure if he reads the Hansardhe will know—I wrote in the Border Watchnewspaper, which is a large country newspaper in Mount Gambier, about the super-spending sprees of NBN Co. I was truly astonished to find out that the NBN Co had spent a whopping $108,000 on the launch party in South Australia. It is hard to imagine what one would spend $108,000 on just for one launch party. But it was not only the South Australian launch that racked up the NBN credit card bill. Launch parties were held around the country for similar gobsmacking amounts—reportedly, $138,000 was spent in the electorate of the Independent Tony Windsor and $90,000 in Townsville. The list goes on, with disgusting amounts of money being spent on these launches. This comes after Senate estimates hearings revealed that 27 people were employed just in public relations at NBN Co. So between 27 public relations people they cannot plan cost-effective launch parties around Australia. That is truly astonishing. If we as politicians did that and used taxpayers' money, I think we would be rightly on the front page for weeks on end.
On top of that, more than $800,000 was paid to the company Weber Shandwick for a six-month contract to develop and implement a communications strategy. Oh, we have to have that communications strategy! It was also revealed that 144 of the NBN staff have a corporate credit card. Well, we all know what credit cards can do. The whole program is just out of control. I question what exactly NBN is doing with the 1,000 staff. That sure is a lot of people to run a program that is hardly off the ground.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr SECKER: What is it? Four thousand people, so that is actually four connections for every person that works; that is not a good return. What is important tonight to my constituents is that the NBN will not be completed until at least the early 2020s. Technology will have made some amazing advances in that period. I would suspect, and I have been informed on very good authority, that we will actually be getting very high speed even through wireless. We have seen that in the last 12 months. Some areas with poor services will be waiting over a decade for a solution and they are not guaranteed that solution.
I point this out because currently there are no plans even in the next 12 months to roll out Labor's so-called superfast broadband in Barker. There are areas in Barker, being a country electorate, with some very rural parts. They have battled with telecommunication issues for some time. Originally it was phones, then it was faxes. Now they are having real problems and they are getting left behind. I have constituents who hear about this so-called superfast NBN and they quite rightly want to know when they will have that service at their door. The very simple answer is: not for a long time ever in the seat of Barker.
Ms O'Neill interjecting—
Mr SECKER: It is a pity that the member could not be a bit more humorous; it was not very funny. In many regional areas and parts of our major cities the quality of broadband is poor. Performance and reliability do not meet the basic needs of most residential and business users. But with our plan it would have been already in place and the rural areas would have already been serviced. Broadband should cost the same in regional and remote areas as in the city, but this government wants to hide the cost of it all. The coalition wants to prioritise broadband black spots in both metropolitan and regional areas in allocating that funding. We have had success with that in the past. Broadband must first be improved in areas where this is most urgently needed, not where it suits NBN Co to roll out its network or to make a certain Independent happy. The coalition would provide subsidies to ensure high-quality services are extended to parts of regional Australia where they would otherwise be uncommercial.
I want to call on the minister once again to provide answers to the people of Barker. Can the minister please tell people living in Angaston, Barmera, Berri, Bordertown, Kapunda, Keith, Kingston, Loxton, Lyndoch, Mannum, and the list goes on, when construction will start on the optical fibre service they have been promised on the NBN Co website? Then can the minister please let the people of Beachport, Kalangadoo, Mount Burr, Nangwarry, Port MacDonnell, Tantanoola and Tarpeena why they are missing out on the same services as those in towns situated just 20 kilometres away? The minister should tell the people how much they will have to pay on top of the $50 billion taxpayers are already paying to have internet access and what standard internet that will be.
Finally, I would like to point out that there are 94 places in my electorate that carry a postcode and have some sort of concentration of people living there. Yet on the NBN Co website only 29 of those 94 areas have been noted. What about the other 65? What can the minister tell the people living at Glencoe, Cape Jaffa, or even Coonalpyn, on the busiest road in South Australia, on the Dukes Highway, the main road from Adelaide to Melbourne? What can he tell those people? What costs will these people have to pay and what service will they be paying $50 billion for?
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (18:34): In response to a couple of the questions that the member for Barker raised at the end, I understand the continuing cynical and negative tone that we are used to in the chamber day after day. I accept as a burden of being in this place the constant carping and negativity. But what I am finding really difficult to understand in the argument that is being put are declarations of: 'We don't want it, it's going to be no good, but when is it coming to my towns?' That sort of hypocrisy says, 'We want it, we don't want it. We wanted it yesterday, we don't want it tomorrow.' That is all we can expect and it reflects the confusion we have seen from the opposition front bench on a whole lot of economic matters this week in the House as well. I am absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to speak this evening on this new review of the rollout. I am not a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, but I did sit in on the last hearing that the committee held. I was very impressed with the quality of the responses to some really great questions. I am pleased to see this is massive, visionary, Labor-led investment in our country. Through this committee there is a requirement that the NBN rollout is discussed and reported on every six months. Critically, the terms of reference for this committee require that the committee report on the rollout of the NBN in connecting 93 per cent of Australian homes, schools and businesses to fibre-to-the-premises technology, with a minimum coverage obligation of 90 per cent of Australian premises, and on the objective of servicing all remaining premises. I am pleased to see that these matters have been included in the report. I am certainly pleased to acknowledge my admiration for the work of the committee and I applaud their efforts thus far.
As the Treasurer said in question time today, this is an issue that really goes to the heart of the difference between those opposite, who would still have us in horses and carriages, and those on this side, who wish to take advantage of the new technologies that allow us to change how we live. We on this side understand the imperative of giving our nation—our students, our teachers, our health workers and our businesses—the opportunity to have the new technologies that will connect them to the world.
I particularly want to talk about jobs. We see in this report that, as at 30 June 2011, when a submission was provided to the committee, 1,000 employees in locations across the whole of the country were engaged in the NBN Co. We are talking about a technology that will grow jobs in a range of businesses, but it is certainly growing jobs right now for people who want to be part of building this dream, this dream that will enable Australians to do the things that we cannot even imagine yet are possible. Australians have been innovative forever. They will take and embrace this technology and they will take us to great places. I suspect that when we look back in 50 years from now people will recall and speak about their part in the rollout of the NBN as we hear people speak about their part in the building of the Snowy Mountains scheme. This is another visionary project that helps Australians form a sense of identity. We have the capacity to envision, to make great big projects fit this great big country of ours and to give us a great big opportunity right there ahead of us.
These are things that define the Labor Party. We believe in Australians, we believe in their capacity and we believe that if we give them the right tools they will be able to make a really good go of it. The reality is that business understands this. Those on the other side constantly carp about how they represent business. We know the sorts of businesses they represent—those like Gina Rinehart's, which are going to benefit from the sorts of policies that these guys would like to implement through the minerals resource rent tax, taking money away from ordinary families. Small businesses, however, seem to be beneath their gaze. Businesses in my area have totally got on board with this and they understand it. The fact is that the internet contributed to 3.6 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product in 2010. That is the same as Australia's iron ore exports.
We cannot ignore this area. It requires our investment. It requires a vision for the future, not a backward-looking, carping, cynical, negative view about things that cannot be done. The Australian internet economy is likely to grow by $20 billion over the next five years to roughly $70 billion. That is twice as fast as the rest of the economy. We need to provide the capacity for that to happen. By 2016 the growth of the internet in Australia will see approximately 80,000 people employed in areas directly related to the internet.
I have seen the Nationals sit over there and profusely claim that they are representing Australian farmers; but Australian farmers need the internet. Aussie Farmers Direct now generates over $100 million per annum through selling fresh food online. AuctionsPlus sold 2.2 million sheep via an online auction process to farmers at home and overseas in 2010. This is the technology that, for the first time in our history, connects the bush with not just the cities but the rest of the world. That is what we are going to offer. This review shows that, through the processes of the initial careful rollout and the learning experiences that have been acquired by NBN Co., the next phase of rollouts is well prepared, well organised and well able to become part of our community's celebration of our movement into the 21st century.
There were a number of comments on education in the report, and that is an issue very close to my heart. I will indicate some of the things that are happening. One of the first events that happened when the Armidale site was switched on was an opportunity for high school choirs in Tasmania and Armidale to be able to sing together and interact. It was a poetic way to say that Australians can sing with one voice wherever they are. We can make a harmonious sound, leading into the future and combining all of us together as one. What we would have if those opposite had their way is a few people singing somewhere and the rest of them silenced. They cannot participate.
Avoca Beach and East Gosford have two of my local schools. In some parts of my electorate, people are able to communicate at nearly this kind of speed. There is the opportunity for them to have conversations with kids at a special school at East Gosford and teach kids at Avoca Beach how to sign the national anthem. This is a wonderful opportunity for us to build connections across communities and across the physical divides that we are so aware of here in Australia.
In terms of health, one of the good things that has been undertaken in the first part of the rollout is a couple of trial programs determined to see how we might be able to work in the health area. In Townsville in particular, some of the trials regarded diabetes and government e-health services; in Armidale it was chronic disease care; in Kiama it was mental health; and in Brunswick it was aged care and in-home monitoring and care. This preparation of the practical applications and the practical plug-ins to people's ordinary lives is well reported in this document. It indicates that this is not about a technology that is awaiting people who want to use it. There are people who are waiting to use it. There are people who are determined to use it. There are people who are desperate to use it and keen to get their share. The member for Barker was just talking about all of the towns that he wants this to come to. I am not surprised he wants to know when it is coming to those towns, because everyone in my region also wants to know when they are going to get a share of being able to have an e-health consultation, run their business from home at a decent speed and participate in the global economy.
In my area one of the very important local magazines that helps our business community keep abreast of what is going on is the Central Coast Business Review, run by a gentleman called Edgar Adams. He is a very independently minded man, but he certainly understands the capacity of the National Broadband Network to transform our local economy. For the first time in Gosford, where we have a population of 300,000 if we blend in with Tuggerah—that is, the Central Coast region—we have a structural advantage over Newcastle and Sydney in terms of being able to offer businesses an internet speed that makes them competitive with the rest of the world.
Our arguments for trying to get into the rollout—and we have been successful in achieving that—were that people at home told us that they see a very attractive return on investment for NBN Co.; there is huge local and community business support; our commuters want this because they see it as an opportunity to reduce unnecessary travel; and telecommuting from Gosford to Sydney would mean that the lives of families—where mum and dad have to get up at 20 past five, get the kids into child care at 6.30 and get on a train to get to Sydney—can be transformed by the capacity to work from home or work at a site on the coast much closer to home. The flow-on in terms of community outcomes should not be understated. There are little kids' teams, where dads and mums want to help with soccer, football, netball and swimming. Those sorts of opportunities to participate in community are made possible by having the time to participate. At the moment, the tyranny of distance from Sydney for high-quality, high-paid jobs, even at the distance of just 1½ hours, has a powerful impact in our community that can be overcome by this new technology. One of the great people on the coast who went on the record about this is an international telecommunications consultant called Paul Budde. This is his estimation of exactly what this rollout will bring in to our region—and to any region. He said:
The region will profit significantly from this early participation as it has a large commuting population, and having access to high-speed broadband infrastructure will be an enormous boost to e-commerce and teleworking applications. It will be around the NBN that new companies—and indeed new industries—will be born and the Central Coast is now well-positioned to take a leadership role in this development.
What does it mean for the Central Coast?
It means the same thing for us as it means for all those towns across the country that are waiting for access. It means that we are going to 'be seen as an ideal environment with world class infrastructure and this will attract inward investment from corporations'. He went on to say that with world-class facilities we will be able to have innovative business models that currently cannot operate in our area. It will provide wonderful training opportunities for our young locals. It will prepare them to be part of pulling the cable through and getting that infrastructure in the ground. That will enable the kids to get skills, get wages and start believing in a future. That is what the NBN physical infrastructure will offer to many young people in my area. We will also be able to deliver online training and education through this technology, which will transform our access to a range of courses that are simply inaccessible to people who are living on the Central Coast.
Before I close, I would like to speak about the big difference between our vision of access for all Australians—a fairer Australia—and that of those opposite. Access for all is something that we will deliver with the National Broadband Network. That is referred to in the document that I have. We need to make sure that the whole nation moves forward together in a strategic way over a reasonable period of time, and that is certainly at the heart of today's report. On access for regional and remote communities, we cannot go past the announcement today by the minister for communications and the Prime Minister about the satellite that will be put up to make sure that those in the regions and in the most remote areas of the country will have access to this new technology.
There is a critical piece of information that I want to put on the record that disputes some of the things that were put by the member for Barker. One of the things that he argued is that it is the demand for wireless that is increasing. They keep on with this argument that wireless will provide what we need. The reality is that, according to figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the number of mobile broadband subscribers in Australia is continuing to climb. But the number of fixed broadband subscribers is also increasing, although at a slower rate. The average rate of downloads per month in gigabytes has doubled in the last 12 months for fixed line networks whereas the mobile network average download for a broadband subscriber has dropped by 20 per cent. We know that this is because a stable fibre-to-the-home network option is much more reliable. It is faster and more stable. It is like a kind of basic road service; it is like having asphalt to your door instead of a road with a bit of gravel. There is a big difference.
We cannot afford to hamper the efforts of Australians in all fields of endeavour and in all fields of business by not allowing them to have the visionary technology of the future. That technology will power the economy of the future. Those opposite offer the past and no future.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (18:49): Following on from that remarkable collection of Panglossian non sequiturs from the member for Robertson, I would like to return the debate to the issue at hand, which is the oversight of the rollout of the National Broadband Network by the committee. What do we know about how the rollout is going and how satisfactory is the committee process?
I would like to make three points in the brief time available to me. First, the committee is being provided with inadequate information and much less than would be required by a private sector investor in similar circumstances. Second, on any view the NBN Co. rollout is going extremely badly. There is no other way to put it. This rollout is hugely behind plan and the signs for investors, and that means all of us because we are all compulsory investors in this project, are flashing red for danger. Thirdly, the indicators of the commercial risk the NBN will face in terms of getting the required amount of traffic onto the network are also increasing at a steady rate.
Let me turn first to the question of inadequate information. This committee is supposed to be overseeing what we are repeatedly told is the largest infrastructure investment ever made in Australia. Unfortunately the amount of information we are provided is extremely limited. The attitude of both the department and NBN Co. has been disappointing. It has often taken a long time to get answers to questions on notice and there is often a reluctance to engage with the real issues. We have had a to-and-fro process regarding what are described as key performance indicators. By any ordinary private sector standard as to the kind of key performance indicators you would expect from a company like NBN Co. what has been provided to the committee is hopelessly unsatisfactory.
I can state with some confidence, having spent many years on the senior leadership team of a large telco, that NBN for its own internal purposes and for board purposes will be monitoring on a very close basis—very likely daily, certainly weekly or at the very least monthly—such metrics as: the kilometres of new fibre installed; the number of homes passed; the number of new connections; the number of cancellations; churn; average revenue per user, one of the most closely watched metrics in the telecommunications industry; customer acquisition costs; and customer service metrics such as call answer rates and abandonment rates in the call centres. These metrics will be reported on a budget, actual and forecast basis. That is how things are done in managing large companies like NBN Co. and existing telcos in Australia like Telstra, Optus and Vodafone. I am very confident that reports of this nature are going to the board and management of NBN Co. on an extremely regular basis, but very little of this information comes to the committee. Instead we are repeatedly exposed to this charade where we ask for information, there is a lengthy and elaborate dance of the seven veils before a tiny bit of information is dropped before us.
Let me make a simple plea to the department and to the management of NBN Co. to give us just this simple thing: a consistent report every six months just in respect of the fibre network, not the wireless or the satellite network. NBN Co. has a bad record of trying to confuse the position by quoting fibre and satellite numbers together. I would like NBN Co. to be able to provide a report to the committee which addresses the following three metrics on the fibre network: first, the number of homes passed by the network; second, the number of homes connected to the network; and, third, the number of services in operation—three core metrics that NBN Co. I am certain will be tracking very closely and almost certainly on a daily basis.
It is very hard not be highly suspicious when in its public statements NBN Co. flits between these different metrics which mean very different things. As I have already mentioned, it is highly misleading of NBN Co. to report conflated together satellite numbers and fibre numbers when at the moment the fibre services are being provided over the network NBN is building but the satellite services are being provided over a satellite operated by another operator under a contract with NBN Co. I do not criticise that arrangement by the way. I think it is vastly more sensible than the extraordinary decision announced today for NBN Co. to own and operate its own two satellites, but that is another matter. I would also like to add to my simple request that NBN Co. report those metrics on a basis where they compare what is in the business plan with what the actual number is. I do also make the point that they could quite easily produce it with far greater frequency than six monthly, but let me start with that basic and simple request and see whether it is responded to or, as I rather gloomily expect, whether it will be ignored. In sum, on the first point, as a mechanism for scrutiny and oversight this committee is not working well at all.
On the second point, what can we glean from the scraps and fragments of information which NBN Co. deigns to share with the national parliament, the people's parliament, charged with overseeing this massive project, this massive piece of public expenditure? What can we glean from the information that has been provided? The answer is simple: this rollout is going very badly. If this were a private sector organisation conducting this rollout, I put it to you that the management team probably would not be retaining their jobs at this point.
In June 2011, according to the business plan, there were supposed to be 58,000 premises passed by the fibre network. By June 2012, according to the business plan, there are supposed to be 259,000 premises passed by the fibre network. On a straight line interpolation that would mean that, as at December 2011, we should be at around 160,000 premises passed. We are nowhere near that number. In late October, NBN Co. disclosed that it had passed 18,200 premises in the three Tasmanian and the five national first-release sites. The information I have received from sources within the telecommunications industry is that the rollout is proceeding very slowly indeed and, although NBN Co. announced last year with great fanfare a number of contractors to build the network in a range of different states, very little is actually flowing to those contractors. Very concerningly, if the NBN Co. business plan is to be achieved, as the committee's report notes, it is supposed to scale up to reach the performance level where it passes 6,000 premises a day. There is very little in its performance to date to give any confidence that it is going to achieve that objective.
The Labor government's policy on NBN was announced almost three years ago, and what has been achieved to date is quite underwhelming. They have received $1.3 billion of equity from taxpayers and have so far racked up accumulated losses of $400 million, and the build is, as I have indicated, very substantially behind plan. I would draw one recent comparison with the outcome achieved by a private sector company. Several years ago, Telstra set out to build its Next G network, its new 3G network, nationally within a 12-month period. That was achieved. It was quite a significant and in fact quite impressive engineering outcome and a good indicator of the benchmark NBN Co. ought to be aiming for. They are a very long way behind it.
I have talked about homes past. A very different metric is services in operation—that is to say, the number of premises taking a service and generating revenue. By June 2011, according to the business plan, we were supposed to be at 35,000. By June 2012, it was going to be 102,000 fibre services in operation. Again using straight line interpolation, NBN Co. was accordingly planning to be at around 70,000 fibre services in operation in December 2011. In January 2012, NBN Co. proudly reported it had 2,315 customers using the fibre network. That is why I say that, on any objective measure, this rollout is going very badly indeed. If you were a private sector equity investor in this project, right now you would be hitting the brakes and going for a complete restructure.
The third point I want to make in the brief time available to me is that while on the one hand the build is going very badly, on the other hand the drumbeat which indicates the scale of the commercial risk inherent in this project is gathering more and more every day. This business plan depends upon almost all Australian households taking up a service on the NBN. It also depends on customers moving up to higher tier, more expensive plans in very large numbers—in other words, taking more data and paying more. If those two things do not happen, the business plan will be spectacularly missed.
Why should Australian citizens care? They should care first of all because all of us are compulsory investors in this project, and the massive financial mess that is being created here will have to be cleaned up at the taxpayers' expense. Secondly, if you have a project which turns out to be a yawning financial disaster—and all the indicators are that within a few years that conclusion will be unavoidable—it is very hard to see how the build is ever going to be completed or indeed progress substantially.
Let me offer a couple of pieces of evidence as to why I say that the indicators of commercial risk are growing substantially. I fear that I cannot match the member for Robertson's Panglossian optimism, but I do have a bit of evidence, which is something she did not seem to burden herself with in her remarks. First of all, let me point to a report from the communications regulator in the UK, Ofcom, which in August 2011 reported that 57 per cent of homes were able to receive what were defined as superfast broadband services—in the UK the definition of that is 24 megabits per second. They were able to receive those services from two major operators: British Telecom, using the copper network, upgraded in many places to fibre to the node and over time with some fibre to the premises; and Virgin Cable, which offers services over the cable network with technology very similar to the cable networks of Telstra and Optus. The Telstra and Optus networks are the two networks which are, insanely—and I use that word advisedly—going to be completely overbuilt by NBN Co. under the NBN business plan, and those companies are to be paid to cease providing services.
In August 2011, 57 per cent of British households could receive a superfast service. Only two per cent of households subscribed to such a service. Why? Because people have consistently demonstrated that they are not willing to pay the extra cost to upgrade to a higher tier of broadband. They cannot see a use for it. I refer you to my earlier comments that the NBN Co. business plan is premised on massive numbers of customers taking the higher tiers and paying more.
The other point I wish to highlight is the ever-growing risk from wireless. Let us remember the business environment NBN Co. is going to face. It will have a monopoly over fixed line but it will be competing with Telstra, Optus and Vodafone, and potentially others, using wireless. Those three companies, and potentially others, are about to introduce—and in some cases have already introduced—fourth-generation wireless, or so-called LTE. Let me quote from a recent report from Goldman Sachs:
We believe that the arrival of LTE/4G heralds the beginning of a period where wireless broadband will become a true substitute for fixed broadband services.
Goldman Sachs went on to estimate that up to one million people could be tempted to ditch their fixed broadband services for wireless broadband with the arrival of 4G.
This does not augur well for the business prospects of NBN Co., because in selling its product it will be competing against privately owned companies, which are invariably better at sales and marketing than government owned monopolies. I hate to disrupt the conventional wisdom on this topic, but this is what the experience suggests is true. It will be competing against those companies, and they will have a very competitive and attractive technology to sell. This is bad news for NBN Co.'s business plan. The evidence is that NBN Co. is not going well and the prospects are not good.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (19:04): The National Broadband Network has been one of the most contentious issues debated in this, the 43rd Parliament. There is a good reason for that. The NBN is one of the largest—as opposed to greatest—investments ever made by a Commonwealth government. It was the subject of considerable industry and political debate before construction began and will rightly be the focus of close scrutiny into the future. The estimated cost of the network has been the topic of much conjecture. On 20 December 2010 NBN Co. Ltd's corporate plan indicated that the estimated total capital expenditure for the project was $35.9 billion. But, as the shadow Treasurer told the ABC's Lateline only last night, the NBN will now be a slug to taxpayers of more than $42 billion. That figure will surely only grow. Some industry experts have warned it could exceed $60 billion. What a commercial risk—no cost-benefit analysis and no business plan. As the Leader of the Opposition noted yesterday, the cost will ultimately be more than $50 billion of borrowed money that at this point in time we cannot afford to spend.
This is money that I have steadfastly maintained should have gone into health. Better hospitals and more specialists, doctors, nurses and allied health professionals are needed, particularly in regional Australia. The money being pumped into the NBN could have built many hospitals and gone a long way towards bridging the ever-widening health divide between regional and metropolitan areas. Alas, it is an opportunity lost. This is a government which cannot be trusted with money. This is a government which cannot be trusted to deliver on its promises. This is a government which has failed the infrastructure test. It failed to go even close to getting value for money with its $16 billion Building the Education Revolution program, which led to the school halls fiasco. It failed to properly manage a scheme to put pink batts into ceilings, which cost taxpayers so much money and led to houses being burnt to the ground and in some cases, tragically, lives being lost. It has failed to even so much as contemplate building the dams our nation so desperately needs for water storage and to mitigate flooding but is happy to buy water for so-called, yet not proven, environmental needs from valleys where farmers grow much of our food, thereby destroying the economic viability of those valuable regional communities.
This government and, moreover, this Prime Minister say they are focused on jobs, and that is correct—but only some jobs: those of the Prime Minister and the coterie who still support her as talk of leadership challenges looms larger by the day. We have heard much talk about how the NBN will create jobs and wealth and will open up regional and remote areas, just like we are being told about all the green jobs the clean energy bills will produce. This government is big on talk but lazily low on delivery. The carbon tax to be implemented from 1 July will spurn investment and send jobs offshore. The NBN will bring connections of up to one gigabyte per second—at a cost to householders of course—but does it pass the equity to regional Australia test? No. Is it a good and prudent investment at a time of global financial strife? No. Does spending $11 billion buying back Telstra's copper wire network and closing it down make any sense? I am afraid not.
Meantime, people in the Riverina—and indeed right across rural and remote Australia and in many districts close to capital cities too—simply want better mobile coverage. In many of these places there is reasonably flat country. Granted, in others hilly terrain makes mobile telecommunications difficult and an expensive exercise for the provider. Bob McCormack at Murrulebale, north of Marrar, continues to press hard for a decent mobile signal. I am pleased to report that Telstra's Riverina-Murray hierarchy has agreed to meet with locals in this district, which also takes in parts west of Old Junee, at a date convenient to all. I have only in the last hour been able to convey this good news to Bob, who is always hard to catch because his mobile is usually out of range.
There are similar black spots right across my electorate which is, granted, at more than 61,000 square kilometres—not quite as large as yours, Mr Deputy Speaker—one of the largest in New South Wales. Still, why should people in the Riverina or the two larger electorates in the state of New South Wales, Parkes and Farrer, have mobile services that are inferior to others anywhere else? Riverina black spots include Tooma, near Tumbarumba, where both a fire and flood have taken a devastating toll on roads, bridges and properties in recent times. Lack of adequate mobile coverage proved frustrating and dangerous during these hours of need. Pockets around Gundagai, Grong Grong, Humula, Mangoplah, Sebastopol, Tallimba and Tarcutta, to name but a few, are places in the Riverina where residents, hardworking regional Australians, are denied access to decent mobile coverage. These people, I know because of the concerns expressed to me, are far more interested in improved mobile access than they are in the rollout of the NBN. This is not just an issue of convenience; farmers do not necessarily want to chat while they are operating their headers. They do want to be able to call someone in the event of emergency. This comes down to a matter of safety. An overturned tractor, the whiff of a potential bushfire, the need to call if someone is in distress and requiring help ought to be of paramount importance to all.
Admittedly, there will be benefits associated with the NBN. With the amount of taxpayers' money being poured into this project, you would certainly hope so. These benefits certainly include health. I know one doctor in my electorate, Dr Ashley Collins of Temora, who is eagerly awaiting faster upload-download speeds to assist his marvellous innovation, TeleMedicine Australia. Dr Collins is the first supplier of medical technology for telemedicine at primary care and aged-care level in Australia. This includes telemedicine carts, telemedicine devices, complete telemedicine encounter management solutions, and applications software for both live and store-and-forward telemedicine.
TeleMedicine Australia designs and produces highly advanced, easy-to-use carts, a wide range of customisable telemedicine carts equipped with a high-definition quality videoconferencing system suitable for general practitioners and primary care clinics, aged-care facilities and rural and remote hospitals. The cart can gather and register medical information from patients and share it with the GP and/or consultant during a live video consult or through the store-and-forward system, hence the need for fast internet speeds.
I have written to the new health minister as well as the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy on behalf of Dr Collins seeking meetings with them because I know how interested they will be in what he is doing, and I would like to think they will be able to help him progress TeleMedicine Australia further. Dr Collins is closing the gap between city and country access to specialists and could potentially revolutionise the way health care is delivered to Australians in rural, regional and remote areas, alleviating burdens already affecting access to medical services in these areas.
While obviously hands-on medical treatment will always be a better option than videoconferencing, the NBN will, once it is delivered to Temora and via Dr Collins, hopefully put local patients within reach of medical help they could otherwise not have hoped possible. I am thrilled that this technology is already in place in my electorate—that is, TeleMedicine Australia—even before the NBN and I congratulate Dr Collins on his accomplishment thus far and his genuine desire to ensure Australians anywhere in the country have access to top-level specialists.
Given the restricted number of GPs and specialists in rural locations, including Temora, Dr Collins's initiative has great potential and the NBN could certainly enhance that. This is where the NBN can help the bush. But the rollout is not, from all reports, going well. The government is yet to release an exact map or list which will identify which towns will not receive the fibre. As a rule of thumb, towns with more than 1,000 premises will get fibre-to-the-premises connections. Those centres with fewer than 1,000 houses will not. Across the Riverina electorate that is a lot of towns and villages.
Taking advantage of having the NBN come to a nature strip near you will also come at a high cost. People generally have thus far not been knocking down their front doors to sign up. The rollout of the NBN, so far in electorates important to keeping Labor in office, will take time and it remains to be seen if this can happen on time and within budget. So far, Labor has not been able to do anything on time and within budget, even in its so-called year of delivery and decision in 2011.
The Rudd Labor government failed to keep its core election promise to provide fibre to the node to 98 per cent of all Australians, leaving more than two million people outside its broadband network, including many towns in the Riverina. The coalition committed $3.3 billion to building and future-proofing a fast telecommunications and broadband network in regional Australia which would have covered the entire country. But under the Rudd Labor government this program was scrapped. No surprise there, because Labor does not really care about regional Australia. Gillard Labor has not shown anything to suggest regional Australians should have confidence in the government's ability to roll out a fair, cost-effective and efficient National Broadband Network. Hopefully, for the sake of the taxpayers of this nation, the NBN will come about on time and within budget and benefit those able to access it.
Debate adjourned.
Main C ommittee adjourned at 19:15.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Manning Rivermouth
(Question No. 701)
Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, in writing, on 31 October 2011:
(1) Is he aware of the immediate concerns about the state of the Manning rivermouth, and of siltation to the point of very unsafe access, or no access at all.
(2) Is he aware of the long term campaign for a second breakwall at the Manning rivermouth entrance; if so, can he confirm whether he has received a request from either the NSW Government or Greater Taree City Council for funding to address this issue.
(3) Will he agree to publicly release all recorded contacts, discussions and decisions made between Members of Parliament in the electoral division of Lyne and the relevant Ministers over the past 30 years in relation to the Manning rivermouth and the second breakwall.
Mr Burke: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) I have not been made aware of any concerns about access to the Manning rivermouth.
(2) I am not aware of any long term campaign for a second breakwall at either the northern or southern rivermouth entrances and have not received a request from the NSW Government or Greater Taree Council for funding to address this issue. I also understand there have not been any proposals referred for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
(3) No. The process of identifying any contacts, discussions or decisions made by Members of Parliament over the last 30 years would involve a substantial and unreasonable diversion of public service resources, given the extent of documents which would need to be searched and the considerable number of third parties requiring consultation and consent.
Digital Switchover Household Assistance Scheme
(Question No. 702)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 1 November 2011:
In respect of part (2) of the Minister's answer to question in writing no. 500 (Hansard, 11 October 2011, page 138), can the Minister indicate (a) whether all charges to be paid to each contractor per household are less than the $350 average cost per household announced by the Government (Senator Hon Stephen Conroy, Household Assistance Scheme: The Facts, 13 May 2011), (b) what the highest charge is as a proportion of the lowest charge, and (c) the trend of charges in relation to each of the contracts.
Mr Albanese: The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
Please refer to the answer to Senate Question on Notice 119, Budget Estimates Hearings, May 2011.
Immigration Programs
(Question No. 703)
Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 1 November 2011:
In respect of Australia's Immigration Program, what was the average processing time for visa applications in the (a) Migration Program (including skilled and family streams), and (b) Humanitarian Program, at each of Australia's overseas posts, and onshore for (i) 2008-09, (ii) 2009-10, (iii) 2010-11, and (iv) 2011-12 (to date).
Mr Bowen: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The following tables provide average processing times for the skilled, family and humanitarian programs by location and program year. Offices which have only processed small numbers of applications (less than 10) are not shown, as the small volumes of cases are not representative for the purposes of calculating an average processing time.
Skilled—Overseas
Average processing time, in days, for Skilled applications by overseas post:
Office/Post |
2008/2009 |
2009/2010 |
2010/2011 |
2011/2012 (to 31 Oct) |
Hong Kong |
382 |
405 |
425 |
393 |
Pretoria |
997 |
|
|
|
Taipei |
152 |
181 |
224 |
|
From 2009/2010, Business Skills visa applications (in the Skill Stream) were only processed offshore in Taipei and Hong Kong. From February 2011, Hong Kong has been the only offshore post processing Business Skills visa applications (Skill Stream).
Skilled — Onshore
Average processing time, in days, for Skilled applications by onshore processing location:
Office/Post |
Client Location |
2008/2009 |
2009/2010 |
2010/2011 |
2011/2012 (to 31 Oct) |
ACT Regional Office |
Offshore |
149 |
298 |
145 |
** |
ACT Regional Office |
Onshore |
122 |
226 |
200 |
** |
Adelaide |
Offshore |
453 |
525 |
579 |
492 |
Adelaide |
Onshore |
311 |
226 |
277 |
291 |
Brisbane |
Offshore |
154 |
375 |
238 |
** |
Brisbane |
Onshore |
194 |
165 |
293 |
287 |
Darwin |
Offshore |
142 |
** |
|
|
Darwin |
Onshore |
187 |
317 |
150 |
|
Hobart |
Offshore |
82 |
** |
** |
|
Hobart |
Onshore |
163 |
462 |
|
|
Melbourne |
Offshore |
169 |
76 |
135 |
119 |
Melbourne |
Onshore |
99 |
64 |
123 |
120 |
National Office |
Offshore |
|
|
51 |
93 |
Parramatta |
Offshore |
88 |
111 |
184 |
152 |
Parramatta |
Onshore |
64 |
103 |
153 |
144 |
Perth |
Offshore |
184 |
211 |
322 |
284 |
Perth |
Onshore |
133 |
110 |
150 |
149 |
Sydney City |
Onshore |
325 |
614 |
** |
** |
Notes:
1. ** less than 10 applications finalised.
2. Onshore processing includes applications lodged onshore and offshore.
Family — Overseas
Average processing time, in days, for Family applications, by overseas post:
Office/Post |
2008/2009 |
2009/2010 |
2010/2011 |
2011/2012 (to 31 Oct) |
Amman |
331 |
349 |
300 |
361 |
Ankara |
209 |
250 |
245 |
194 |
Athens |
143 |
128 |
385 |
** |
Auckland |
157 |
139 |
161 |
243 |
Bangkok |
119 |
152 |
211 |
237 |
Beirut |
207 |
240 |
259 |
293 |
Belgrade |
200 |
147 |
138 |
159 |
Berlin |
168 |
203 |
175 |
243 |
Brasilia |
117 |
143 |
171 |
195 |
Cairo |
215 |
316 |
245 |
251 |
Colombo |
151 |
118 |
147 |
172 |
Dhaka |
175 |
249 |
229 |
248 |
Dili |
242 |
132 |
230 |
** |
Dubai |
296 |
542 |
446 |
426 |
Guangzhou |
69 |
162 |
220 |
191 |
Hanoi |
252 |
180 |
251 |
427 |
Ho Chi Minh City |
231 |
243 |
297 |
344 |
Hong Kong |
155 |
101 |
145 |
164 |
Islamabad |
362 |
712 |
** |
|
Jakarta |
139 |
109 |
135 |
145 |
Kuala Lumpur |
215 |
173 |
183 |
171 |
London |
75 |
88 |
154 |
152 |
Madrid |
112 |
69 |
141 |
200 |
Manila |
166 |
148 |
157 |
170 |
Moscow |
194 |
197 |
213 |
188 |
Nairobi |
282 |
305 |
275 |
292 |
New Delhi |
103 |
110 |
148 |
201 |
Ottawa |
112 |
100 |
159 |
199 |
Phnom Penh |
249 |
236 |
219 |
277 |
Port Moresby |
158 |
308 |
360 |
429 |
Pretoria |
216 |
231 |
241 |
221 |
Santiago de Chile |
151 |
128 |
157 |
163 |
Seoul |
112 |
104 |
122 |
225 |
Shanghai |
162 |
176 |
206 |
237 |
Singapore |
154 |
162 |
161 |
168 |
Suva |
257 |
185 |
205 |
215 |
Taipei |
96 |
60 |
79 |
96 |
Tehran |
281 |
420 |
337 |
262 |
Tel Aviv |
85 |
99 |
132 |
166 |
Tokyo |
92 |
86 |
143 |
221 |
Vienna |
134 |
188 |
208 |
244 |
Washington |
142 |
149 |
152 |
172 |
** less than 10 applications finalised.
Family — Onshore
Average processing time, in days, for Family applications, by onshore processing location:
Office/Post |
Client Location |
2008/2009 |
2009/2010 |
2010/2011 |
2011/2012 (to 31 Oct) |
ACT Regional Office |
Onshore |
140 |
136 |
323 |
# |
Adelaide |
Onshore |
196 |
125 |
187 |
|
Brisbane |
Onshore |
265 |
153 |
211 |
261 |
Cairns |
Onshore |
** |
12 |
13 |
** |
Darwin |
Onshore |
234 |
156 |
151 |
** |
Hobart |
Onshore |
170 |
121 |
185 |
** |
Melbourne |
Onshore |
253 |
171 |
229 |
297 |
National Office |
Onshore |
21 |
** |
** |
** |
Perth |
Offshore |
1,227 |
1,260 |
937 |
981 |
Perth |
Onshore |
708 |
825 |
716 |
655 |
Sydney City |
Onshore |
245 |
227 |
280 |
316 |
Notes:
1. ** less than 10 applications finalised.
2. # only a small number of Ministerial intervention cases processed.
3. Onshore processing includes applications lodged onshore and offshore.
Humanitarian — Overseas
Average processing time, in days, for Humanitarian applications by overseas post:
Office/Post |
2008/09 |
2009/10 |
2010/11 |
2011/12 (to 31 Oct) |
Amman |
455 |
377 |
288 |
412 |
Ankara |
288 |
446 |
357 |
261 |
Athens |
62 |
** |
|
|
Bangkok |
261 |
272 |
271 |
258 |
Beijing |
387 |
320 |
299 |
328 |
Beirut |
222 |
334 |
298 |
266 |
Belgrade |
** |
** |
78 |
|
Berlin |
229 |
209 |
239 |
308 |
Brasilia |
|
** |
** |
91 |
Cairo |
227 |
40 |
26 |
93 |
Colombo |
135 |
177 |
211 |
264 |
Dhaka |
202 |
206 |
** |
19 |
Dubai |
290 |
320 |
280 |
313 |
Guangzhou |
147 |
128 |
|
|
Hong Kong |
** |
** |
785 |
** |
Islamabad |
519 |
** |
** |
|
Jakarta |
363 |
346 |
222 |
230 |
Kuala Lumpur |
242 |
322 |
290 |
299 |
London |
357 |
** |
** |
|
Victoria OHPC |
77 |
173 |
119 |
76 |
Manila |
** |
** |
|
198 |
Moscow |
** |
** |
162 |
** |
Nairobi |
226 |
300 |
147 |
438 |
New Delhi |
267 |
281 |
202 |
264 |
Pretoria |
345 |
305 |
409 |
** |
Santiago De Chile |
183 |
81 |
** |
|
Shanghai |
218 |
241 |
|
|
Suva |
** |
95 |
** |
|
NSW OHPC |
129 |
253 |
442 |
397 |
Tehran |
399 |
527 |
422 |
889 |
Washington |
212 |
114 |
148 |
** |
Notes:
1. ** less than 10 applications finalised.
2. Victoria Offshore Humanitarian Processing Centre (OHPC) processes applications from people living in Afghanistan, 3. Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
NSW Offshore Humanitarian Processing Centre (OHPC) processes applications from people living in Africa.
Humanitarian — Onshore
Average processing time, in days, for onshore Refugee applications:
Onshore refugee applications are applications for Protection Visas. Figures are shown separately for Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) as processing times for IMAs are calculated differently. They are calculated from the time of arrival, rather than from the time of visa application.
|
2008/2009 |
2009/2010 |
2010/2011 |
2011/2012 (to 31 Oct) |
Non-IMA protection visa processing |
93 |
107 |
139 |
155 |
IMA |
103 |
116 |
299 |
341 |
Bowen Airport: Weather Station
(Question No. 705)
Mr Christensen asked the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, in writing, on 1 November 2011:
(1) Is he aware that the weather station located at the Bowen Aerodrome is a manual system which means that weather data is recorded at three-hourly intervals.
(2) Is he aware of the impact that this has on weather observations in the town, particularly during tropical cyclones in the Bowen region.
(3) Would he consider the implementation of an Automated Weather Station, which provides weather observations at half-hourly intervals, and a more accurate weather forecast.
Mr Burke: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) Bowen Airport is a part of the Bureau's Cooperative Observer network which is a manual network. Bowen Airport provides observations up to every three hours.
(2) The Bureau of Meteorology operates a composite weather observations network which uses a range of technologies to inform the forecasting process. In the early stages of cyclone forecasting, and prior to landfall, key information is provided by a number of tools such as satellite and radars, supplemented by offshore automatic weather stations. Typically, land-based manual and automatic weather stations are used to provide confirmation of the forecast and to assist with impact assessment.
(3) There is an existing network of seven automatic weather stations along the Townsville to Proserpine coastline as well as several manual stations and offshore weather stations. A weather station providing higher frequency data is not likely to make a significant difference to the accuracy of the forecast in this area because the existing network provides adequate information to inform the models and forecasters.
Home Insulation Program
(Question No. 707)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, in writing, on 2 November 2011:
In respect of his responses to questions in writing Nos 494 to 497 (House Hansard, 31 October 2011, pages 219 to 220), will he or his department provide information on the outcome of investigations into specific complaints in relation to the Home Insulation Program once those investigations are complete.
Mr Combet: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
As per the honourable member's question, general information may be released following the conclusion of investigations; however, procedural fairness and natural justice will take precedence. For example, information that may disadvantage an innocent party would not be released.
As such, the release of any information relating to the finalisation of investigations will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Digital Switchover Household Assistance Scheme
(Question No. 709)
Mr Christensen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 2 November 2011:
Is Government assistance available to residents in Bogie in the electoral division of Dawson who live in television black spots and are required to upgrade their existing personal satellite dishes to receive digital television; if not, why not.
Mr Albanese: The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
Assistance is available to householders in the Bogie area who are eligible for the Household Assistance Scheme (HAS). The scheme offers assistance to people who live in a current switchover area, have a working TV, have not yet converted to digital TV and receive the maximum rate of the Age Pension, Disability Support Pension or Carer Payment, or the Department of Veterans' Affairs Service Pension or Income Support Supplement.
Eligible HAS customers who require access to the Viewer Access Satellite Television (VAST) service will receive a full VAST installation free of charge. HAS customers also receive 12 months of free service and support, including access to a telephone helpline.
HAS applications in regional Queensland, including the Bogie area, will close on 25 January 2012.
Nation Building Program
(Question No. 711)
Mr Truss asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 3 November 2011:
In respect of his media release 'Building Better Infrastructure Delivers $77 billion Dividend' (23 October 2011), (a) from what source did the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics compile new data on the return on the Government's current investment in the nation's ageing highways, interstate rail network and urban public transport systems, and (b) is this source publicly available; if so, from where.
Mr Albanese: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In calculating the program-average benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 2.65 in the media release, the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) used the project-specific BCRs supplied by project proponents to the Department of Infrastructure and Transport as part of the current Nation Building Program's appraisal process. Where necessary, the project-specific BCRs were adjusted to use a standard 4.4% discount rate, consistent with the Nation Building Program's Notes on Administration. The program-average BCR is the average of the project BCRs, discounted at 4.4% and weighted by outturn project costs.
Foreign Affairs and Trade: Travel Warnings
(Question No. 712)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 3 November 2011:
In respect of travel warnings for Indonesia issued by his department between 2006-07 and 2010-11, (a) how many were issued, (b) what was the average duration of the warnings, and (c) for what total number of days did the warnings apply.
Mr Rudd: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) issues travel advisories for countries, not general "travel warnings". DFAT has had a travel advisory for Indonesia continually between 2006/07 and 2010/11. Each travel advice has an overall advice level (currently there are five levels).
Since November 2005, the overall advice level for Indonesia has remained at "Reconsider your need to travel" (level 3 of 4). All travel advisories, including for Indonesia, are kept under constant review and updated promptly to reflect any new information or in response to changes in the safety and security environment.
Foreign Affairs and Trade: Travel Warnings
(Question No. 713)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 3 November 2011:
How many countries were subject to travel warnings (issued by his department) between 2006-07 and 2010-11, and per country, what was the average number of days that such travel warnings applied during this period.
Mr Rudd: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) issues travel advisories for countries, not general "travel warnings". DFAT currently has travel advisories for 166 countries. They are kept under constant review and updated promptly to reflect any new information or in response to changes in the safety and security environment. Most travel advisories contain specific warnings about specific threats. Many contain specific warnings about terrorist attacks. Other warnings can relate to health, crime, natural disasters, and local laws.
Travel advisories remain in force at all times.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
(Question No. 714)
Mr Dutton asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 3 November 2011:
(1) What price reduction savings from Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) reforms enacted in 2007 were realised in (a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-09, (c) 2009-10, (d) 2010-11, and
(e) 2011-12 (to date).
(2) For (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12, (c) 2012-13, (d) 2013-14, and (e) 2014-15, what savings are currently projected from Further PBS Pricing Reforms enacted in 2010 (i) by year, and (ii) according to individual pricing reforms.
Ms Plibersek: The answer to the honourable member ' s question asked of the former Minister for Health and Ageing is as follows:
(1) Although enacted in 2007, the 2007 Reforms did not come into effect until 2008-09:
2007 Reforms Package |
2007-08 ($ million) |
2008-09 ($ million) |
2009-10 ($ million) |
2010-11 ($ million) |
2011-12 ($ million) |
Saving |
nil |
nil |
2 |
156.5 |
n/a |
(2)
Further PBS Pricing Reforms |
2010-11 ($ million) Actual |
2011-12 ($ million) Estimate |
2012-13 ($ million) Estimate |
2013-14 ($ million) Estimate |
2014-15 ($ million) Estimate |
Saving |
30.0 |
191.2 |
528.4 |
546.4 |
n/a |
Further breakdown according to individual components of the Further PBS Reforms is Budget-in-Confidence.
Pharmaceutical Items
(Question No. 715)
Mr Dutton asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 3 November 2011:
(1) Will she provide a list of pharmaceutical items that have incurred a (a) 2, (b) 5, and (c) 16, per cent price reduction since 1 February 2011.
(2) For each item in part (1), will she provide the (a) original price, (b) revised price, (c) monetary value of the reduction, and (d) projected saving to the Commonwealth over the forward estimates.
(3) Are there any eligible pharmaceutical items that have been exempted from a (a) 2, (b) 5, and (c) 16, per cent price reduction since 1 February 2011; if so, why.
Ms Roxon: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) and (2) Information about the over 3,680 items which have incurred the two per cent and five per cent price reductions on 1 February 2011 are provided in Attachment A and Attachment Bwhichis available from the House of Representatives Table Office.
Tables 1 and 2 below provide details of the pharmaceutical items which took a 16 per cent statutory price reduction on 1 April 2011 or 1 August 2011, the two occasions on which these reductions have occurred since the 16 per cent price reduction was introduced. The tables also provide the price (dispensed price maximum quantity) before and after the price reduction.
Table 1 – Pharmaceutical Items which took a 16 percent statutory price reduction on 1 April 2011
No. |
Drug |
Form/Strength |
Pack Size |
Max Qty |
Feb 11 |
Apr 11 |
Difference |
1 |
Atenonol |
Tablet 50mg |
30 |
30 |
$10.08 |
$9.49 |
$0.59 |
2 |
Epirubicin Hydrochloride |
Solution for injection 100mg in 50ml |
1 |
2 |
$906.84 |
$762.78 |
$144.06 |
3 |
Epirubicin Hydrochloride |
Solution for injection 10mg in 5ml |
1 |
4 |
$208.26 |
$176.30 |
$31.96 |
4 |
Epirubicin Hydrochloride |
Solution for injection 200mg in 100ml |
1 |
1 |
$893.34 |
$751.43 |
$141.91 |
5 |
Epirubicin Hydrochloride |
Solution for injection 20mg in 10ml |
1 |
4 |
$379.30 |
$322.50 |
$56.80 |
6 |
Epirubicin Hydrochloride |
Solution for injection 50mg in 25ml |
1 |
4 |
$919.10 |
$773.06 |
$146.04 |
7 |
Filgrastim |
Injection 300mcg in 1ml or in 0.5ml single use pre-filled syringe |
10 |
20 |
$3,008.00* |
$2,515.54* |
$492.46 |
8 |
Filgrastim |
Injection 480mcg in 1.6ml or in 0.5ml single use pre-filled syringe |
10 |
20 |
$4,814.00* |
$4,032.58* |
$781.42 |
9 |
Idarubicin Hydrochloride |
Solution for IV injection 10mg in 10ml |
6 |
6 |
$2,104.80 |
$1,778.41 |
$326.39 |
10 |
Idarubicin Hydrochloride |
Solution for IV injection 5mg in 5mL |
3 |
3 |
$568.88 |
$478.89 |
$89.99 |
11 |
Isotretinoin |
Capsule 10mg |
60 |
60 |
$89.37 |
$76.09 |
$13.28 |
12 |
Isotretinoin |
Capsule 20mg |
60 |
60 |
$135.70 |
$115.02 |
$20.68 |
13 |
Isotretinoin |
Capsule 40mg |
30 |
30 |
$123.11 |
$104.44 |
$18.67 |
14 |
Pioglitazone |
Tablet 15mg (as hydrochloride) |
28 |
28 |
$61.52 |
$53.00 |
$8.52 |
15 |
Pioglitazone |
Tablet 30mg (as hydrochloride) |
28 |
28 |
$91.19 |
$77.62 |
$13.57 |
16 |
Pioglitazone |
Tablet 45mg (as hydrochloride) |
28 |
28 |
$116.64 |
$99.01 |
$17.63 |
17 |
Risedronate Sodium |
Tablet 150mg |
1 |
1 |
$56.98 |
$49.53 |
$7.45 |
18 |
Risedronate Sodium |
Tablet 30mg |
28 |
28 |
$304.62 |
$259.79 |
$44.83 |
19 |
Risedronate Sodium |
Tablet 35mg |
4 |
4 |
$53.34 |
$46.55 |
$6.79 |
20 |
Risedronate Sodium |
Tablet 5mg |
28 |
28 |
$53.34 |
$46.55 |
$6.79 |
21 |
Risedronate Sodium and Calcium Carbonate |
Pack containing 4 tablets risedronate sodium 30mg and 24 tablets calcium carbonate 1.2g (equivalent to 500mg calcium) |
1 |
1 |
$53.34 |
$46.55 |
$6.79 |
22 |
Risedronate Sodium and Calcium Carbonate with Colecalciferol |
Pack containing 4 tablets risedronate sodium 35g and 24 sachets containing granules of calcium carbonate 2.5g (equivalent to 1g calcium) with colecalciferol 22mcg |
1 |
1 |
$53.34 |
$46.55 |
$6.79 |
‡General schedule prices, unless indicated otherwise. Dispensed price maximum quantity may not reflect exactly the 16% reduction as the reduction is calculated on the price exclusive of pharmacy mark ups and fees.
*Highly Specialised Drug (HSD) - public hospital price
Table 2 - Pharmaceutical Items which took a 16 percent statutory price reduction on 1 August 2011
No. |
Drug |
Form/Strength |
Pack Size |
Max Qty |
Apr 11 |
Aug 11 |
Difference |
1 |
Exemestane |
Tablet 25mg |
30 |
30 |
$180.18 |
$152.38 |
$27.80 |
2 |
Leflunomide |
Tablet 10mg |
30 |
30 |
$90.21 |
$76.80 |
$13.41 |
3 |
Leflunomide |
Tablet 20mg |
30 |
30 |
$133.99 |
$113.57 |
$20.42 |
4 |
Leflunomide |
Pack containing 3 tablets leflunomide 100mg and 30 tablets leflunomide 20mg |
1 |
1 |
$207.57 |
$175.64 |
$31.93 |
5 |
Methylprednisolone |
Powder for Injection 40mg (as sodium succinate) |
5 |
5 |
$35.04 |
$30.47 |
$4.57 |
6 |
Methylprednisolone |
Powder for Injection 1g (as sodium succinate) |
1 |
1 |
$93.65 |
$79.69 |
$13.96 |
7 |
Methylprednisolone |
Injection containing Methylprednisolone acetate 40mg in 1mL |
5 |
5 |
$24.23 |
$21.38 |
$2.85 |
8 |
Fentanyl |
Transdermal patch 2.1mg |
5 |
5 |
$47.16 |
$41.53 |
$5.63 |
9 |
Fentanyl |
Transdermal patch 4.2mg |
5 |
5 |
$56.28 |
$49.46 |
$6.82 |
10 |
Fentanyl |
Transdermal patch 8.4mg |
5 |
5 |
$95.38 |
$81.58 |
$13.80 |
11 |
Fentanyl |
Transdermal patch 12.6mg |
5 |
5 |
$127.28 |
$108.37 |
$18.91 |
12 |
Fentanyl |
Transdermal patch 16.8mg |
5 |
5 |
$155.76 |
$132.30 |
$23.46 |
13 |
Salbutamol |
Pressurised inhalation 100 micrograms (as sulfate) per dose, 200 doses (CFC-free formulation) |
1 |
2 |
$15.22 |
$13.82 |
$1.40 |
14 |
Salbutamol |
Pressurised inhalation 100 micrograms (as sulfate) per dose, 200 doses (CFC-free formulation) |
1 |
1 |
$10.82 |
$10.12 |
$0.70 |
15 |
Salbutamol |
Capsule containing powder for oral inhalation 200 micrograms (as sulfate) (for use in Ventolin Rotahaler) |
100 |
200 |
$17.90 |
$16.06 |
$1.84 |
‡General schedule prices, unless indicated otherwise. Dispensed price maximum quantity may not reflect exactly the 16% reduction as the reduction is calculated on the price exclusive of pharmacy mark ups and fees.
(2) (d) The projected saving to Government from the whole package of Further PBS Reforms (which also include Expanded and Accelerated Price Disclosure) is provided in the table below and is available from the Departments Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements of 2010-11. Any further breakdown is Budget-in-Confidence.
Further PBS Reform
Quantitative Indicators |
2010-11 Actual* |
2011-12
|
2012-13 Forward Year 1 |
2013-14 Forward Year 2 |
Estimated saving to Government from Further PBS Reform |
$30.0m |
$191.2m |
$528.4m |
$546.4m |
(3) On 1 February 2011, a two percent and five percent statutory price reduction applied to all Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listed brands of non-exempt pharmaceutical items containing drugs which were listed on the F2A and F2T formularies as at 11 October 2010, respectively. These reductions were required under the National Health Act 1953 (the Act). The Act provided for exemptions from these price reductions in the following circumstances:
Section 99ACG of the Act exempted pharmaceutical items from these reductions if a 12.5 percent statutory price reduction or a price disclosure reduction had been applied previously; and
Section 84AH of the Act empowers the Minister to determine, by legislative instrument, that a pharmaceutical item is an 'exempt item' if the pharmaceutical item satisfies the criteria in that section. The intention of this exemption is to encourage availability of presentations of drugs that are used by a demographic subgroup, for example, a liquid presentation for children.
Information on the items which were exempted from these statutory price reductions can be accessed through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme website (www.pbs.gov.au) and the Australian Government ComLaw website (www.comlaw.gov.au) and is reproduced in the following tables.
_______________
* Department of Health and Ageing Annual Report 2010-11.
Table 1 – Items exempt from 1 February 2011 statutory price reductions because of previous 12.5 percent reduction (http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/pricing)
No. |
Drug |
Manner of Administration |
Date of effect (12.5% reduction) |
1 |
Cefepime |
Injection |
1-Dec-10 |
2 |
Cephazolin |
Injection |
1-Dec-10 |
3 |
Hydroxocobalamin |
Injection |
1-Dec-10 |
4 |
Macrogol 3350 |
Oral |
1-Dec-10 |
5 |
Omeprazole and clarithromycin and amoxicillin |
Oral |
1-Dec-10 |
6 |
Tacrolimus |
Oral |
1-Dec-10 |
Table 2 – Items exempt from 1 February 2011 statutory price reductions because of a previous price disclosure price reduction (http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/pricing)
No. |
Drug |
Manner of Administration |
Date of effect |
1 |
Carvedilol |
Oral |
1-Apr-10 |
2 |
Fluconazole |
Oral |
1-Apr-10 |
3 |
Vancomycin |
Injection |
1-Apr-10 |
4 |
Cefalotin |
Injection |
1-Aug-10 |
5 |
Doxorubicin |
Injection/intravesical |
1-Aug-10 |
6 |
Meloxicam |
Oral |
1-Aug-10 |
7 |
Mitozantrone |
Injection |
1-Aug-10 |
8 |
Ondansetron |
Injection |
1-Aug-10 |
Table 3 – Items exempt from statutory price reductions under section 84AH of the Act (see also PB58 of 2007 – Exempt Item Determination, http://www.comlaw.gov.au )
No. |
Drug |
Form/Strength |
Manner of administration |
1 |
Amisulpride |
Oral solution 100mg permL, 60mL |
Oral |
2 |
Amoxycillin |
Powder for paediatric oral drops 100mg (as trihydrate) permL, 20mL |
Oral |
3 |
Artemether with Lumefantrine |
Tablet (dispersible) 20mg-120mg |
Oral |
4 |
Baclofen |
Intrathecal injection 10mg in 5mL |
Injection |
5 |
Captopril |
Oral solution 5mg permL, 95mL |
Oral |
6 |
Carbamazepine |
Oral suspension 100mg per 5mL, 300mL |
Oral |
7 |
Ciprofloxacin |
Ear drops 3mg (as hydrochloride) permL, 5mL |
Application to the ear |
8 |
Clonazepam |
Oral liquid 2.5mg permL, 10mL |
Oral |
9 |
Clonazepam |
Injection 1mg in 2mL (set containing solution 1mg in 1mL and 1mL diluent) |
Injection |
10 |
Clozapine |
Oral liquid 50mg permL, 100mL |
Oral |
11 |
Cyclosporin |
Oral liquid 100mg permL, 50mL |
Oral |
12 |
Cyclosporin |
Capsule 10mg |
Oral |
13 |
Cyclosporin |
Solution concentrate for I.V. infusion 50mg in 1mL |
Injection |
14 |
Diazepam |
Injection 10mg in 2mL |
Injection |
15 |
Diclofenac |
Suppository containing diclofenac sodium 100mg |
Rectal |
16 |
Digoxin |
Paediatric oral solution 50 micrograms permL, 60mL |
Oral |
17 |
Erythromycin |
Powder for I.V. infusion 1g (as lactobionate) |
Injection |
18 |
Escitalopram |
Oral solution 10mg (as oxalate) permL, 28mL |
Oral |
19 |
Fluconazole |
Powder for oral suspension 50mg in 5mL, 35mL |
Oral |
20 |
Frusemide |
Oral solution 10mg permL, 30mL |
Oral |
21 |
Glyceryl trinitrate |
Sublingual spray (pump pack) 400 micrograms per dose, 200 doses |
Sublingual |
22 |
Indomethacin |
Suppository 100mg |
Rectal |
23 |
Ketoprofen |
Suppository 100mg |
Rectal |
24 |
Lacosamide |
Oral solution 15mg permL, 200mL |
Oral |
25 |
Levetiracetam |
Oral solution 100mg permL, 300mL |
Oral |
26 |
Levodopa with Carbidopa |
Tablet 200mg-50mg (anhydrous) (modified release) |
Oral |
27 |
Methadone |
Oral liquid containing methadone hydrochloride 25mg per 5mL, 200mL |
Oral |
28 |
Methadone |
Injection containing methadone hydrochloride 10mg in 1mL |
Injection |
29 |
Metronidazole |
Suppositories 500mg, 10 |
Rectal |
30 |
Metronidazole |
Oral suspension containing metronidazole benzoate 320mg per 5mL, 100mL |
Oral |
31 |
Naproxen |
Oral suspension 125mg per 5mL, 474mL |
Oral |
32 |
Nevirapine |
Oral suspension 50mg (as hemihydrate) per 5mL, 240mL |
Oral |
33 |
Oestradiol |
Vaginal tablets 25 micrograms, 15 |
Vaginal |
34 |
Ondansetron |
Syrup 4mg (as hydrochloride dihydrate) per 5mL, 50mL |
Oral |
35 |
Paracetamol |
Oral liquid 120mg per 5mL, 100mL |
Oral |
36 |
Paracetamol |
Oral liquid 240mg per 5mL, 200mL |
Oral |
37 |
Paracetamol |
Tablet 665mg (modified release) |
Oral |
38 |
Paracetamol |
Suppositories 500mg, 24 |
Rectal |
39 |
Prochlorperazine |
Suppositories containing prochlorperazine equivalent to 25mg prochlorperazine maleate, 5 |
Rectal |
40 |
Prochlorperazine |
Injection containing prochlorperazine mesylate 12.5mg in 1mL |
Injection |
41 |
Ranitidine |
Syrup 150mg (as hydrochloride) per 10mL, 300mL |
Oral |
42 |
Risperidone |
Oral solution 1mg permL, 100mL |
Oral |
43 |
Roxithromycin |
Tablet for oral suspension 50mg |
Oral |
44 |
Salbutamol |
Oral solution 2mg (as sulfate) per 5mL, 150mL |
Oral |
45 |
Salbutamol |
Pressurised inhalation in breath actuated device 100 micrograms (as sulfate) per dose, 200 doses (CFC-free formulation) |
Inhalation by mouth |
46 |
Terbinafine |
Cream containing terbinafine hydrochloride 10mg per g, 15g |
Application |
47 |
Tipranavir |
Oral liquid 100mg permL, 95mL |
Oral |
48 |
Tramadol |
Oral drops containing tramadol hydrochloride 100mg permL, 10mL |
Oral |
49 |
Valganciclovir |
Powder for oral solution 50mg (as hydrochloride) permL, 100mL |
Oral |
50 |
Valproic acid |
Tablet, crushable, containing sodium valproate 100mg |
Oral |
51 |
Valproic acid |
Oral liquid containing sodium valproate 200mg per 5mL, 300mL |
Oral |
52 |
Valproic acid |
Oral solution containing sodium valproate 200mg per 5mL, 300mL |
Oral |
53 |
Verapamil |
Injection containing verapamil hydrochloride 5mg in 2mL |
Injection |
Health and Ageing: Employment Termination
(Question No. 717)
Mr Dutton asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 3 November 2011:
How many employees in her department and portfolio agencies had their employment terminated in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, and (c) 2010-11, and (i) why, (ii) what was their employment classification, (iii) how many employees appealed, and were successful with their appeal, (iv) how many were paid any form of damages or compensation, and what sum, and for what reason(s), and (v) what costs were incurred by her department or agencies, including legal expenses.
Ms Plibersek: The answer to the honourable member ' s question asked of the former Minister for Health and Ageing is as follows:
The number of employees in the department and portfolio agencies who had their employment terminated was:
(a) 7 for the period 2008-9;
(b) 14 for the period 2009-10; and
(c) 17 for the period 2010-11.
These figures do not include Voluntary or Involuntary Retrenchments.
(i) and (ii) For the period 2008-9, the details of why the employment was terminated and the employees classification level are provided in the table below.
Reason for Termination |
Classification Level |
Numbers |
Early Cessation of Non-Ongoing Contract |
APS5 (2) EL1 (2) |
4 |
Non-performance, or unsatisfactory performance, of duties |
NIL |
NIL |
Breach of the Code of Conduct |
APS6 (1) EL2 (2) |
3 |
|
TOTAL |
7 |
For the period 2009-10, the details of why the employment was terminated and the employees classification level are provided in the table below.
Reason for Termination |
Classification Level |
Numbers |
Early Cessation of Non-Ongoing Contract |
APS3 (1) APS4 (1) APS5 (1) APS6 (2) EL1 (4) |
9 |
Non-performance, or unsatisfactory performance, of duties |
APS2 (1) APS3 (1) APS6 (2) |
4 |
Breach of the Code of Conduct |
Aged Care Assessor (1) |
1 |
|
TOTAL |
14 |
For the period 2010-11, the details of why the employment was terminated and the employees classification level are provided in the table below.
Reason for Termination |
Classification Level |
Numbers |
Early Cessation of Non-Ongoing Contract |
GAPS (1) APS2 (2) APS3 (1) APS4 (3) APS5 (2) APS6 (3) EL1 (2) |
14 |
Non-performance, or unsatisfactory performance, of duties |
APS (1) EL1 (1) EL2 (1) |
3 |
Breach of the Code of Conduct |
NIL |
NIL |
|
TOTAL |
17 |
(iii) The total number of employees that appealed and were successful with their appeal are provided in the table below:
|
2008-9 |
2009-10 |
2010-11 |
Total number of appeals |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total number of successful appeals |
0 |
0 |
0 |
(iv) The total number of employees who were paid any form of damages or compensation, and what sum, and for what reason(s) are provided in the table below:
|
2008-9 |
2009-10 |
2010-11 |
Total number of employees paid damages or compensation |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Total sum paid |
0 |
$30,000 |
$5,250 |
For what reason(s) |
N/A |
Deed of Agreement Settlement |
Deed of Agreement Settlement |
(v) The costs that were incurred by the department and portfolio agencies are provided below.
|
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
2010-11 |
Cost incurred including legal fees |
$171,994* |
$22,708.20 |
$6,352.67 |
* Legal fees of $122,516.25 were invoiced to the Department of Finance as this matter was covered under Comcover.
Please note the scope of the portfolio encompasses the following:
Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency;
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care;
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare;
Australian National Preventative Health Agency;
Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority;
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency;
Cancer Australia;
Food Standards Australia New Zealand;
General Practice Education and Training Limited;
Health Workforce Australia;
National Blood Authority;
Independent Pricing Authority;
National Health and Medical Research Council;
Private Health Insurance Administration Council;
Private Health Insurance Ombudsman;
Professional Services Review;
Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA);
Office of the Aged Care Commissioner;
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator; and
National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme.
Health and Ageing: Union Funding
(Question No. 718)
Mr Dutton asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 3 November 2011:
What total sum of funding has been provided to labour unions or associated entities by her department or portfolio agencies since 24 November 2007, and (a) for what purpose(s), (b) to what unions or associated entities, (c) what sum was provided to each union or associated entity, and (d) who approved the funding.
Ms Plibersek: The answer to the honourable member's question asked of the former Minister for Health and Ageing is as follows:
There has been no funding provided to labour unions or associated entities by the Department or portfolio agencies since 24 November 2007.
Health and Ageing: Governing Board
(Question No. 719)
Mr Dutton asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 3 November 2011:
For each governing board, what, (a) remuneration is provided to members, and (b) are the selection criteria for, and process of, appointment
Ms Plibersek: The answer to the honourable member ' s question asked of the former Minister for Health and Ageing is as follows:
As of 19 December 2011, there are seven governing boards within the Department of Health and Ageing portfolio. Please see the enclosed spreadsheet for details of (a) remuneration provided to members, and (b) the selection criteria for, and process of, appointment.
Agency |
(a) Remuneration |
(b) Selection criteria for, and process of, appointment |
Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd |
The Company's Constitution (Section 5.17) states that remuneration will be in accordance with the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal. The Chair receives $49,860 per annum and Members receive $26,240 per annum in accordance with Schedule A of the Remuneration Tribunal's Determination '2011/09 Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Part-Time Public Office'. |
The Minister selects the appropriate nominees, giving consideration to the company constitution. The Minister decides on the appointees and seeks the Prime Minister's approval, or at her discretion Cabinet's, in accordance with the Cabinet Handbook. Following approval from the Prime Minister, or at her discretion Cabinet's, the Minister will sign the Instruments of Appointment which makes the appointments. |
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care |
The acting Board Members are remunerated In accordance with the Minister's determination made in accordance with section 33A(1)(b)(i) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The Chair receives $873 per day and Members receive $661 per day. |
The Minister selects the appropriate nominees, giving consideration to the legislation, including areas of expertise of potential Board Members and consultation with State/Territory Health Ministers. The Minister decides on the appointees and seeks the Prime Minister's approval, or at her discretion Cabinet's, in accordance with the Cabinet Handbook. Following approval from the Prime Minister, or at her discretion Cabinet's, the Minister will sign the Instruments of Appointment which makes the appointments. |
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare |
Section 10 of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Act 1987 states that remuneration will be in accordance with the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal. The Chair receives $20,690 per annum and Members receive $598 per day in accordance with Schedule A of the Remuneration Tribunal's Determination '2011/09 Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Part-Time Public Office'. |
The Minister considers the appropriate nominees, giving consideration to the legislation, including seeking nominations and recommendations from various bodies. The Minister decides on the appointees and seeks the Prime Minister's approval, or at her discretion Cabinet's, in accordance with the Cabinet Handbook. Following approval from the Prime Minister, or at her discretion Cabinet's, the Governor-General will sign the Instruments of Appointment which makes the appointments. |
Food Standards Australia New Zealand |
Section 119 of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 states that remuneration will be in accordance with the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal. The Chair receives $65,790 per annum and Members receive $33,230 per annum in accordance with Schedule A of the Remuneration Tribunal's Determination '2011/09 Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Part-Time Public Office'. |
The Minister selects the appropriate nominees, giving consideration to the legislation, including seeking nominations and agreement from various groups. The Minister decides on the appointees and seeks the Prime Minister's approval, or at her discretion Cabinet's, in accordance with the Cabinet Handbook. Following approval from the Prime Minister, or at her discretion Cabinet's, the Minister will sign the Instruments of Appointment which makes the appointments. |
General Practice Education and Training Limited |
The Company's Constitution (Section 6.16) states that remuneration will be in accordance with the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal. The Chair receives $78,590 per annum and Members receive $35,500 per annum in accordance with Schedule A of the Remuneration Tribunal's Determination '2011/09 Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Part-Time Public Office'. |
The Minister selects the appropriate nominees, giving consideration to the company constitution, including specific qualifications and nominations from the Medical Profession. The Minister decides on the appointees and seeks the Prime Minister's approval, or at her discretion Cabinet's, in accordance with the Cabinet Handbook. Following approval from the Prime Minister, or at her discretion Cabinet's, the Minister will sign the Instruments of Appointment which makes the appointments. |
Health Workforce Australia |
Section 14 of the Health Workforce Act 2009 states that remuneration will be in accordance with the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal. The Chair receives $52,440 per annum and Members receive $639 per day in accordance with Schedule A of the Remuneration Tribunal's Determination '2011/09 Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Part-Time Public Office'. |
The Minister selects the appropriate nominees, giving consideration to the legislation, including agreement from various groups. The Minister decides on the appointees and seeks the Prime Minister's approval, or at her discretion Cabinet's, in accordance with the Cabinet Handbook. Following approval from the Prime Minister, or at her discretion Cabinet's, the Minister will sign the Instruments of Appointment which makes the appointments. |
Private Health Insurance Administration Council |
Section 253-15 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 states that remuneration will be in accordance with the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal. The Commissioner receives $78,590 per annum and Members receive $45,890 per annum in accordance with Schedule A of the Remuneration Tribunal's Determination '2011/09 Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Part-Time Public Office'. |
The Minister selects the appropriate nominees, giving consideration to the legislation. The Minister decides on the appointees and seeks the Prime Minister's approval, or at her discretion Cabinet's, in accordance with the Cabinet Handbook. Following approval from the Prime Minister, or at her discretion Cabinet's, the Minister will sign the Instruments of Appointment which makes the appointments. |
Health and Ageing: Advisory Boards and Committees
(Question No. 720)
Mr Dutton asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 3 November 2011:
For each advisory board or advisory committee, (a) what is its title, (b) what are the terms and tenure of appointment, (c) what is its role, function and responsibility, (d) what is the selection criteria for, and process of, appointment, (e) what are the names of the members, and (f) what is the remuneration.
Ms Plibersek: The answer to the honourable member's question asked of the former Minister for Health and Ageing is as follows:
(a) to (f) Current at 19 December 2011, there are 58 advisory boards and committees within the Health and Ageing Portfolio. These are bodies which advise ministers and/or where the minister is involved in the appointment process. Please refer to Attachment A for details, which is available from the House of Representatives Table Office.
Broadband
(Question No. 721)
Mr Christensen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 3 November 2011:
(1) By what date is the National Broadband Network (NBN) scheduled to be rolled-out in the electoral division of Dawson.
(2) Which towns in this electorate (a) will, and (b) will not, have a fibre optic cable connection to premises.
(3) Through which towns in this electorate will the NBN fibre connection pass without being connected to premises because the towns lay outside the NBN's agreed fibre connection zone.
(4) What is the estimated cost of connecting premises to the NBN in each town in this electorate in the year it will be rolled-out, and the subsequent two years.
(5) What is the estimated monthly cost of NBN provision for an average household in this electorate in the year it will be rolled-out.
(6) Why was the electoral division of Dawson not included in the first tranche of NBN funding.
Mr Albanese: The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) By what date is the National Broadband Network (NBN) scheduled to be rolled-out in the electoral division of Dawson.
As outlined in its 2011-2013 Corporate Plan, NBN Co forecasts it will take 9.5 years to build the NBN. It is expected to be completed by December 2020.
NBN Co has not yet indicated dates for the fibre network rollout in the electorate of Dawson. However, NBN Co has now released its first 12-month national rollout schedule. The rollout schedule will be updated each quarter to include new locations and is available on NBN Co's website.
NBN Co plans to complete the rollout of its fixed wireless network, including to some communities in the Dawson electorate, by 2015.
On 1 July 2011, NBN Co launched its Interim Satellite Service (ISS) which offers improved broadband services to homes and small businesses unable to access to a metro-comparable broadband service, ahead of the introduction of a long term satellite solution in 2015.
(2) Which towns in this electorate (a) will, and (b) will not, have a fibre optic cable connection to premises.
Indicative coverage maps published by NBN Co suggest that Mackay, Seaforth, Proserpine, Airlie Beach, Ayr and Home Hill in the electorate of Dawson may be served by fibre to the premises technology.
NBN Co's maps indicate that communities in the less densely populated areas surrounding the towns of Mackay, Seaforth, Proserpine, Bowen, Ayr, Home Hill, and south of Townsville, may be served by next generation fixed wireless technology providing speeds of 12 megabits per second (Mbps).
All remaining premises will be served by satellite technologies providing speeds of 12 Mbps.
These maps are indicative only and the precise optic fibre footprint will only be known when NBN Co completes its detailed suburb-by-suburb, region-by-region designs for the network.
(3) Through which towns in this electorate will the NBN fibre connection pass without being connected to premises because the towns lay outside the NBN's agreed fibre connection zone.
NBN Co's current network planning for the fibre footprint includes the assumption that, where transit backhaul passes communities with greater than 500 premises, the fibre footprint may be extended to cover these communities. Under these current network planning guidelines no community with less than 500 premises, even if passed by the fibre transit backhaul routes, will be connected to fibre.
The precise optic fibre footprint will only be known when NBN Co completes its detailed suburb-by-suburb, region-by-region designs for the network.
(4) What is the estimated cost of connecting premises to the NBN in each town in this electorate in the year it will be rolled-out, and the subsequent two years.
NBN Co's detailed expenditure forecasts for cost to pass particular premises are commercial-in-confidence. Information on the expenditure associated with the rollout can be found in NBN Co's Corporate Plan.
(5) What is the estimated monthly cost of NBN provision for an average household in this electorate in the year it will be rolled-out.
NBN Co offers a wholesale-only service, and monthly retail costs are a matter for retail service providers. However, prices for NBN plans released to date compare very favourably to existing ADSL plans, while delivering a superior end user experience and the option to upgrade to faster speeds not available over the copper network.
For example, Exetel has announced NBN plans starting from $34.50 for a 12 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload service with 20 gigabyte (GB) data allowance. iiNet has announced NBN plans starting from $49.95 per month for a 12 Mbps service with 40 GB of data allowance. Retail service providers also offer a range of plans with significantly higher speeds and data allowances for interested customers.
Importantly, there is no additional line rental fee with NBN services, as typically charged by retailers for an ADSL service. Service providers such as Exetel and Internode provide a phone service at no extra charge with their broadband plans, and iiNet offers a phone service for an additional $9.95 per month with their broadband plans that includes free local and national calls.
The government expects that retail service providers will continue to announce competitive NBN pricing plans in the coming months.
(6) Why was the electoral division of Dawson not included in the first tranche of NBN funding.
The first and second release sites were selected by NBN Co network planners and engineers because they represent the diverse situations the company will encounter during the network rollout. The sites provided an opportunity to test and document different design and construction techniques in a range of situations. The sites offer significant variety in terms of geography, housing type and density, local infrastructure and other local factors.
In terms of the volume rollout schedule, engineering and logistic requirements have determined the order of sites being rolled out. Those requirements include access to core NBN infrastructure, such as the transit network and fibre access nodes.
Australian National Preventive Health Agency
(Question No. 722)
Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 3 November 2011:
In respect of the Australian National Preventive Health Agency, (a) can she indicate what sum has been budgeted for alcohol campaigns in (i) 2011-12, and (ii) 2012-13, (b) how many full-time equivalent staff currently work for the agency, (c) what is the annual lease costs for the office, and (d) what size is the office in square meters.
Ms Plibersek: The answer to the honourable member ' s question asked of the former Minister for Health and Ageing is as follows:
(a) (i) and (ii) The Australian National Preventative Health Agency (ANPHA) administered appropriation in 2011-2012 and 2012-13 for the National Binge Drinking Strategy (NBDS) Expansion is reflected in the table below.
|
2011/12 |
2012/13 |
Total |
11,023 |
13,987 |
(b) As at 3 November 2011, ANPHA employed 31 FTE staff.
(c) ANPHA's annual lease costs are $305, 756. As ANPHA was established on 1 January 2011, the lease costs have been calculated for calendar year 2011.
(d) As at 3 November 2011, the ANPHA office occupies 1,012 square meters.
Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records
(Question No. 723)
Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 3 November 2011:
Does she know the estimated value of the infrastructure/hardware that the Commonwealth will own as at 1 July 2012 in respect of the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record project; if so, can she provide it.
Ms Roxon: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
It is estimated that the total value of assets that the Commonwealth will have invested will be between $70 – 100 million. The Commonwealth will own these assets. Other aspects of the Program have been invested in the Lead Implementation Sites, change and adoption and the establishment of standards and specifications.
Healthcare Identifier Service
(Question No. 724)
Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 3 November 2011:
What total sum has the Government spent on the Healthcare Identifiers and the Healthcare Identifiers Service for individuals?
Ms Roxon: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Healthcare Identifier Service construction and operation has been funded through the Council of Australian Government's decisions of 10 February 2006 and 28 November 2008. The Healthcare Identifier Service cost $98.2 million to build, and costs associated with its operation will be $52.02 million up to 30 June 2011, totalling $150.22 million (GST Exclusive).
The Commonwealth's 50 per cent share of this project is $75.11 million (GST Exclusive).
The Commonwealth also funds the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to provide oversight of the Healthcare Identifier Service. This has cost $1 million (GST Exclusive) over 2010-11 to 2011-12.
National E-Health Transition Authority
(Question No. 726)
Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 3 November 2011:
In respect of the National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA), (a) what is the total budgeted staffing expenditure for (i) 2011-12, and (ii) 2012-13, and (b) what is the total (i) number of full-time equivalent staff at NEHTA in 2011-12, and (ii) expected number of full-time equivalent staff at NEHTA for 2012-13, and (c) what sum of funding will be required for NEHTA to continue operations after its COAG funding expires on 30 June 2012.
Ms Plibersek: The answer to the honourable member's question asked of the former Minister for Health and Ageing is as follows:
(a) (i) The total budgeted staffing expenditure for NEHTA in 2011-12 is $66.8 million. This estimate includes staff and contractors.
(ii) Future funding for NEHTA post 30 June 2012 is a matter for decision through Government budget process.
(b) (i) The number of full time equivalent staff at NEHTA in 2011-12 is 314, of which 273 are permanent staff and 41 are on fixed term contracts.
(ii) Staffing levels for 2012-13 are linked to the future funding for NEHTA post 30 June 2012 which is a matter for decision through Government budget process.
(c) Future funding for NEHTA post 30 June 2012 is a matter for decision through Government budget process.
The answers to these questions have been sourced directly from NEHTA. The future year funding and staffing questions cannot be answered precisely until the Government funding process upon which these funds are dependent has been completed.
Burdekin Community Association: Funding
(Question No. 727)
Mr Christensen asked the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, in writing, on 17 November 2011:
Is it a fact that funding for (a) the Burdekin Mental Health Foundation, (b) Burdekin CORES (Community Response to Eliminating Suicide), and (c) Burdekin Community Association Youth Support Services, has been cut to fund the eheadspace program; if so, why.
Mr Butler: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) to (c) No, there is no reduction in funding to the Burdekin Community Association. The following table shows funding to the Burdekin Community Association under the Australian Government's National Suicide Prevention Program (NSPP), including the previous and current funding agreements from 2009-10 to 2010-11 and 2011-12 to 2012-13 respectively. Funding amounts have remained consistent across these two agreements.
Project Name |
Project Organisation |
Project Description |
2009-10 |
2010-11 |
2009-10 / 2010-11 Total |
2011-12 |
2012-13 |
2011-12 / 2012-13 Total |
Burdekin Suicide Prevention & Mental Health Support |
Burdekin Community Association |
Establish a community based education and awareness program on suicide prevention, provide drug abuse and suicide prevention programs though schools and youth groups and heighten community awareness amongst the mentally ill. |
104,545 |
109,091 |
213,636 |
108,741 |
110,698 |
219,439 |
Funding for the eheadspace program is provided under the separate 2010-11 Budget Measure, More Youth-Friendly Services.
Export Market Development Grants
(Question No. 732)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 17 November 2011:
How many Export Market Development Grants went to Australian tourism sector businesses in (a) 2007–08, (b) 2008–09, (c) 2009–10, (d) 2010–11, and (e) 2011–12 (to date), what proportion (as a percentage) was this funding of the total number of grants awarded, and for each year, who was the successful applicant and what was the purpose of the grant (including target export destination).
Dr Emerson: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Details relating to Australian tourism sector businesses in (a) 2007–08, (b) 2008–09, (c) 2009–10, (d) 2010–11, and (e) 2011–12 (to date), are provided in the table below.
|
Tourism |
Other Industries |
||||||
Year of Application Receipt |
Grants Paid |
% of All Grants |
Total Value ($m) |
% of Total Value |
Grants Paid |
% of All Grants |
Total Value ($m) |
% of Total Value |
2007–08 |
422 |
10.6 |
$12.5 |
8.2 |
3,550 |
89.4 |
$139.9 |
91.8 |
2008–09 |
437 |
10.5 |
$14.1 |
7.5 |
3,709 |
89.5 |
$174.7 |
92.5 |
2009–10 |
554 |
11.7 |
$18.2 |
9.0 |
4,179 |
88.3 |
$184.7 |
91.0 |
2010–11 |
457 |
10.8 |
$11.1 |
8.3 |
3,765 |
89.2 |
$123.2 |
91.7 |
2011–12* |
105 |
11.5 |
$2.8 |
11.1 |
811 |
88.5 |
$22.7 |
88.9 |
Grand Total |
1,975 |
11.0 |
$58.8 |
8.3 |
16,014 |
89.0 |
$645.3 |
91.7 |
* Grants Assessed to 18/11/2011.
Grant applications are normally lodged in the financial year after the year in which the export marketing expenses are incurred (except for first year applications where the application may cover expenses incurred in the previous two financial years) . The statistics shown here are for the years in which the applications were received.
The successful applicants in the tourism sector for each year are listed in the following table.
Year of Grant Application |
Grant Recipient |
2007/8 |
2 FROGZ IN OZ PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
509 PITT ST PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
88 ALFRED STREET PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ABBEY BEACH RESORT MANAGEMENT LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR ABBEY BEACH RESORT SYNDICATE |
2007/8 |
ACCOMMODATION CLEARING HOUSE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ACCOMMODATION DOWN UNDER (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ACROSS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ACTIVE SAFARI PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ACTIVITY TOURS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ADDICTIVE ENTERTAINMENT & TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ADVENTURE & PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPANY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ADVENTURE BAY TRADING CO PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ADVENTURE CONVENTIONS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AFFORDABLE ART COMPANY (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AGENTS SUPPORT SYSTEMS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AIR 23 PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AJS MANAGEMENT (WA) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ALAMAY DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ALL SEASONS CAMPERVANS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ANELLA HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ANGLO IRISH TRADING CO PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ANSPEC PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
APTC PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AQUADUCK SAFARIS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ARAFURA HELICOPTERS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ARRIVAL MARKETING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ARROW ON SWANSTON (AUST) PTY LTD ATF ARROW HEIGHTS UNIT TRUST |
2007/8 |
ASIAN PACIFIC PROPERTY INVESTMENT PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ASSOCIATED CONTROLS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIAN CONVENTION BUREAUX INC |
2007/8 |
AUFAN INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AUGA TRAVEL SERVICE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AURORA EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AUSTRALIA BOUND TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AUSTRALIA ECOTOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AUSTRALIA PARADISE TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AUSTRALIAN ADVENTURE TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AUSTRALIAN ART JOINT VENTURE |
2007/8 |
AUSTRALIAN GETAWAYS JOINT VENTURE |
2007/8 |
AUSTRALIAN TOURS & TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AUSTRALIAN TRAVEL CLUB PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AUSTRALIAN WINE TOUR COMPANY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AUSWILD PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AUTOPIA TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
AVANT HOTELS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
B T AND J M PERRY T/A HERVEY BAY WHALE WATCH |
2007/8 |
BACKPACK PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CITY & SURF TRUST |
2007/8 |
BACKPACKER HOSTEL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
BAYSIDE OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
BG HOTELS (DARWIN) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
BG HOTELS (HOLINN) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
BI WORLDWIDE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD & NG AU INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
BIG ON ELIZABETH PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
BLUE ANGEL RESTAURANT PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
BLUE TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
BONZA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
BONZA BIKE TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
BRAMLYN PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
BRIGALOW NOMINEES PTY LTD ATF ST KILDA ROAD UNIT TRUST |
2007/8 |
BRIGHTON SHELLEY LTD & BROMFIELD HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
BRISBANE CONVENTION CENTRE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT LTD |
2007/8 |
BUFFALO SAFARIS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
BUNBURY DOLPHIN DISCOVERY INC |
2007/8 |
BUNK (QLD) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
BYRON BAY MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
CAIRNS GATEWAY RESORT PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
CAPE TRIB BEACH HOUSE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
CAPROLL PTY LIMITED |
2007/8 |
CASMIT INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
CE' NEDRA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
CENTAMAN SYSTEMS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
CHARLES LESKI AUCTIONS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
CHARLOR PTY LTD ATF CARLTON UNIT TRUST |
2007/8 |
CHINTA TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
CITICARE PTY LTD ATF CITICARE TRUST |
2007/8 |
CITY ROAD MANAGEMENT PTY LTD ATF E ROLLER AND OTHERS TRUST & OTHERS |
2007/8 |
CITYMOVE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
CLEMENT VIEW PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
CLOUDPLAY PTY LTD & PACIFIC LEISURE GROUP PTY LTD & MARYLAND HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
COACH TOURS OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
COLIN EDWIN WEBSTER |
2007/8 |
COLIVON PTY LTD ATF ALTOVA TRADING UNIT TRUST |
2007/8 |
COODLIE PARK PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
COOEE ON ST KILDA PTY LTD ATF COOEE TRUST |
2007/8 |
COSH HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
COTTONS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
CYPRESS LAKES GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
D & I SINCLAIR PTY LTD ATF SINCLAIR DISCRETIONARY TRUST |
2007/8 |
D & S UNITED PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DAINTREE RAINFOREST ENVIRONMENTAL CENTRE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DARK HORSE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DARWIN AIRPORT RESORT OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DARWIN INTERNATIONAL HOTELS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DAYDREAM ISLAND PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DEKITE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DERWENT VALLEY HOSPITALITY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DES'S GROOVY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DESTINATION PACIFIC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DHARMA WORLD PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DOWNUNDER RECREATIONAL TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DRACULAS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DRIVER GROUP SIGHTSEEING PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DUCKS IN A ROW PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DVD TRIVIA GAMES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
DWL GROUP PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ECOTOURISM AUSTRALIA LTD |
2007/8 |
EDUCATIONAL WORLD TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
EGA GATEWAYS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
EITEU PTY LTD TRADING AS SUNSHINE STATE SURF SCHOOL |
2007/8 |
ELIZABETH CHARLES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ENCORE BUSINESS TOURISM PTY LIMITED |
2007/8 |
EQUATION NOMINEES PTY LTD ATF SOUTH PARK UNIT TRUST |
2007/8 |
EQUIS PRODUCTIONS |
2007/8 |
EQUITY CONSULTING SERVICES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ERIC BLEWITT SAFARIS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
EXPERIENCE SPORT! PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
EXPLORE MELBOURNE'S MORNINGTON PENINSULA J/V |
2007/8 |
FEDERAL EAST COAST HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
FEDERAL HOLDINGS TASMANIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
FERNWOOD WOMEN'S HEALTH CLUBS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
FIDUCIARY NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
FIRBANK ARCH PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
FJ & DM DIECKMANN |
2007/8 |
FLATOUT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
FLINDERS RANGES TOURIST SERVICES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
FLOATING IMAGES AUST PTY LTD ATF FIA UNIT TRUST |
2007/8 |
FNQ HOSPITALITY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
FOTOPAK PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
FUJI PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
G C TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
G COMPANY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
G J COOLAHAN & S N COOLAHAN |
2007/8 |
G,T, S & S GRINING ATF GRINING TRUST |
2007/8 |
GB & LG PENNICOTT |
2007/8 |
GC HOTEL MANAGEMENT LIMITED |
2007/8 |
GERARD FRENCH |
2007/8 |
GIBREN EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
GILLIGAN'S BACKPACKERS HOTEL AND RESORT PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
GIMME GOLF PTY LTD ATF WORNER FAMILY TRUST |
2007/8 |
GLENCOE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD ATF THE GLENCOE TRUST |
2007/8 |
GLOBAL BALLOONING PTY LTD ATF SAUNDERS FAMILY TRUST |
2007/8 |
GLOBAL RESORTS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
GLORIA JEAN'S COFFEES INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
GO WEST TOURS (VIC) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
GOLDCREST INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
GOLDQUEST HOTELS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
GOLF WINE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
GOODEARTH HOTELS AUSTRALIA (GOLD COAST) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
GOODEARTH HOTELS MANAGEMENT (ADELAIDE) PTY LTD & TAMBUSU PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
GOYA GALLERIES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
GRAN EMERAL PTY LTD ATF THE TRUSTEE FOR THE BAIN FAMILY TRUST |
2007/8 |
GRAY LINE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
GRAY LINE TASMANIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
GREAT BIG EVENTS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
GRUS TRAVEL PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE PAGAN FAMILY TRUST |
2007/8 |
H.I. (BURSWOOD) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HABITAT DOME PTY LTD ATF RAINFOREST HABITAT TRUST |
2007/8 |
HALSAP PTY LIMITED |
2007/8 |
HANCOCK EVENTS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HANNAFORDS EVENTS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HANZ (CANBERRA) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HANZ (POTTS POINT) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HANZ (TERRIGAL) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HANZ (TOWNSVILLE) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HARBOUR CITY HOTEL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HARTLEYS CREEK CROCODILE FARMING COMPANY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HARVEST AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HELI CHARTERS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HINTERLAND TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HOLIDAY MARKETING INTERNATIONAL ( AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD T/A PETHERS |
2007/8 |
HONEY TRADING P/L |
2007/8 |
HOODOO GURUS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HOPPA TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HORIZON SPORTING EVENTS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HOSTEL REEF TRIPS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HOT HOLIDAY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HOTEL GRAND CHANCELLOR (BRISBANE) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HOTEL GRAND CHANCELLOR (HOBART) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HOTEL GRAND CHANCELLOR (LAUNCESTON) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HOTEL GRAND CHANCELLOR (MELBOURNE) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HOTEL GRAND CHANCELLOR (PERTH) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HOWARDS STORAGE WORLD INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
HUGH CARMICHAEL MACKAY |
2007/8 |
HURSLE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
INFINITY ( GOLD COAST) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
INTERNATIONAL LIMOUSINE SERVICES PTY LTD ATF INTERNATIONAL LIMOUSINE SERVICES |
2007/8 |
INVEST NORTH PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
J & J WALLACE (TOURS) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
JACKSON AND MACDONALD PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
JALEE TRADING AND TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
JAM RECORDINGS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
JAMIE BELL SAFARIS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
JAY & JAY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
JC DUFFY & RJ SMITH |
2007/8 |
JCC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
JK PARSONS & TJ PARSONS |
2007/8 |
JO JO & GOSHU PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
JR TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
JUICY LOVE PTY LTD ATF JUICY LOVE TRUST |
2007/8 |
JVC INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
K ROLFE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
KAKADU TOURISM (GCH) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
KAKADU TOURISM (GLC) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
KAMORI AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
KDEN PTY LTD ATF THE RC FAMILY TRUST |
2007/8 |
KEA CAMPERS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
KEYDANE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
KHARISTA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
KILDAIR HOTELS (GROSVENOR) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
KILDAIR HOTELS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
KIMS TOOWOON BAY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
KINGSCOTE OZONE HOTEL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
KIRRA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
KOOKABURRA CHALLENGE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
KOORIE PTY LTD ATF KOORIE HERITAGE TRUST INC |
2007/8 |
KORALIA TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
LADY ELLIOT ISLAND PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
LAKEHOUSE RETREAT PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
LANCELIN LODGE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
LANCO HOBART OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
LAST RESORT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
LEISURE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
LP LEONE & M RENZELLA |
2007/8 |
MACLIFE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MAGIC MILLIONS SALES PARTNERSHIP |
2007/8 |
MAGIC TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MAINDEVON PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MAINSTAY HOTELS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MALTINGS NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MANFRED KEMPENEER |
2007/8 |
MANSFIELD—MT BULLER REGIONAL TOURISM ASSOCIATION LIMITED |
2007/8 |
MARY RIVER WILDLIFE RANCH PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MATELDA OAKS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MAUNATOR PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MAXI ACTION PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MBW AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MCDERMOTT AVIATION PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MEGIAN PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
METRO TRANSPORT SYDNEY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MICHAEL DILISIO ATF PYRENEES INVESTMENT TRUST |
2007/8 |
MILLART ENTERPRISES PTY LTD AND NOTLAD ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MISHANDRA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MONKEY MIA ENTERPRISES PL & TF ASPEN MONKEY MIA TST |
2007/8 |
MOONDANCE LODGE PTY LTD ATF MOONDANCE TRUST |
2007/8 |
MOONLIGHT HEAD PROPERTIES LTD |
2007/8 |
MORAMARK PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MORETON ISLAND FERRIES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MORRIS CORPORATION (AUST) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MOUNT 'N BEACH SAFARIS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MOUNTS BAY WATERS APARTMENT HOTEL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MYELLA FARM STAY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
MYHOTEL (PERTH) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
NAGATAS TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
NARYMAL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
NASH DIVING CORPORATION PTY LTD ATF NASH BUSINESS TRUST |
2007/8 |
NBL MANAGEMENT LIMITED |
2007/8 |
NC HANNAFORD & RE HANNAFORD |
2007/8 |
NEWPORT COFFEE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
NIFSAN PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
NORTH AUSTRALIAN EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
NORTH STAR CRUISES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
NORWEST HOTELS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
OAKFORD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
OMNISAFE INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ON EDGE SPORTS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ONERAIL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ONS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ORION EXPEDITIONS CRUISES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
OUTBACK ENCOUNTER PORTFOLIO |
2007/8 |
OUTBACK ENCOUNTER PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
OXLEY CREEK PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
OZ JET BOATING SYDNEY HARBOUR PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
OZ SNOW ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
OZPLUS TRADING PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PACIFIC AUSTRALIA GROUP PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PACIFIC GREEN TOURS PTY LIMITED |
2007/8 |
PALACE BACKPACKERS HERVEY BAY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PALACE BACKPACKERS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PARADISE AQUA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PARADISE ON THE BEACH PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PARADISE PALMS (NQ) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PARK REGIS CTC PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PAVIKA MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PEPPERMINT BAY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PETALS NETWORK PTY LIMITED |
2007/8 |
PETER AND ALEXANDRA SHERLOCK ATF THE ORAMA FAMILY TRUST |
2007/8 |
PETER PAN'S BACKPACKER ADVENTURE TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PHAPS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PHILLIP ISLAND NATURE PARK BOARD OF MANAGEMENT INC |
2007/8 |
PHOENIX IMAGES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PHOENIX INVESTMENT HOLDINGS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PLANCOR PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PORT DOUGLAS DIVE AND TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PORT DOUGLAS LIMOUSINE & COACHES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
POSEIDON CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PREMIER TRAVEL TASMANIA PTY LTD ATF ISLAND INVESTMENTS TRUST |
2007/8 |
PRESTIGE PHILATELY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PRIME ASSETS PTY LTD ATF EVERCHARGE TRUST |
2007/8 |
PRIME MINI TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PRISM DEFENCE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PROFLEX PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PROPERTY CONNECTION PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
PYRMONT LIGHT RAIL COMPANY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
QUEENSLAND JAPANESE SERVICES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
QUEENSLAND RESORTS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
RATEWAVE PTY LTD ATF MANLY PACIFIC UNIT TRUST |
2007/8 |
RAVEN MULTIHULLS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
RAWNSLEY PARK TOURISM PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
REATON COURT PTY LTD ATF A & V PARKES FAMILY TRUST |
2007/8 |
REBECCA LOUISE GIGLIA |
2007/8 |
REGESS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
RHS INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
RICHARD JUZWIN PTY LTD ATF RICHARD JUZWIN FAMILY TRUST |
2007/8 |
ROBONDA PTY LTD ATF ROBONDA TRUST |
2007/8 |
ROCKDALE HOTEL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ROLLING DALES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ROMA STREET OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ROSS GARDEN TOURS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ROTTNEST LODGE (1989) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ROWLING WOODS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ROYAL HEALTH FOOD PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SAACHI PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SAMARA TRADING PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SAMPSONS TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SANGROW PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SAREBAN TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SCA INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SE3 CONSULTING PTY LTD ATF THE W HARDING TRUST |
2007/8 |
SEA EAGLE SERVICES PTY LTD & THE TRUSTEE FOR OXLEY FAMILY TRUST |
2007/8 |
SEAHORSE WORLD PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SEAWALKER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SEBASTIAN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ATF SEBASTIAN INVESTMENTS TRUST |
2007/8 |
SIMON SAMAAN PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SIMPLY SKYDIVE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SKY PHOENIX PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SKYDIVE BYRON BAY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SLINGAIR PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SMART TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SOF PTY LTD ATF SPIRIT OF FREEDOM UNIT TRUST |
2007/8 |
SOGNO PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SOUTH WEST PACIFIC PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
ST LUKE'S ANGLICARE |
2007/8 |
STORY BRIDGE ADVENTURES PTY LTD ATF STORY BRIDGE ADVENTURES UNIT TRUST |
2007/8 |
STUCK ON YOU (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ATF THE STUCK ON YOU TRUST |
2007/8 |
SULLIVANS COVE IXL NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SULLIVANS HOTEL CO PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SUN TOURISM PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SUNCITY WATERSPORTS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SUNFERRIES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SUNROVER EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SUPER WOOLSTORE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SUPER YACHT BASE AUSTRALIA LIMITED |
2007/8 |
SURF & SUN PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SURF CAMP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SYDNEY SAILING PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SYDNEY SEAPLANES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SYDNEY SEMINARY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SYDNEY SURF SCHOOL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SYDNEY TOWER OBSERVATORY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
SYDNEY WILDLIFE WORLD PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TAJ HOTELS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TALL SHIP SAILING CRUISES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TALLAROOK DIVE CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TALLSHIP ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TAMAR RIVER CRUISES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TARRALEAH HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TEHAN NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
THE CHANCELLOR (ADELAIDE) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
THE EDGE PHOTO IMAGING PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
THE HOTEL CAIRNS PTY LTD ATF THE HOTEL CAIRNS UNIT TRUST |
2007/8 |
THE LIDO GROUP PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
THE ROCK TOUR PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
THE SYDNEY BUS COMPANY PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
THE TRUSTEE FOR MEADE PROPERTY TRUST |
2007/8 |
THE VIEW HOTELS ST KILDA ROAD PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
THE VINES (WA) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
THIRSTY SWAGMAN PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TOBAR HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TOBAR HOTEL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 4 PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 14 PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 16 PTY LTD & KASMIL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD PARTNERSHIP |
2007/8 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 36 PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TOURISM PROPERTY INVESTMENT GROUP PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TRANQUIL TRAVEL SERVICE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TRAVEL BEYOND PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TRAVEL WORLD (AUSTRALIA) P/L |
2007/8 |
TREE TOYS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TRIWELL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
TUDOODS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
UNIQUE SYDNEY TOURS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
UNTAMED TRACKS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
VALUE INN PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
VAN DIEMEN HOTEL GROUP PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
VENUES OF AUSTRALIA (HOMEBUSH BAY) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
VETSHOPAUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
WADE J JOHN |
2007/8 |
WALES HOUSE LTD |
2007/8 |
WANDERERS TRAVEL.COM (NSW) PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
WASHINGTON STREET NO 27 PTY LTD ATF GAWLER RANGES WILDERNESS SAFARIS UNIT TRUST |
2007/8 |
WAYNE GRADY GOLF DESIGNS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
WAYOUTBACK DESERT SAFARIS PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
WEBCAR HIRE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
WEBJET MARKETING PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
WHITEMARK PTY LTD ATF GEOGRAPHE MOTEL UNIT TRUST |
2007/8 |
WICKED TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
WILD THING ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
WILDERNESS 4WD ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
WILDERNESS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
WILDLIFE COAST CRUISES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
WILDLIFE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
WINGLONG TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
WOODDUCK ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
WORN GUNDIDJ ABORIGINAL CO-OPERATIVE LTD |
2007/8 |
YAI FRANCHISING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
YONGALA DIVE PTY LTD |
2007/8 |
YOUTH HOSTELS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA INC. |
2007/8 |
YWCA NSW |
2007/8 |
YWCA VICTORIA |
2007/8 |
ZANZIBAR BAR & GRILL |
2007/8 |
ZLATAR INTERIORS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
88 ALFRED STREET PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
A.R.T. OF OPAL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
AAT NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ABACUS MARKET STREET HOTEL PTY LIMITED |
2008/9 |
ACADEMY OF SURFING INSTRUCTORS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ACCOMMODATION CLEARING HOUSE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ACCOMODATION DOWN UNDER (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ACROSS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ACTIVE SAFARI PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ACTIVITY TOURS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ADDICTIVE ENTERTAINMENT & TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ADIRONDACK TRADING PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ADVENTURE & PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPANY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ADVENTURE BAY TRADING CO PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ADVENTURE CONVENTIONS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ADVENTURE NORTH AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ADVENTURE TRAVEL.COM.AU PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
AFFORDABLE ART COMPANY (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
AGENTS SUPPORT SYSTEMS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
AIR 23 PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
AJS MANAGEMENT (WA) PTY LTD ATF BRALUDAMA TRUST |
2008/9 |
ALAMAY DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ALL SEASONS CAMPERVANS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ALUMINIUM BOATS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ANELLA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ATF EVANS FAMILY TRUST |
2008/9 |
ANTONY M & YUKA WILLCOX FAMILY PARTNERSHIP |
2008/9 |
ANZ TRAVEL SERVICES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
APTC PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
AQUADUCK SAFARIES PTY LTD |
Year of Grant Application |
Grant Recipient |
2008/9 |
ARRIVAL MARKETING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ARROW ON SWANSTON (AUST) PTY LTD ATF ARROW HEIGHTS UNIT TRUST |
2008/9 |
ASIAN PACIFIC PROPERTY INVESTMENT PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIAN CONVENTION BUREAUX INC |
2008/9 |
AUFAN INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
AUGA TRAVEL SERVICE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
AURORA EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
AUSTRALIAN 4WD PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
AUSTRALIAN ADVENTURE TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
AUSTRALIAN ECO-RETREATS PTY LIMITED |
2008/9 |
AUSTRALIAN GETAWAYS JOINT VENTURE |
2008/9 |
AUSTRALIAN TOURS & TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
AUSTRALIAN TRAVEL CLUB PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
AUSTRALIAN WINE TOUR COMPANY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
AUSWILD PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
AVANT HOTELS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
B T AND J M PERRY T/A HERVEY BAY WHALE WATCH |
2008/9 |
BACKPACKER HOSTEL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BACKPACKERS WORLD TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BAILLIE LODGES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BARUKO PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BAYPINE PTY LTD ATF COOGEE BAY TRUST |
2008/9 |
BAYSIDE OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BG HOTELS (DARWIN) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BG HOTELS (HOLINN) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BI WORLDWIDE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD & NG AU INVESTMENTS PTY LTD. (MINT-BI P/SHIP) |
2008/9 |
BIG ON ELIZABETH PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BILLB PTY LTD T/A EASYRIDER BACKPACKER TOURS |
2008/9 |
BLUE POPPY LEISURE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BLUE TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BONZA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BONZA BIKE TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BOOST JUICE FRANCHISES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BOUTIQUE TOURS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BRAMLYN PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BRCP OASIS OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BRIGALOW NOMINEES PTY LTD ATF ST KILDA ROAD UNIT TRUST |
2008/9 |
BRIGHT FLAME PTY LTD ATF SIBIL TRUST & BLOSSOM HILL TRUST & OTHERS |
2008/9 |
BRIGHTON SHELLEY LTD & BROMFIELD HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BRISBANE CONVENTION CENTRE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT LTD |
2008/9 |
BRUNO MEIER & MARLIES GEHRIG PARTNERSHIP |
2008/9 |
BUFFALO SAFARIS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BULLO RIVER PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
BUSSELTON JETTY ENVIRONMENT & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED |
2008/9 |
BYRON BAY MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
C.F STABERHOFER & E STABERHOFER & E.A STABERHOFER & N.E SVENDSEN T/A CAPTAINS LODGE INTERNATIONAL -VIP RESTAURANT |
2008/9 |
CAIRNS GATEWAY RESORT PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CAIRNS TOUR ADVICE & BOOKING CENTRE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CALYPSO REEF CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CAPE TRIB BEACH HOUSE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CASSMAR HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CASSMAR HOTELS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CASTAWAYS MISSION BEACH PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CAVENDRA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CHARLES LESKI AUCTIONS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CHARLOR PTY LTD ATF CARLTON UNIT TRUST |
2008/9 |
CHARTER YACHTS (QLD) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CHINTA TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CITIGATE MELBOURNE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CITIGATE PERTH PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CITY ROAD MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CITY TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CITYMOVE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CLEMENT VIEW PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
COACH TOURS OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
COODLIE PARK PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
COOEE ON ST KILDA PTY LTD ATF COOEE TRUST |
2008/9 |
CORPORATE EVENTS MARKETING PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
COSH HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
COTTONS BRANDS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
CRUISE DOWN UNDER INC |
2008/9 |
CULTURAL EXCHANGE CONSULTANCY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
D & S UNITED PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
DAINTREE RAINFOREST ENVIRONMENTAL CENTRE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
DARWIN AIRPORT RESORT OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
DARWIN INTERNATIONAL HOTELS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
DAYDREAM ISLAND PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
DERWENT VALLEY HOSPITALITY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
DES'S GROOVY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
DIMITAR BLAGOEV TRADING AS MB INTERNATIONAL TENNIS |
2008/9 |
DOWNUNDER RECREATIONAL TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
DRACULAS THEATRE RESTAURANT PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
DRAXTON HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
DRIVER GROUP SIGHTSEEING PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
DUCKS IN A ROW PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
DWL GROUP PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ECHOES HOTEL PTY LTD ATF ECHOES HOTEL TRUST |
2008/9 |
ECOTOURISM AUSTRALIA LIMITED |
2008/9 |
EGA GATEWAYS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
EITEU PTY LTD TRADING AS SUNSHINE STATE SURF SCHOOL |
2008/9 |
ELIZABETH CHARLES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ENCORE BUSINESS TOURISM PTY LIMITED |
2008/9 |
ENTERPRISE AQUARIUS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
EPIC EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
EQUATION NOMINEES PTY LTD ATF SOUTH PARK UNIT TRUST |
2008/9 |
EQUIS PRODUCTIONS |
2008/9 |
EQUITY CONSULTING SERVICES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
EXPERIENCE SPORT! PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
EXPLORE MELBOURNE'S MORNINGTON PENINSULA J/V |
2008/9 |
FEDERAL EAST COAST HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
FERNWOOD WOMENS HEALTH CLUBS (INTERNATIONAL) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
FJ & DM DIECKMANN T/A HAVAGO AUSTRALIA |
2008/9 |
FLATOUT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
FLINDERS RANGES TOURIST SERVICES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
FOODCOMM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
FOTOPAK PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
FRASERS TOWN HALL RESIDENCES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
FRESHWATER RESOURCES PL ATF ASHTON FT & GREENSTONE ASSET PL ATFT JULES ASHTON FTTHE TRUSTEE FOR ASHTON FAMILY TRUST & THE TRUSTEE FOR JULES ASHTON FAMILY TRUST T/A MARG RIVER BACKPACKERS |
2008/9 |
FUJII PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
FUTURE FOOD—RETAIL FOOD PLANNERS PTY LTD ATF LOUGHRAN FAMILY TRUST |
2008/9 |
G C TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
G COMPANY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
GB & LG PENNICOTT T/A GREG PENNICOTT SAFARIS |
2008/9 |
GEEGEELA PTY LTD & THE TRUSTEE FOR DANIEL BUNNING FAMILY TRUST & THE TRUSTEE FOR SHERGERT TRUST & THE TRUSTEE FOR SHIELDS FAMILY TRUST |
2008/9 |
GENIE GRAPHICS PTY LTD T/A CERVANTES LODGE |
2008/9 |
GEOGRAPHE BAY TOURISM ASSOCIATION |
2008/9 |
GIBREN EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
GILLIGAN'S BACKPACKERS HOTEL AND RESORT PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
GLENCOE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD ATF THE GLENCOE TRUST |
2008/9 |
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS GROUP PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
GLOBAL RESORTS PTY LTD ATF CN DISCRETIONARY TRUST |
2008/9 |
GLORIA JEAN'S COFFEES INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
GO GO TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
GO WEST TOURS (VIC) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
GOLD COAST JET BOATING PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
GOODEARTH HOTELS AUSTRALIA (GOLD COAST) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
GOODEARTH HOTELS MANAGEMENT (ADELAIDE) PTY LTD & TAMBUSU PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
GOYA GALLERIES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
GRAN EMERAL PTY LTD ATF THE TRUSTEE FOR THE BAIN FAMILY TRUST |
2008/9 |
GRAY LINE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
GRAY LINE TASMANIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
GREAT BIG EVENTS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
GRIFFELL NOMINEES PTY LTD ATFT GRIFFELL TRUST |
2008/9 |
GRUS TRAVEL PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE PAGAN FAMILY TRUST |
2008/9 |
GUMALA ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
GUY HENRY DIGBY MAINE T/A HELI EXPERIENCES |
2008/9 |
H.I. (BURSWOOD) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HABITAT DOME PTY LTD ATF RAINFOREST HABITAT TRUST |
2008/9 |
HALSAP PTY LIMITED |
2008/9 |
HANNAFORDS EVENTS PTY LTD ATF N+A HANNAFORD DISCRETIONARY TRUST |
2008/9 |
HANZ (CANBERRA) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HANZ (POTTS POINT) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HANZ (TERRIGAL) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HANZ (TOWNSVILLE) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HARBOUR CITY HOTEL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HARBOUR DISCOVERIES PTY LTD ATF WARNE INVESTMENT TRUST |
2008/9 |
HARLEM ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HELEN FRASER T/A ULTIMATELY SYDNEY |
2008/9 |
HELI CHARTERS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HINCHINBROOK RESORTS & CRUISES PTY LTD ATF HINCHINBROOK ISLAND RESORT TRUST |
2008/9 |
HINTERLAND TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HOLIDAY MARKETING INTERNATIONAL ( AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD T/A PETHERS |
2008/9 |
HONEY TRADING PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HORIZON SPORTING EVENTS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HOT HOLIDAY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HOTEL GRAND CHANCELLOR (LAUNCESTON) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HOTEL STELLAR PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HOWARDS STORAGE WORLD INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HR GLENNIE & JL GLENNIE T/A WHITFIELD HOUSE |
2008/9 |
HUGH CARMICHAEL MACKAY |
2008/9 |
HUNG TA TRAVEL SERVICE CO PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HURSLE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
HVG CC PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
IAN JAQUES T/AS AUSTRALIAN HUNTING CONSULTANTS |
2008/9 |
IM CHU & Y WARBY T/A BONAVENTURE TRAVEL |
2008/9 |
INFINITY ( GOLD COAST) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
INTERNATIONAL LIMOUSINE SERVICES PTY LTD ATF INTERNATIONAL LIMOUSINE SERVICES |
2008/9 |
INVESTNORTH PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
IRONHILL MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ISLANDIVE.COM PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
J & J WALLACE (TOURS) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
JACKSON AND MACDONALD PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
JAMIE BELL SAFARIS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
JAY & JAY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
JC DUFFY & RJ SMITH T/A ECHIDNA WALKABOUT |
2008/9 |
JCC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
JEFFERY CLAYTON EASLEY |
2008/9 |
JEREMY D REDMOND & PIERRE J JACOBSSON T/A NATURAL TREASURES |
2008/9 |
JETABROAD PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
JILRIFT PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
JUICY LOVE PTY LTD ATF JUICY LOVE TRUST |
2008/9 |
JVC INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
K.E BROEKING & B BOURNE T/A INSIGHT AUSTRALIA TRAVEL |
2008/9 |
KAKADU TOURISM (GCH) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
KAKADU TOURISM (GLC) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
KAKAI PTY LTD ATF THE MASON FAMILY TRUST |
2008/9 |
KAMORI AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
KATOOMBA SCENIC RAILWAY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
KDEN PTY LTD ATF THE RC FAMILY TRUST |
2008/9 |
KELVIN TAYLOR T/A SHOWTIME BASKETBALL |
2008/9 |
KENT & LILIANE JANSEN T/A ULYSSES GETAWAYS |
2008/9 |
KEYDANE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
KHARISTA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
KILDAIR HOTELS (GROSVENOR) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
KILDAIR HOTELS (KINGSGATE) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
KILDAIR HOTELS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
KING PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
KINGS CANYON NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
KIRRA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
KOOKABURRA CHALLENGE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
KORALIA TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
KURANDA RESORT PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
LADY ELLIOT ISLAND PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
LAKEHOUSE RETREAT PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
LANCELIN LODGE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
LANCO HOBART OPERATIONS PTY LTD ATF LANCO HOBART OPERATIONS TRUST |
2008/9 |
LANCO LAUNCESTON OPERATIONS PTY LTD ATF THOMPSON TASMANIAN TRUST |
2008/9 |
LAST RESORT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
LINCOLNSHIRE PTY LTD ATF GUDE FAMILY TAMAR RIVER CRUISE TRUST |
2008/9 |
LORD'S KAKADU & ARNHEM LAND SAFARIS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
LP LEONE & M RENZELLA |
2008/9 |
M.S. EBERT & GEEGEELA PTY LTD & JAILAW PTY LTD & THE TRUSTEE FOR THE DANIEL BUNNING FAMILY TRUST & THE TRUSTEE FOR THE KITTLITZ TRUST & TRANBY EQUITY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MACLEAN BAY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MACLIFE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MAGIC MILLIONS SALES PARTNERSHIP |
2008/9 |
MAGIC TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MAINDEVON PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MAINSTAY HOTELS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MANSFIELD—MT BULLER REGIONAL TOURISM ASSOCIATION LIMITED |
2008/9 |
MARY ANNE KENNEDY |
2008/9 |
MARY RIVER WILDLIFE RANCH PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MAXI ACTION PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MCBRIDE GOLF PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MCDERMOTT AVIATION PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MEGIAN PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MELBOURNE EUREKA TOWER OBSERVATION DECK PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED |
2008/9 |
METRO TRANSPORT SYDNEY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MIDDLEDANK PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MILLART ENTERPRISES P/L & NOTLAD ENTERPRISES P/LT ATF ROBERT DALTON FAMILY TRUST & PERRY BARTHOLOMEW FAMILY TRUST |
2008/9 |
MISHANDRA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MOONLIGHT HEAD PROPERTIES LTD |
2008/9 |
MOONSHADOW CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MORAMARK PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MORETON ISLAND FERRIES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MORRIS CORPORATION (AUST) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
MOUNTS BAY WATERS APARTMENT HOTEL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
NAGATAS TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
NARROWCASTERS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
NASH DIVING CORPORATION PTY LTD ATF NASH BUSINESS TRUST |
2008/9 |
NC HANNAFORD & RE HANNAFORD |
2008/9 |
NINGALOO REEF DREAMING PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
NONCHALON PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
NOORTON PTY LTD T/AS BASS & FLINDERS CRUISES |
2008/9 |
NORTH AUSTRALIA BUSINESS SERVICES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
NORWEST HOTELS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
OAKFORD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
OMNISAFE INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ON EDGE SPORTS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ONERAIL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ONS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ORION EXPEDITIONS CRUISES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
OUTBACK ENCOUNTER PORTFOLIO |
2008/9 |
OUTBACK ENCOUNTER PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
OX.TWO PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
OXLEY CREEK PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
OZ JET BOATING SYDNEY HARBOUR PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
OZ SNOW ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
OZPLUS TRADING PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PACIFIC AUSTRALIA GROUP PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PACIFIC GREEN TOURS PTY LIMITED |
2008/9 |
PACKS ON BACKS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PADDYMCHUGH.COM PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PAINTBOX FINE ART PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PALACE BACKPACKERS HERVEY BAY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PAN DEVELOPMENTS NQ PTY LTD ATF NOTT FAMILY TRUST T/A ROSE GUMS WILDERNESS RETREAT |
2008/9 |
PARADISE PALMS (NQ) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PARK REGIS CTC PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PEPPERMINT BAY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PETALS NETWORK PTY LIMITED |
2008/9 |
PETER AND ALEXANDRA SHERLOCK ATF THE ORAMA FAMILY TRUST |
2008/9 |
PETER PAN'S BACKPACKER ADVENTURE TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PHILLIP JOHN BEACH T/A THE RIVER RETREAT |
2008/9 |
PHOENIX IMAGES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PHOENIX INVESTMENT HOLDINGS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PLANCOR PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PONT3 PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PORT DOUGLAS DIVE AND TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PORT DOUGLAS LIMOUSINE & COACHES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PORT O'CALL LODGE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
POSEIDON CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PREMIER TRAVEL TASMANIA PTY LTD ATF ISLAND INVESTMENTS TRUST |
2008/9 |
PRESTIGE PHILATELY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PRIME MINI TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PRISM DEFENCE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PROFLEX PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PROPERTY CONNECTION PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
PYRMONT LIGHT RAIL COMPANY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
Q DECK QLD PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
QUEENSLAND RESORTS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
QUINTESSENTIAL DIVING OCEAN FREE PTY LTD ATF JONES AGIUS TRUST |
2008/9 |
RANCHMAN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
RATEWAVE PTY LTD ATF MANLY PACIFIC UNIT TRUST |
2008/9 |
RAVEN MULTIHULLS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
RAWNSLEY PARK TOURISM PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
REATON COURT PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
REBECCA WATTS-THOMAS |
2008/9 |
REBENTA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
REDBUBBLE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
REDROCK GALLERY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
REGESS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
REGIME PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
RESTAURANT AND CATERING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA |
2008/9 |
RHS INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
RICHARD JUZWIN PTY LTD ATF RICHARD JUZWIN FAMILY TRUST |
2008/9 |
RJJY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ROBONDA PTY LTD ATF ROBONDA TRUST |
2008/9 |
ROCKDALE HOTEL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ROLLING DALES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ROMA STREET OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ROSS GARDEN TOURS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ROWLING WOODS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
RPW NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SAACHI PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SANGROW PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SCA INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SEA EAGLE SERVICES PTY LTD & THE TRUSTEE FOR THE OXLEY FAMILY TRUST T/A THE RICHARDSON HOTEL AND SPA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SEA TASMANIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SEAWALKER @ GREEN ISLAND PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SKY PHOENIX PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SKYDIVE BYRON BAY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SOF PTY LTD ATF SPIRIT OF FREEDOM UNIT TRUST |
2008/9 |
SOGNO PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SOUTHERN OCEAN LODGE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
STEPHANIE MILLS GALLERY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
STORY BRIDGE ADVENTURES PTY LTD ATF STORY BRIDGE UNIT TRUST |
2008/9 |
SUNCITY WATERSPORTS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SUNFERRIES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SUNROVER EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SUPER WOOLSTORE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SUPER YACHT BASE AUSTRALIA LIMITED |
2008/9 |
SURF CAMP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SYDNEY SAILING PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SYDNEY SEAPLANES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SYDNEY SEMINARY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SYDNEY SURF SCHOOL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SYDNEY TOWER OBSERVATORY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
SYDNEY WILDLIFE WORLD PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
T.C.O.B. CONSULTING PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TAJ HOTELS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TALL SHIP SAILING CRUISES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TALLAROOK DIVE CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TARRALEAH (BUSINESS) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TASMANIAN BOUTIQUE HOTELS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TEHAN NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
THE CHANCELLOR (ADELAIDE) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
THE EDGE PHOTO IMAGING PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONSULTANCY |
2008/9 |
THE GREAT ESCAPE CHARTER COMPANY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
THE HOTEL CAIRNS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
THE LIDO GROUP PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
THE ROCK TOUR PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
THE VINES (WA) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
THIRSTY SWAGMAN PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TINSTAFL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TOBAR HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TOBAR HOTEL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 4 PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 14 PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 16 PTY LTD & KASMIL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD PARTNERSHIP |
2008/9 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 36 PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TOTAL DESIGNS & DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TOURISM PROPERTY INVESTMENT GROUP PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TRANQUIL TRAVEL SERVICE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TRANSPORT SEATING TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TRAVEL MAESTRO INBOUND PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TRAVEL WORLD (AUSTRALIA) P/L |
2008/9 |
TREE TOYS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TRIBAL TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TRIWELL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TUDOODS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
TWEED ENDEAVOUR CRUISES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
UNIQUE SYDNEY TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
VALUE INN PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
VAN DIEMEN HOTEL GROUP PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
VETSHOPAUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
VROOM VROOM VROOM PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WA NT TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WADE J JOHN |
2008/9 |
WALES HOUSE HOTEL LTD |
2008/9 |
WALHALLA'S STAR HOTEL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WANDERERS TRAVEL.COM (NSW) PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WARWICK DOUGLAS JAMES |
2008/9 |
WASHINGTON STREET NO 27 PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WATABE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WAW WHAT AUSTRALIANS WEAR PTY LTD ATF STEINBERG FAMILY TRUST NO 2 |
2008/9 |
WEBCAR HIRE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WEBJET MARKETING PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WHOLISTIC THERAPY CENTRE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WICKED TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WILDFRAME ECO TOURS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WILDLIFE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WILFRED GORDON & JUDITH BENNETT |
2008/9 |
WINDSOR DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WINGLONG TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WOODDUCK ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WORLD ANIMAL NETWORK PTY LIMITED |
2008/9 |
WORLDTOURISM TRAVEL CENTRE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
WORN GUNDIDJ ABORIGINAL CO-OPERATIVE LTD |
2008/9 |
WROTHAM PARK STATION PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
YAI FRANCHISING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
YARRA VALLEY GOLF PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
YONGALA DIVE PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
YOUTH HOSTELS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA INC. |
2008/9 |
YOYAKU.COM PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ZANZIBAR BAR & GRILL PTY LTD |
2008/9 |
ZLATAR INTERIORS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
2 FROGZ IN OZ PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
30 PITT STREET PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
509 PITT ST PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
515 QUEEN STREET PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
88 ALFRED STREET PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
A.L. RICHARDSON & J.J. DICK PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AAT NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ABACUS GLADSTONE HOTEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ABACUS MARKET STREET HOTEL PTY LIMITED |
2009/10 |
ABACUS MATSON HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ABACUS TOWNSVILLE HOTEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ACCOMMODATION CLEARING HOUSE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ACROSS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ACTIVITY TOURS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ADDICTIVE ENTERTAINMENT & TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ADFA JAMISON PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ADIRONDACK TRADING PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ADVANCING FOOD SAFETY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ADVENTURE & PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPANY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ADVENTURE BAY TRADING CO PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ADVENTURE NORTH AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ADVENTURE TRAVEL.COM.AU PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AGENTS SUPPORT SYSTEMS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AIR 23 PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AIR CHARTER NETWORK PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AJS MANAGEMENT (WA) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ALL AUSSIE THINGS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ALL SEASONS CAMPERVANS PTY LTD |
Year of Grant Application |
Grant Recipient |
2009/10 |
ALUMINIUM BOATS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AMBASSADOR HOTELS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ANELLA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ATF EVANS FAMILY TRUST |
2009/10 |
ANSPEC PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ANTONY M & YUKA WILLCOX FAMILY PARTNERSHIP |
2009/10 |
ANZ TRAVEL SERVICES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
APTC PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AQUADUCK SAFARIES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ARAFURA HELICOPTERS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ARBUTUS HOSPITALITY (MARANANGA) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ARISTOS PORT DOUGLAS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ARONGI PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ARROW ON SWANSTON (AUST) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AS LINK INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ASCENTS HOTEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ASCOT QUAYS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ASIAN PACIFIC PROPERTY INVESTMENT PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ASSET AVIATION INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ASSOCIATED CONTROLS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
A'SWAY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUGA TRAVEL SERVICE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AURORA EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUSSIE ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUSSIE BUSH DISCOVERIES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUSSIE FARMSTAY AND BUSH ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUSSIESAIL.COM PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUSTRALIA ECOTOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUSTRALIA EXPAT TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUSTRALIA TOURS & TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUSTRALIA ZOO OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUSTRALIAN ADVENTURE TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUSTRALIAN ADVENTURE TRAVEL PTY LTD ATF CODISPOTI TRUST |
2009/10 |
AUSTRALIAN ECO-RETREATS PTY LIMITED |
2009/10 |
AUSTRALIAN INTERNATIONAL GOURMET HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUSTRALIAN PROPERTY PROJECTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUSTRALIAN TRAVEL CLUB PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUSTRALIAN WINE TOUR COMPANY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUSTRALIA'S SOUTH WEST INCORPORATED |
2009/10 |
AUSTRALIS PREMIUM TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUSWILD PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AUTOPIA TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AVANT HOTELS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
AVIATION TOURISM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
B.J. & M.J. BARNES |
2009/10 |
BACKPACKER BOAT TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BACKPACKER HOSTEL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BACKPACKERS WORLD TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BALLOONING WITH HOT AIR PTY LTD ATF THE STEEL RICHMOND TRUST |
2009/10 |
BANKSIA ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BATAVIA COAST AIR CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BAY CITY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BAY OF FIRES WALK PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BAYPINE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BEACHES TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BELLBIRD PARK DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BEYARRA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BG HOTELS (DARWIN) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BG HOTELS (HOLINN) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BI WORLDWIDE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD & NG AU INVESTMENTS PTY LTD. (MINT-BI P/SHIP) |
2009/10 |
BIG ON ELIZABETH PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BILLB PTY LTD T/A EASYRIDER BACKPACKER TOURS |
2009/10 |
BLUE POPPY LEISURE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BLUE REGION TOURISM ORGANISATION INC |
2009/10 |
BLUE TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BLUESAFARI PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BOAB INDUSTRIES CORPORATION PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BONZA BIKE TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BOOKABEE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BOOST JUICE FRANCHISES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BOUTIQUE TOURS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BRAMLYN PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BRCP OASIS OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BRIGALOW NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BRIGHT FLAME PTY LTD ATF BLOSSOM HILL TRUST & BROTT JIKA TRUST & SIBLI TRUST |
2009/10 |
BRIGHTON SHELLEY LTD & BROMFIELD HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BRISBANE CONVENTION CENTRE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT LTD |
2009/10 |
BROOKLANDS CLASSIC CARS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BRUNO MEIER & MARLIES GEHRIG PARTNERSHIP |
2009/10 |
BUCKEYE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BULLO RIVER PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BUSSELTON JETTY ENVIRONMENT & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED |
2009/10 |
BW HOLLIS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
BYRON BAY MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CAFE2U INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CAIRNS BACKPACKERS INN PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CAIRNS BED & BAR PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CAIRNS BUNGY CENTRE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CAIRNS GATEWAY RESORT PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CAIRNS PREMIER REEF & ISLAND TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CALYPSO REEF CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CAPE TRIB BEACH HOUSE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CASSMAR HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CASSMAR HOTELS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CAST MASTER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ATF FOURSHORE UNIT TRUST |
2009/10 |
CAVENDRA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CF STABERHOFER & E STABERHOFER & EA STABERHOFER & NE SVENDSEN T/A CAPTAINS LODGE INTERNATIONAL |
2009/10 |
CHAN INDUSTRIAL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CHAPEL AUSTRALIAN BIKE TOURS P/L |
2009/10 |
CHARLES LESKI AUCTIONS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CHARLOR PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CHARTER YACHTS AUSTRALIA |
2009/10 |
CHINTA TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CITIGATE MELBOURNE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CITIGATE PERTH PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CITY PARK GRAND HOTEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CITY ROAD MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CLUB RED PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
COLIVON PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
COLOURFUL TRIPS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
COODLIE PARK PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
COOPER CREEK WALK PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CORAL SEA SAILING ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CORAL WORLD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
COSH HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
COTTONS BRANDS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CRADLE HUTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CRUISE DOWN UNDER INC |
2009/10 |
CULTURAL EXCHANGE CONSULTANCY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
CUSTOM FLOATS PTY LTD ATF CUSTOM FLOATS UNIT TRUST |
2009/10 |
D & S UNITED PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
D&C THORNE |
2009/10 |
DAINTREE ECO LODGE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DAINTREE RAINFOREST ENVIRONMENTAL CENTRE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DARWIN AIRPORT RESORT OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DARWIN INTERNATIONAL HOTELS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DERWENT HUNTER YACHT CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DERWENT VALLEY HOSPITALITY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DESCARADA CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DES'S GROOVY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DESTINATION PACIFIC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DEVINS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DIVERSE TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DLJI PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DOWN UNDER SPORTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DOWNUNDER RECREATIONAL TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DRACULAS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DRIVER GROUP SIGHTSEEING PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DUCKS IN A ROW PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
DUGONG BEACH RESORT PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ECOCAMPERVANS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
EITEU PTY LTD TRADING AS SUNSHINE STATE SURF SCHOOL |
2009/10 |
ELIZABETH CHARLES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ENTERPRISE AQUARIUS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
EPIC EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
EQUATION NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
EQUIS PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
EQUITY CONSULTING SERVICES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
EVERSUN TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
EXPERIENCE SPORT! PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
EXPLORE MELBOURNE'S MORNINGTON PENINSULA J/V |
2009/10 |
FAR NORTH QUEENSLAND PROMOTIONS BUREAU LIMITED |
2009/10 |
FELTON GRIMWADE & BOSISTO'S PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
FIRBANK ARCH PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
FIVE STAR VENUES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
FJ & DM DIECKMANN T/A HAVAGO AUSTRALIA |
2009/10 |
FLINDERS RANGES TOURIST SERVICES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
FOTOPAK PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
FRANKLANDS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
FRASER COAST SOUTH BURNETT REGIONAL TOURISM BOARD LTD |
2009/10 |
FRASERS TOWN HALL RESIDENCES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
FRESHWATER RESOURCES PL ATF ASHTON FT & GREENSTONE ASSET PL ATFT JULES ASHTON FTTHE TRUSTEE FOR ASHTON FAMILY TRUST & THE TRUSTEE FOR JULES ASHTON FAMILY TRUST T/A MARG RIVER BACKPACKERS |
2009/10 |
FRUIT GROWERS TASMANIA INC |
2009/10 |
FUJII PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
FULBRIGHT PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
FUTURE FOOD—RETAIL FOOD PLANNERS PTY LTD ATF LOUGHRAN FAMILY TRUST |
2009/10 |
G C TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
G COMPANY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
GALANCE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
GC HOTEL MANAGEMENT LIMITED |
2009/10 |
GEEGEELA PTY LTD & THE TRUSTEE FOR DANIEL BUNNING FAMILY TRUST & THE TRUSTEE FOR SHERBERT TRUST & THE TRUSTEE FOR SHIELDS FAMILY TRUST |
2009/10 |
GEOGRAPHE BAY TOURISM ASSOCIATION |
2009/10 |
GIANT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
GLOBAL BALLOONING PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
GLOBAL RESORTS PTY LTD ATF CN DISCRETIONARY TRUST |
2009/10 |
GLORIA JEAN'S COFFEES INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
GO WEST TOURS (VIC) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
GOLD COAST JET BOATING PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
GOLDEN SWAN INVESTMENTS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
GOODEARTH HOTELS AUSTRALIA (GOLD COAST) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
GOODEARTH HOTELS MANAGEMENT (ADELAIDE) PTY LTD & TAMBUSU PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
GRAY LINE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
GRAY LINE TASMANIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
GREAT BARRIER REEF HELICOPTERS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
GREAT BIG EVENTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
GREAT SOUTHERN TOURING ROUTE INC |
2009/10 |
GREEN TREE CORPORATION PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
GREG MILNER ATFT GREG MILNER FAMILY TRUST AND GILLIAN GROVES ATFT MARKETING GIRL TRUST |
2009/10 |
GRUS TRAVEL PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE PAGAN FAMILY TRUST |
2009/10 |
GUY HENRY DIGBY MAINE T/A HELI EXPERIENCES |
2009/10 |
H.I. (BURSWOOD) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HABITAT DOME PTY LTD ATF RAINFOREST HABITAT TRUST |
2009/10 |
HALSAP PTY LIMITED |
2009/10 |
HALSATA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HANCOCK EVENTS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HANNAFORDS EVENTS PTY LTD ATF N+A HANNAFORD DISCRETIONARY TRUST |
2009/10 |
HANZ (CANBERRA) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HANZ (COOGEE) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HANZ (MELBOURNE) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HANZ (PERTH) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HANZ (POTTS POINT) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HANZ (TERRIGAL) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HARBOUR DISCOVERIES PTY LTD ATF WARNE INVESTMENT TRUST |
2009/10 |
HARLEM ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HARTLEYS CREEK CROCODILE FARMING COMPANY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HAZARD PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HELI CHARTERS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HINTERLAND TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HOLCOMM MARINE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HOSTEL REEF TRIPS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HOT AIR PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HOT HOLIDAY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HOTEL ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HOTEL GRAND CHANCELLOR (BRISBANE) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HOTEL GRAND CHANCELLOR (HOBART) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HOTEL GRAND CHANCELLOR (LAUNCESTON) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HOTEL GRAND CHANCELLOR (MELBOURNE) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HOTEL STELLAR PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HOWARDS STORAGE WORLD INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
HUGH CARMICHAEL MACKAY |
2009/10 |
HVG CC PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
IAN JAQUES T/AS AUSTRALIAN HUNTING CONSULTANTS |
2009/10 |
ICON HOTELS AND RESORTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
IHMS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
IN2ARTS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
INFINITY (GOLD COAST) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
INTERNATIONAL COACHES & TOURS PTY LTD ATF INTERNATIONAL LIMOUSINE SERVICES |
2009/10 |
INVEST NORTH PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ISLANDIVE.COM PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ISOKI PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
J & J WALLACE (PROJECTS) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
J & J WALLACE (TOURS) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
J.C. TRAVEL PROFESSIONALS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
JAMIE BELL SAFARIS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
JAY & JAY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
JCC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
JEREMY D REDMOND & PIERRE J JACOBSSON T/A NATURAL TREASURES |
2009/10 |
JETABROAD PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
JONAHS RESTAURANT PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
JUICY LOVE PTY LTD ATF JUICY LOVE TRUST |
2009/10 |
JVC INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
JW & JM BURNET P/SHIP T/AS THE VISITOZ SCHEME |
2009/10 |
K. AZUMA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
K.E BROEKING & B BOURNE T/A INSIGHT AUSTRALIA TRAVEL |
2009/10 |
KAKADU TOURISM (GCH) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
KAKADU TOURISM (GLC) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
KAKAI PTY LTD ATF THE MASON FAMILY TRUST |
2009/10 |
KAMORI AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
KDEN PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
KEA CAMPERS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
KENT & LILIANE JANSEN T/A ULYSSES GETAWAYS |
2009/10 |
KEYDANE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
KHARISTA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
KIANA SAIL AND DIVE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
KILDAIR HOTELS (GROSVENOR) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
KINGS CANYON NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
KIRRA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
KOOKABURRA CHALLENGE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
KORALIA TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
LADY ELLIOT ISLAND PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
LAKEHOUSE RETREAT PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
LANCELIN LODGE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
LANCO HOBART OPERATIONS PTY LTD ATF LANCO HOBART OPERATIONS TRUST |
2009/10 |
LANCO LAUNCESTON OPERATIONS PTY LTD ATF THOMPSON TASMANIAN TRUST |
2009/10 |
LAST RESORT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
LAUDET PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
LAWAND TOURISM PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
LINCOLNSHIRE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
LORD'S KAKADU & ARNHEM LAND SAFARIS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
LORIMER HOLDINGS PTY LTD ATF READ FT T/A KIMBERLEY CROC BACKPACKERS |
2009/10 |
LP LEONE & M RENZELLA |
2009/10 |
M.H KEMPENEER & U.S MUSIK |
2009/10 |
M.R.JACOBSON-GONZALEZ & M.J. WALSH T/AS MELOBABY |
2009/10 |
MACLEAN BAY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MACLIFE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MAGIC MILLIONS SALES PARTNERSHIP |
2009/10 |
MAGIC TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MAINCLOUD PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MANSFIELD—MT BULLER REGIONAL TOURISM ASSOCIATION LIMITED |
2009/10 |
MANSION HOTEL AT WERRIBEE PARK PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MARY ANNE KENNEDY |
2009/10 |
MARY RIVER WILDLIFE RANCH PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MAWLAND QUARANTINE STATION PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MAXI ACTION PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MAXIM PLUMBING PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MELBOURNE CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU LTD |
2009/10 |
MELBOURNE DAY TOURS PTY LTD ATF MELBOURNE PRIVATE TOURS TRUST |
2009/10 |
MELBOURNE EUREKA TOWER OBSERVATION DECK PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
METRO GALLERY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
METRO TRANSPORT SYDNEY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MICHELE HENRIETTE MEFFRE T/A TASMANIE VOYAGE |
2009/10 |
MIDDLEDANK PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MILDURA TOURISM INC |
2009/10 |
MILITARY TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MILLART ENTERPRISES P/L & NOTLAD ENTERPRISES P/LT ATF ROBERT DALTON FAMILY TRUST & PERRY BARTHOLOMEW FAMILY TRUST |
2009/10 |
MISHANDRA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MOJOSURF PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MOONSHADOW CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MORAMARK PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MOUNTS BAY WATERS APARTMENT HOTEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MOVES TRAVEL GROUP PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MOXLIS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
MUNGALLI PTY LTD ATF BLAZING SADDLES DISCRETIONARY TRUST |
2009/10 |
NARROWCASTERS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
NARYMAL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
NESTBURY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
NINPEY NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
NITMILUK TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
NONCHALON PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
NOOSA GROUP PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
NORTH AUSTRALIAN EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
NORWEST HOTELS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
NRG TOURISM PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
OAKFORD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
OASIS ACCOMMODATION PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ODYSSEY ECOTOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ON EDGE SPORTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
OPORTO FRANCHISING PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ORION EXPEDITIONS CRUISES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
OTTTO HOLDINGS (AUST) PTY LIMITED |
2009/10 |
OUT THE BACK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
OUTBACK ENCOUNTER PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
OXLEY CREEK PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
OZ JET BOATING SYDNEY HARBOUR PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
OZ SNOW ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
OZZY MEAT EXPORTERS (HALAL) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PACIFIC GREEN TOURS PTY LIMITED |
2009/10 |
PAINTBOX FINE ART PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PALACE BACKPACKERS HERVEY BAY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PALM PORT PTY LTD ATF YASUFUKU FAMILY TRUST |
2009/10 |
PAN DEVELOPMENTS NQ PTY LTD ATF NOTT FAMILY TRUST T/A ROSE GUMS WILDERNESS RETREAT |
2009/10 |
PARK REGIS CTC PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PARTY PACKER HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PERFECTOUR PTY LTD ATF EYRE FAMILY TRUST |
2009/10 |
PERILOO PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PERTH CONVENTION BUREAU LIMITED |
2009/10 |
PERTH REGION TOURISM ORGANISATION INC |
2009/10 |
PETALS NETWORK PTY LIMITED |
2009/10 |
PETER AND ALEXANDRA SHERLOCK |
2009/10 |
PETER PAN'S BACKPACKER ADVENTURE TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PGL HOLDINGS PTY LTD ATF THE PGL UNIT TRUST |
2009/10 |
PHAPS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PHILLIP ISLAND NATURE PARK BOARD OF MANAGEMENT INC |
2009/10 |
PHOENIX IMAGES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PHOENIX INVESTMENT HOLDINGS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PIER ONE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PODIUM EVENT MARKETING PTY LTD—AS TRUSTEE FOR PODIUM EVENTS UNIT TRUST |
2009/10 |
PODVER INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PONT3 PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PORT DOUGLAS DIVE AND TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PORT DOUGLAS RESTAURANTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PORT O'CALL LODGE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
POSEIDON CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
POSEIDON OUTER REEF CRUISES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
POWERPLAY.COM PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PREMIER TRAVEL TASMANIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PRIDESHILL INNOVATIONS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PRIME ASSETS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PRIME MINI TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PRISM DEFENCE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PROFLEX PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PROPERTY CONNECTION PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
PYRMONT LIGHT RAIL COMPANY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
QP MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
QTOUR PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
QUEENSLAND JAPANESE SERVICES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
QUEENSLAND RESORTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
RAGLAN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
RANCHMAN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
RATEWAVE PTY LTD ATF MANLY PACIFIC UNIT TRUST |
2009/10 |
RAVEN MULTIHULLS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
RAWNSLEY PARK TOURISM PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
REATON COURT PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
REBENTA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
RED DALE HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
REDROCK GALLERY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
REGESS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
REGIME PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
RENDBERG PTY LTD ATF RENDBERG UNIT TRUST |
2009/10 |
REX HUNT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
RHS INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
RIALTO JOINT VENTURE |
2009/10 |
RJJY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ROBONDA PTY LTD ATF ROBONDA TRUST |
2009/10 |
ROCKDALE HOTEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ROLLING DALES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ROMA STREET OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ROWLING WOODS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ROWLING WOODS PTY LTD ATF PORTALS HOTEL TRUST |
2009/10 |
RPW NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
S B FERGIE & C KANE T/A OKAMUSIC |
2009/10 |
S.A LAFFERTY & B MYLES T/A AA MINERAL SPECIMENS |
2009/10 |
SAACHI PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SAMARA TRADING PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SAMDOO CORPORATION PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SANGROW PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SEA EAGLE SERVICES PTY LTD & THE TRUSTEE FOR THE OXLEY FAMILY TRUST T/A THE RICHARDSON HOTEL AND SPA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SEATASMANIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SEAWALKER @ GREEN ISLAND PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SEBASTIAN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SKY PHOENIX PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SKYDIVE BYRON BAY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SKYDIVE CAIRNS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SKYDIVE THE BEACH SYDNEY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SMARTVISIT SOLUTIONS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SOF PTY LTD ATF SPIRIT OF FREEDOM UNIT TRUST |
2009/10 |
SOUTHERN OCEAN LODGE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SPORTSNET CORPORATION PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
STORY BRIDGE ADVENTURES PTY LTD ATF STORY BRIDGE UNIT TRUST |
2009/10 |
SUCCESS VENTURE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SUCCESS VENTURE PTY LTD ATF SUCCESS VENTURE (DARLING HARBOUR) UNIT TRUST |
2009/10 |
SULLIVANS HOTEL CO PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SUN TOURISM PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SUNCITY WATERSPORTS PTY LTD ATF CROCOMBE FAMILY TRUST |
2009/10 |
SUNFERRIES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SUNLAND GROUP LTD AND EMIRATES INVESTMENTS GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SUNROVER EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SUPER WOOLSTORE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SUPER YACHT BASE AUSTRALIA LIMITED |
2009/10 |
SURF & SUN PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SURF CAMP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SYDNEY SEAPLANES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SYDNEY SEMINARY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SYDNEY SKYDIVERS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SYDNEY SURF SCHOOL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SYDNEY TOURS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SYDNEY TOWER OBSERVATORY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
SYDNEY WILDLIFE WORLD PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
T.C.O.B. CONSULTING PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TAILOR TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TAJ HOTELS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TALLSHIP ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TALLSHIP SAILING CRUISES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TANGALOOMA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TAPHOUSE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TARRALEAH (BUSINESS) PTY LTD ATF TARRALEAH BUSINESS TRUST |
2009/10 |
TASMANIAN BOUTIQUE HOTELS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TEHAN NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TEKS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TEMPTATION SAILING PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
THAKRAL OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
THE CAVES PASTORAL COMPANY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
THE CHANCELLOR ADELAIDE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
THE EDGE PHOTO IMAGING PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONSULTANCY |
2009/10 |
THE FRIENDLY BACKPACKER PTY LTD. |
2009/10 |
THE GREAT ESCAPE CHARTER COMPANY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
THE HOTEL CAIRNS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
THE LIDO GROUP PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
THE MARIA ISLAND WALK PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
THE OPAL INN PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
THE PIER MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
THE ROCK TOUR PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN TRAVEL COMPANY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
THE SOVEREIGN HILL MUSEUMS ASSOCIATION |
2009/10 |
THE VINES (WA) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
THE WATERMARK HOTEL GROUP PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
THIRSTY SWAGMAN PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TINSTAFL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TOBAR HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TOBAR HOTEL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 14 PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 16 PTY LTD & KASMIL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD PARTNERSHIP |
2009/10 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 36 PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 4 PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TOTAL DESIGNS & DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TOUR EAST AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TOURISM NORTH WEST INC |
2009/10 |
TOURISM PROPERTY INVESTMENT GROUP PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TOWNSVILLE ENTERPRISE LIMITED |
2009/10 |
TRANQUIL TRAVEL SERVICES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TRANSPORT SEATING TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TRAVEL MAESTRO INBOUND PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TRAVEL WORLD (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TREE TOYS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TRIBAL TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TRIWELL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
TROPICAL AVIATION PTY LTD ATF TROPICAL AVIATION TRUST |
2009/10 |
TWEED ENDEAVOUR CRUISES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
UNIQUE SYDNEY TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
VALUE INN PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
VAN DIEMEN HOTEL GROUP PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
VENGA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
VETSHOP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
VIRTUAL BRAINET PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
VOYAGES MOUNTAIN AND MARINE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
VROOM VROOM VROOM PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WA NT TOURS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WADE J JOHN |
2009/10 |
WADJEMUP TRADING PTY LTD ATFT WADJEMUP UNIT TRUST T/A ROTTNEST EXPRESS |
2009/10 |
WALES HOUSE HOTEL LTD |
2009/10 |
WALTZING MATILDA CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WANDERERS TRAVEL.COM (NSW) PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WASHINGTON STREET NO 27 PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WATERLOO CAR CENTRE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WAYOUTBACK DESERT SAFARIS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WEBCAR HIRE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WEBJET MARKETING PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WETLAND EXPLORER CRUISES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WHALESONG CRUISES HERVEY BAY PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WHITSUNDAY CORAL CRUISES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WHOLISTIC THERAPY CENTRE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WICKED TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WILD ESCAPES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WILDLIFE COAST CRUISES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WILLGEO PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WILLOWOOD HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WINFORM INVESTMENTS PTY LTD T/A MY PLACE TOURISM WA |
2009/10 |
WINGLONG TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WOODDUCK ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WORK EXCHANGE BUREAU PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WORLD ANIMAL NETWORK PTY LIMITED |
2009/10 |
WORLDTOURISM TRAVEL CENTRE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
WORN GUNDIDJ ABORIGINAL CO-OPERATIVE LTD |
2009/10 |
WROTHAM PARK LODGE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
YARDARM PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
YARRA RANGES REGIONAL MARKETING LTD |
2009/10 |
YHA NSW LTD |
2009/10 |
YHA VICTORIA LTD |
2009/10 |
YHA WA INC |
2009/10 |
YONGALA DIVE PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
YOUTH HOSTELS ASSOCIATION OF QUEENSLAND |
2009/10 |
YOUTH HOSTELS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA INC. |
2009/10 |
YOYAKU.COM PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ZANZIBAR BAR & GRILL PTY LTD |
2009/10 |
ZLATAR INTERIORS PTY LTD |
Year of Grant Application |
Grant Recipient |
2010/11 |
30 PITT STREET PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
509 PITT ST PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
88 ALFRED STREET PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
A AND F R PERRI PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AAT NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ACADEMY OF SURFING INSTRUCTORS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ACCOMMODATION CLEARING HOUSE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ACROSS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ACTIVITY TOURS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ADDICTIVE ENTERTAINMENT & TOURS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ADIRONDACK TRADING PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ADVENTURE NORTH AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ADVENTURE TRAVEL.COM.AU PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AGENTS SUPPORT SYSTEMS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AIR 23 PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AIRMARK CONSOLIDATORS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AJS MANAGEMENT (WA) PTY LTD ATFT BRALUDAMA TST |
2010/11 |
ALL AUSSIE THINGS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ALL SEASONS CAMPERVANS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AMCO FLINDERS PTY LTD 131 583 876 & TMG FLINDERS PTY LTD 131 624 336 |
2010/11 |
ANELLA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ATF EVANS FAMILY TRUST |
2010/11 |
ANN AUGUSTEYN T/A CAPRICORN CAVES |
2010/11 |
ANSPEC PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ANTONY M & YUKA WILLCOX FAMILY PARTNERSHIP |
2010/11 |
APTC PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AQUADUCK SAFARIS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ARAFURA HELICOPTERS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ARBUTUS HOSPITALITY (MARANANGA) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ARISTOS PORT DOUGLAS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ARONGI PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ARROW ON SWANSTON (AUST) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AS LINK INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ASCOTT SERVICED RESIDENCES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ASIAN PACIFIC PROPERTY INVESTMENT PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ASSET AVIATION INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AUGA TRAVEL SERVICE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AUGUSTA MARGARET RIVER TOURISM ASSOCIATION INC |
2010/11 |
AURORA TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AUSSIESAIL.COM PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AUSTRALIA TOURS & TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AUSTRALIA ZOO OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AUSTRALIAN ADVENTURE TOURS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AUSTRALIAN COASTAL MOUNTAIN TOURS |
2010/11 |
AUSTRALIAN PACIFIC LIGHTHOUSE |
2010/11 |
AUSTRALIAN WINE TOUR COMPANY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AUSWILD PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
AVANT HOTELS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
B MCLENNAN & I.R MCLENNAN T/A HIDDEN VALLEY CABINS |
2010/11 |
BACKPACKER HOSTEL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BAILLIE LODGES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BALLARAT LODGE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BALLARAT WILDLIFE AND REPTILE PARK PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BALLOON WITH HOT AIR PTY LTD ATF THE STEEL RICHMOND TRUST |
2010/11 |
BANKSIA ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BAROSSA VENTURES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BARRIER REFF DIVE CRUISE & TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BAY CITY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BAY OF FIRES WALK PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BAYPINE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BEACHES APARTMENTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BEACHES TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BELLARA FORGE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BEYARRA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BG HOTELS (DARWIN) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BG HOTELS (HOLINN) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BI WORLDWIDE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD & NG AU INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (MINT-BI PARTNERSHIP) |
2010/11 |
BIG ON ELIZABETH PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BIMBADGEN ESTATE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BLUE WATER HUNTING INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BLUESAFARI PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BOOKABEE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BOOST JUICE FRANCHISES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BOUTIQUE TOURS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BRAMLYN PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BRCP OASIS OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BRIAN PAUL DALY T/A GOANNA ADVENTURES |
2010/11 |
BRIGHTON SHELLEY LTD & BROMFIELD HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BRISBANE CONVENTION CENTRE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT LTD |
2010/11 |
BRUNO MEIER & MARLIES GEHRIG PARTNERSHIP |
2010/11 |
BUNGALOW BAY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
BUSINESS ELECTRONICS HOLDINGS PTY/LTD |
2010/11 |
BUSSELTON JETTY ENVIRONMENT & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED |
2010/11 |
BYRON BAY MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CAFE2U INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CAIRNS BED & BAR PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CAIRNS HOLIDAY SPECIALISTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CAIRNS PREMIER REEF & ISLAND TOURS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CAIRNS TOUR ADVICE & BOOKING CENTRE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CALYPSO REEF CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CAPE TRIB BEACH HOUSE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CARVIN TAILORS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CASSMAR HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CASSMAR HOTELS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CAST MASTER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CASTAWAYS MISSION BEACH PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CAVENDRA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CF STABERHOFER & E STABERHOFER & EA STABERHOFER & NE SVENDSEN T/A CAPTAINS LODGE INTERNATIONAL |
2010/11 |
CHAN INDUSTRIAL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CHARLOR PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CHARTER YACHTS AUSTRALIA |
2010/11 |
CHINTA TOURS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CITIGATE MELBOURNE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CITIGATE PERTH PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CITY PARK GRAND HOTEL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CITY ROAD MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CLUB RED PTY LTD ATFT NEVADA TRUST |
2010/11 |
CM & NF CHAMBERS |
2010/11 |
COLOURFUL TRIPS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
COMPASS EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CONDOR PROJECTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
COODLIE PARK PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
COOPER CREEK WALK PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CORAL SEA SAILING ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
COTTONS BRANDS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CRADLE HUTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CROCOSAURUS COVE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CRUISE DOWN UNDER INC |
2010/11 |
CRUISE WHITSUNDAYS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
CRYSTAL CREEK MEADOWS |
2010/11 |
CULTURAL EXCHANGE CONSULTANCY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
D & H N (SYDNEY) PTY LIMITED |
2010/11 |
D & S UNITED PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
DAINTREE RAINFOREST ENVIRONMENTAL CENTRE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
DARWIN AIRPORT RESORT OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
DARWIN INTERNATIONAL HOTELS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
DEJI ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
DERWENT HUNTER YACHT CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
DESCARADA CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
DL 20 TRADING PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
DRAXTON HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
DRIVENOW PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
DRIVER GROUP SIGHTSEEING PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
DUCKS IN A ROW PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
DUGONG BEACH RESORT PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ECHOES HOTEL BLUE MOUNTAINS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
EITEU PTY LTD TRADING AS SUNSHINE STATE SURF SCHOOL |
2010/11 |
ELIZABETH CHARLES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
EMERALD TOURIST RAILWAY BOARD |
2010/11 |
ENCORE BUSINESS TOURISM PTY LIMITED |
2010/11 |
EP MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
EPIC EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
EQUATION NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
EQUIS PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
EQUITY CONSULTING SERVICES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
EVERSUN TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
EXPERIENCE SPORT! PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
EXPLORE MELBOURNE'S MORNINGTON PENINSULA |
2010/11 |
FALLS VALLEY GROUP PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
FEDERAL EAST COAST HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
FEDERAL HOLDINGS TASMANIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
FELTON GRIMWADE & BOSISTO'S PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
FIDUCIARY NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
FITZROY LODGE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD & LEEDAL PTY LTD &TTF WA E T INVESTMENT TRUST T/A FITZROY RIVER LODGE |
2010/11 |
FIVE STAR VENUES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
FJ & DM DIECKMANN T/A HAVAGO AUSTRALIA |
2010/11 |
FOODCOMM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
FRASER COAST SOUTH BURNETT REGIONAL TOURISM BOARD LTD |
2010/11 |
FRASERS TOWN HALL RESIDENCES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
FREEDOM COUNTY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
FUJII PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
FUTURE INVESTMENT GROUP PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
GEOGRAPHE BAY TOURISM ASSOCIATION |
2010/11 |
GIBREN EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
GLASS ON GLASSHOUSE PTY LTD ATF THE ROGERS FAMILY TRUST |
2010/11 |
GLOBAL BALLOONING PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
GLOBAL RESORTS PTY LTD ATF CN DISCRETIONARY TRUST |
2010/11 |
GLORIA JEAN'S COFFEES INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
GLOWFAST MARINE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
GO GO TOURS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
GO WEST TOURS (VIC) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
GOLD COAST JET BOATING PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
GRANGEFIELD PTY LTD ATFT MAGS TRUST |
2010/11 |
GRANT KNIGHT & DIANNE KNIGHT |
2010/11 |
GRAY LINE OF SYDNEY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
GREAT BIG EVENTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
GREAT HOSTELS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
GREAT SOUTHERN TOURING ROUTE INC |
2010/11 |
GREG MILNER ATFT GREG MILNER FAMILY TRUST AND GILLIAN GROVES ATFT MARKETING GIRL TRUST |
2010/11 |
GRIFFELL NOMINEES PTY LTD ATFT GRIFFELL TRUST |
2010/11 |
GRUS TRAVEL PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE PAGAN FAMILY TRUST |
2010/11 |
GW HOTEL GROUP PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
H.I. (BURSWOOD) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HABITAT DOME PTY LTD ATF RAINFOREST HABITAT TRUST |
2010/11 |
HADLEYS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HALIKOS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HALSAP PTY LIMITED |
2010/11 |
HALSATA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HALSE LODGE GUEST HOUSE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HANNAFORDS EVENTS PTY LTD ATF N+A HANNAFORD DISCRETIONARY TRUST |
2010/11 |
HANZ MELBOURNE HOTEL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HARDING PERFORMANCE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HARLEM ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HAZARD PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HELI CHARTERS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HINTERLAND TOURS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HOLCOMM MARINE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HONEY TRADING PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HORIZON SPORTING EVENTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HOT HOLIDAY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HOTEL ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HOTEL GRAND CHANCELLOR (LAUNCESTON) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HOWARD & SONS PYROTECHNICS (DISPLAYS) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HOWARDS STORAGE WORLD INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
HVG CC PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ICON HOTELS AND RESORTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
IHMS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
INFINITY (GOLD COAST) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
INTERPRETIVE TOURISM PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
INTRO TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
INVEST NORTH PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ISLANDIVE.COM PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ISOKI PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ITONEL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
J & J WALLACE (TOURS) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
J.C. TRAVEL PROFESSIONALS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
JALPAK INTERNATIONAL OCEANIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
JAY & JAY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
JCC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
JEREMY D REDMOND & PIERRE JACOBSSON T/A NATURAL TREASURES TOURS |
2010/11 |
JETABROAD PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
JONAHS RESTAURANT PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
JPT CAIRNS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
K AND Y AZUMA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
K. AZUMA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
K.E BROEKING & B BOURNE T/A INSIGHT AUSTRALIA TRAVEL |
2010/11 |
KAKADU TOURISM (GCH) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
KAKADU TOURISM (GLC) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
KAMORI AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
KAWAHATA INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
KDEN PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
KENT & LILIANE JANSEN T/A ULYSSES GETAWAYS |
2010/11 |
KEYDANE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
KHARISTA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
KI WILDERNESS RETREAT MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
KIANA SAIL AND DIVE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
KILDAIR HOTELS (GROSVENOR) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
KIMS TOOWOON BAY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
KINLEA HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
KIRRA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
KOGAN TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
KSW PROPERTY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
LADY ELLIOT ISLAND PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
LANCO HOBART OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
LANCO LAUNCESTON OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
LAPE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
LAST RESORT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
LEONE AND RENZELLA |
2010/11 |
LINCOLNSHIRE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
LJ & M MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
LORD'S KAKADU & ARNHEM LAND SAFARIS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
M P MURRAY & N MURRAY T/A MAKE A TOUR |
2010/11 |
M.H KEMPENEER & U.S MUSIK |
2010/11 |
MACKEREL ISLANDS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
MAGIC MILLIONS SALES PARTNERSHIP |
2010/11 |
MAGIC TOURS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
MANSFIELD—MT BULLER REGIONAL TOURISM ASSOCIATION LIMITED |
2010/11 |
MARY RIVER WILDLIFE RANCH PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
MAWLAND QUARANTINE STATION PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
MAXI ACTION PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
MAXIM PLUMBING PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
MELBOURNE DAY TOURS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
MELBOURNE EUREKA TOWER OBSERVATION DECK PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
METRO TRANSPORT SYDNEY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
MIA HALFPENNY & SW HALFPENNY |
2010/11 |
MICHELE HENRIETTE MEFFRE T/A TASMANIE VOYAGE |
2010/11 |
MIDDLEDANK PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
MILLART ENTERPRISES P/L & NOTLAD ENTERPRISES P/LT ATF ROBERT DALTON FAMILY TRUST & PERRY BARTHOLOMEW FAMILY TRUST |
2010/11 |
MOONSHADOW CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
MORAMARK PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
MOUNT 'N BEACH SAFARIS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
MOXLIS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
MULPHA SANCTUARY COVE (DEVELOPMENTS) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
NATIONAL PARK PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
NATIONAL SPORTS MUSEUM LTD |
2010/11 |
NATIONAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA (VICTORIA) |
2010/11 |
NINGALOO REEF DREAMING PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
NITMILUK TOURS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
NONCHALON PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
NOOSA GROUP PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
NOOSA VENTURE 1 PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
NORWEST HOTELS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
NOTHING WRONG PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
NT IMMERSIONS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
OAKFORD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
OASIS ACCOMMODATION PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
OCEAN HOTELS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
OLD KC PTY LIMITED |
2010/11 |
ON EDGE SPORTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
OPORTO FRANCHISING PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ORION EXPEDITIONS CRUISES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
OTTTO HOLDINGS (AUST) PTY LIMITED |
2010/11 |
OUT THE BACK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
OXLEY CREEK PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
OZ SNOW ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
OZ TRAILS AND SYDNEY EXCLUSIVE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PACIFIC GREEN TOURS PTY LIMITED |
2010/11 |
PALM PORT PTY LTD ATF YASUFUKU FAMILY TRUST |
2010/11 |
PAN DEVELOPMENTS NQ PTY LTD ATF NOTT FAMILY TRUST T/A ROSE GUMS WILDERNESS RETREAT |
2010/11 |
PARADISE PALMS (NQ) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PARK REGIS BRISBANE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PARK REGIS CAIRNS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PARK REGIS CTC PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PARK REGIS GRIFFIN PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PENNICOTT WILDERNESS JOURNEYS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PHAPS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PIER ONE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PODIUM EVENT MARKETING PTY LTD—AS TRUSTEE FOR PODIUM EVENTS UNIT TRUST |
2010/11 |
PONT3 PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PORT O'CALL LODGE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PORTAL HOTELS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
POSEIDON CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
POSEIDON OUTER REEF CRUISES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PREMIER TRAVEL TASMANIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PRESTIGE PHILATELY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PRIDESHILL INNOVATIONS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PRIME MINI TOURS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PRINT AND MARKETING SERVICES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PRISM DEFENCE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PROFLEX PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PROPERTY CONNECTION PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
PYRMONT LIGHT RAIL COMPANY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
QP MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
QUAMBY ESTATE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
QUAYEYEWARE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
QUEENSLAND RESORTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
RATEWAVE PTY LTD ATF MANLY PACIFIC UNIT TRUST |
2010/11 |
RAWNSLEY PARK TOURISM PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
REATON COURT PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
REGESS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
RHS INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
RICHARD EDMUND FENNY T/A MAITRAYA PRIVATE RETREAT |
2010/11 |
RJJY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ROBERT PRETTEJOHN ATF RH PRETTEJOHN FAMILY TRUST |
2010/11 |
ROBONDA PTY LTD ATF ROBONDA TRUST |
2010/11 |
ROCHE GROUP PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ROCKDALE HOTEL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ROLLING DALES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ROW PAUL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ROWLING WOODS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS BOARD |
2010/11 |
RPW NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SAACHI PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SAFARI TOURS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SAMDOO CORPORATION PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SANGROW PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SEA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SEA EAGLE SERVICES PTY LTD & THE TRUSTEE FOR THE OXLEY FAMILY TRUST T/A THE RICHARDSON HOTEL AND SPA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SEASCAPE ON EMU BAY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SEAWALKER @ GREEN ISLAND PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SEBASTIAN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SIGMA AEROSPACE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SKYDIVE BYRON BAY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SOF PTY LTD ATF SPIRIT OF FREEDOM UNIT TRUST |
2010/11 |
SOMERSET GORDON HEIGHTS (MELBOURNE) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SOMERSET ST GEORGES TERRACE (PERTH) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SORRENITEE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SOUTHERN OCEAN LODGE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SPANISH DOUGHNUTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SPORTSNET CORPORATION PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SUN PALM TRANSPORT PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SUN TOURISM PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SUNCITY WATERSPORTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SUNDOWNERS TRAVEL CENTRE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SUNFERRIES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SUNLAND GROUP LTD AND EMIRATES INVESTMENTS GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SUNROVER EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SUPER WOOLSTORE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SUPER YACHT BASE AUSTRALIA LTD |
2010/11 |
SURF & SUN PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SUZANNE MARGARET O'MALLEY |
2010/11 |
SYDNEY HARBOUR TALLSHIPS PTY LTD ATF SYDNEY HARBOUR TALLSHIPS UNIT TRUST |
2010/11 |
SYDNEY SEAPLANES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SYDNEY SKYDIVERS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SYDNEY SURF SCHOOL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SYDNEY TOURS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
SYDNEY WILDLIFE WORLD PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
T.C.O.B. CONSULTING PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TAHL PARRAMATTA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TAHL ST KILDA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TAILOR TOURS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TAJ HOTELS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TALLSHIP ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TALLSHIP SAILING CRUISES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TAPHOUSE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TARRALEAH (BUSINESS) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TASMANIAN BOUTIQUE HOTELS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TG1 PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
THAKRAL OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
THE CAVES PASTORAL COMPANY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
THE CHANCELLOR ADELAIDE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
THE ELANDRA RESORTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONSULTANCY |
2010/11 |
THE EXPERIENCES GROUP PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
THE GREAT ESCAPE CHARTER COMPANY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
THE HOTEL CAIRNS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
THE MARIA ISLAND WALK PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
THE NINGALOO CLUB PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
THE RESORT (MANAGEMENT) TORQUAY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
THE ROCK TOUR PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN TRAVEL COMPANY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
THE SWAN BELLS FOUNDATION INCORPORATED |
2010/11 |
THE TRUSTEE FOR AET TRUST T/A AUSTRALIA EXPAT TRAVEL |
2010/11 |
THE TRUSTEE FOR CUSTOM FLOATS UNIT TRUST |
2010/11 |
THE TRUSTEE FOR THE HOPKINS CHILDREN'S TRUST & THE TRUSTEE FOR THE STRAGUSZI CHILDREN'S TRUST |
2010/11 |
THIRSTY SWAGMAN PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TMG ARGYLE PTY LTD ACN 128 793 788 AND AMCO ARGYLE PTY LTD ACN 131 624 345 |
2010/11 |
TOBAR HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TOBAR HOTEL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 14 PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 16 PTY LTD & KASMIL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD PARTNERSHIP |
2010/11 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 36 PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 4 PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TOTAL DESIGNS & DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TOUR EAST AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TOURISM NATURALLY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TOWNSVILLE COMMERCIAL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TOWNSVILLE ENTERPRISE LIMITED |
2010/11 |
TRANQUIL TRAVEL SERVICES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TRAVEL MAESTRO INBOUND PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TRAVEL WORLD (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TRIBAL TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TRIWELL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TROPICAL AVIATION PTY LTD ATF TROPICAL AVIATION TRUST |
2010/11 |
TROPICAL HUNTING SAFARIS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
TWEED ENDEAVOUR CRUISES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
UGG BOOTS FOR ALL PTY LTD ATF THE CAPAR FAMILY TRUST |
2010/11 |
UNIQUE SYDNEY TOURS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
URBAN ST KILDA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
VALUE INN PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
VETSHOP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
VIRTUAL BRAINET PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
VYSCOT PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WA NT TOURS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WA OCEAN PARK PTY LTD ATFT OCEAN PARK TRUST |
2010/11 |
WALKING COUNTRY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WALTZING MATILDA CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WASHINGTON STREET NO 27 PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WATABE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WEBBE MARINE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WEBCAR HIRE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WEBJET MARKETING PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WHALESONG CRUISES HERVEY BAY PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WHITSUNDAY CATAMARANS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WHITSUNDAY CORAL CRUISES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WHOLISTIC THERAPY CENTRE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WICKED TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WILDLIFE COAST CRUISES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WILDLIFE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WILLOWOOD HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WORK EXCHANGE BUREAU PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
WORLDTOURISM TRAVEL CENTRE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
YARRA RANGES REGIONAL MARKETING LTD |
2010/11 |
YONGALA DIVE PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
YOUTH HOSTELS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA INC. |
2010/11 |
YOYAKU.COM PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ZANZIBAR BAR & GRILL PTY LTD |
2010/11 |
ZION INVESTMENT HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
2 FROGZ IN OZ PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
88 ALFRED STREET PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
AAT NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
ACROSS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
ADDICTIVE ENTERTAINMENT & TOURS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
ADIRONDACK TRADING PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
ADVENTURE TRAVEL.COM.AU PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
ADVENTURES BEYOND PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
AGENTS SUPPORT SYSTEMS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
ARISTOS PORT DOUGLAS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
AURORA TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
AUSSIE FARMSTAY AND BUSH ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
AUSTRALIAN COMMERCIAL GALLERIES ASSOCIATION (ACGA) EXPORT NETWORK |
2011/12 |
BALLOON WITH HOT AIR PTY LTD ATF THE STEEL RICHMOND TRUST |
2011/12 |
BAYPINE PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
BONZA BIKE TOURS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
BRIAN PAUL DALY T/A GOANNA ADVENTURES |
2011/12 |
BYRON BAY MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
CAIRNS HOLIDAY SPECIALISTS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
CAIRNS PREMIER REEF & ISLAND TOURS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
CALYPSO REEF CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
CHAN INDUSTRIAL PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
CITIGATE MELBOURNE PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
COMPASS EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
CORAL SEA SAILING ADVENTURES PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
CRUISE DOWN UNDER INC |
2011/12 |
DL 20 TRADING PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
EP MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
FEDERAL EAST COAST HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
FREEDOM COUNTY PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
FUTURE FOOD—RETAIL FOOD PLANNERS PTY LTD ATF LOUGHRAN FAMILY TRUST |
2011/12 |
GO WEST TOURS (VIC) PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
GOLD COAST JET BOATING PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
GREAT SOUTHERN TOURING ROUTE INC |
2011/12 |
GW HOTEL GROUP PTY LTD ATF GLEN WAVERLEY HOTEL TRUST |
2011/12 |
HALSAP PTY LIMITED |
2011/12 |
HALSATA PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
HARLEM ENTERPRISES PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
HELI CHARTERS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
HOLCOMM MARINE PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
ITONEL PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
J & J WALLACE (TOURS) PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
J.C. TRAVEL PROFESSIONALS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
JAY & JAY PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
JETABROAD PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
KAWAHATA INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
KDR INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
KIANA SAIL AND DIVE PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
LANCELIN LODGE PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
LANCO LAUNCESTON OPERATIONS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
LAZY RUNNER PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
M P MURRAY & N MURRAY T/A MAKE A TOUR |
2011/12 |
MACKEREL ISLANDS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
MARY RIVER WILDLIFE RANCH PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
MAXIM PLUMBING PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
MELBOURNE DAY TOURS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
MELBOURNE EUREKA TOWER OBSERVATION DECK PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
MIA HALFPENNY & SW HALFPENNY |
2011/12 |
MIDDLEDANK PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
MOONSHADOW CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
MR DARREN SHAWN VISSER |
2011/12 |
NONCHALON PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
NOOSA GROUP PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
OASIS ACCOMMODATION PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
OZ TRAILS & SYDNEY EXCLUSIVE PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
OZPARTY PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
PALM PORT PTY LTD ATF YASUFUKU FAMILY TRUST |
2011/12 |
PAN DEVELOPMENTS NQ PTY LTD T/A ROSE GUMS WILDERNESS RETREAT |
2011/12 |
PHIL MANEY PIE COMPANY PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
PIER ONE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
PORT O'CALL LODGE PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
POSEIDON OUTER REEF CRUISES PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
PRIDESHILL INNOVATIONS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
PYRMONT LIGHT RAIL COMPANY PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
QP MANAGEMENT PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
QUAYEYEWARE PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
ROLLING DALES PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
ROW PAUL PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
RPW NOMINEES PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
SEAWALKER @ GREEN ISLAND PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
SEBASTIAN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
SIGMA AEROSPACE PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
SPORTSNET CORPORATION PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
SUNROVER EXPEDITIONS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
SYDNEY TOURS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
TAHL ST KILDA PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
THE CHANCELLOR (ADELAIDE) PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
THE GREAT ESCAPE CHARTER COMPANY PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
THE HOTEL CAIRNS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
THE ROCK TOUR PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
TOBAR HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
TOBAR HOTEL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
TOGA DEVELOPMENT NO 36 PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
TRIBAL TRAVEL PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
TROPICAL HUNTING SAFARIS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
UGG BOOTS FOR ALL PTY LTD ATF THE CAPAR FAMILY TRUST |
2011/12 |
WADJEMUP TRADING PTY LTD ATFT WADJEMUP UNIT TRUST T/A ROTTNEST EXPRESS |
2011/12 |
WALKING COUNTRY PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
WALTZING MATILDA CHARTERS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
WARRICK BANNISTER TATE TRADING AS THE ISLANDER RESORT HOTEL |
2011/12 |
WATABE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
WHITSUNDAY CATAMARANS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
WILLOWOOD HOLDINGS PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
XPRESSO DELIGHT PTY LTD |
2011/12 |
YOYAKU.COM PTY LTD |
The purpose of the grants in all cases was to provide incentives to small and medium Australian enterprises to develop export markets. Eligible export promotion expenses included marketing visits, overseas representation and marketing consultants, participation in trade fairs, communications, free samples, promotional literature and advertising, intellectual property and know-how and visits to Australia by overseas buyers.
The target export destinations of these EMDG grant recipients were as indicated in the table below. Target export destination information of individual grant recipients is not publicly available (due to the disclosure restrictions of section 94 of the Australian Trade Commission Act, 1985). Below is information on target markets of all EMDG recipients from the tourism sector in aggregate rather than for individual grant recipients. Grant applicants can list up to 6 target markets and therefore the number of applicants indicating target markets below is greater than the number of grants paid.
|
Year of EMDG Application |
|
||||
Country |
2007/8 |
2008/8 |
2009/10 |
2010/11 |
2011/12 |
Grand Total |
United Kingdom |
285 |
292 |
400 |
334 |
81 |
1392 |
USA |
257 |
267 |
359 |
312 |
77 |
1272 |
Germany |
182 |
179 |
279 |
238 |
59 |
937 |
Japan |
154 |
149 |
184 |
136 |
38 |
661 |
China |
89 |
98 |
131 |
103 |
30 |
451 |
Singapore |
91 |
91 |
114 |
101 |
30 |
427 |
France |
60 |
89 |
120 |
124 |
30 |
423 |
Canada |
65 |
73 |
133 |
117 |
21 |
409 |
Netherlands |
57 |
42 |
70 |
59 |
4 |
232 |
Italy |
31 |
52 |
75 |
57 |
6 |
221 |
Ireland |
41 |
39 |
63 |
39 |
10 |
192 |
Switzerland |
43 |
38 |
38 |
51 |
12 |
182 |
Korea, Rep |
44 |
39 |
47 |
37 |
9 |
176 |
Malaysia |
26 |
25 |
40 |
29 |
4 |
124 |
India |
16 |
28 |
29 |
29 |
8 |
110 |
Sweden |
17 |
19 |
42 |
25 |
4 |
107 |
Hong Kong |
28 |
23 |
23 |
24 |
6 |
104 |
UAE |
8 |
21 |
20 |
21 |
3 |
73 |
South Africa |
13 |
11 |
21 |
15 |
4 |
64 |
Taiwan |
12 |
16 |
18 |
11 |
1 |
58 |
Thailand |
12 |
10 |
13 |
11 |
5 |
51 |
Indonesia |
8 |
15 |
10 |
13 |
4 |
50 |
Denmark |
13 |
10 |
15 |
10 |
2 |
50 |
Spain |
7 |
4 |
10 |
11 |
3 |
35 |
Austria |
6 |
7 |
8 |
6 |
2 |
29 |
Norway |
2 |
7 |
12 |
3 |
2 |
26 |
Australia |
6 |
3 |
9 |
5 |
|
23 |
Belgium |
5 |
4 |
9 |
3 |
1 |
22 |
Russia |
4 |
4 |
6 |
6 |
|
20 |
Philippines |
6 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
19 |
Vietnam |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
17 |
Fiji |
3 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
16 |
New Zealand |
5 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
|
16 |
New Caledonia |
3 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
12 |
Brazil |
3 |
1 |
|
6 |
|
10 |
Papua New Guinea |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
9 |
Greece |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
9 |
Finland |
4 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
8 |
Israel |
1 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
|
8 |
Argentina |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
Brunei |
2 |
|
2 |
2 |
|
6 |
Mexico |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
Saudi Arabia |
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
5 |
Hungary |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
4 |
Vanuatu |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
4 |
Qatar |
|
|
1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Monaco |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
4 |
East Timor |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
3 |
French Polynesia |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
Mauritius |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
3 |
Oman |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
3 |
Portugal |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
3 |
Kuwait |
|
|
3 |
|
|
3 |
Turkey |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
2 |
Iran |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
Bahrain |
|
|
2 |
|
|
2 |
Lithuania |
|
|
2 |
|
|
2 |
Zambia |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
2 |
Swaziland |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
Czech Republic |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
2 |
Macao |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
2 |
Jordan |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
Croatia |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
2 |
Solomon Islands |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
Malta |
|
|
|
2 |
|
2 |
Egypt |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
Laos |
|
|
2 |
|
|
2 |
Latvia |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
Guam |
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
Ghana |
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
Guinea |
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
Cyprus |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
Bulgaria |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
Uruguay |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
Slovenia |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
Chile |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
Bangladesh |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
Tanzania |
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
Mongolia |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
Afghanistan |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
Nepal |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
Estonia |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
Sri Lanka |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
Poland |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
Neth Antilles |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
Puerto Rico |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
Kiribati |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
Zimbabwe |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
Korea D.P.R |
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
Iceland |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |